Poll: Hit mechanics

[Ze'Manel Cunha]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

Options 2 and 3 let you choose hit locations, apparently for free, so the 1d6 can be sent into the eyeslits or chinks, used to destroy fasteners, melt antennas, ignite carried ammo, and generally make life miserable if not end it.

I believe by implication she left in the normal Innate Attack hit location penalties, so anyone targeting say a hand would be at -4 to their Innate Attack.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Ze'Manel Cunha

I believe by implication she left in the normal Innate Attack hit location penalties, so anyone targeting say a hand would be at -4 to their Innate Attack.

I believe it's still gainful in several respects, among them:

#2 allows the target a bonus equal to the location's DR in the contest. Against a target with DR10+, choosing eyeslits for -10 is obviously preferable to the default torso.

#3 has conventional DR application, so that -8 for torso chinks will allow actual damage to be dealt to wearers of DR10 or less. This isn't terribly promising, but it is a way for additional skill levels to be useful that would otherwise be mooted by the Rule of 16.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Kuroshima

(Dodge, unless it's taken with Blockable, this is weird, I though that it could be blocked by default. Does this mean that Captain America can't block Cyclops' eyebolts?)

I've never heard of "Blockable" and can't find it anywhere. The Innate Attack writeup is completely mum about what defences are valid so I always assumed a projectile can always be blocked, because that's what the rules about defences say.

That also sounds like a Melee ranged Innate attack can't be blocked or parried, only dodged. Which certainly makes for an awesome magic sword but I'm pretty sure isn't what everyone is intending.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I've never heard of "Blockable" and can't find it anywhere. The Innate Attack writeup is completely mum about what defences are valid so I always assumed a projectile can always be blocked, because that's what the rules about defences say.

That also sounds like a Melee ranged Innate attack can't be blocked or parried, only dodged. Which certainly makes for an awesome magic sword but I'm pretty sure isn't what everyone is intending.

Blockable is in Powers, page 112. Here's the first sentence of the description:

Ranged attack abilities (Affliction, Binding, Innate Attack, advantages with the Ranged enhancement, etc.) normally work like firearms when it comes to the target’s legal active defenses: the victim can only dodge.

In other words, Innate Attacks that are melee-ranged can be blocked, but ranged ones can't be unless they have a limitation.

[Bruno]

Well I'll be darned. *makes a note*

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Mailanka

I favor 1 because, all things being equal, I'm a big believer in KISS: Any GURPS player easily grasps the concept of a 1d6 innate attack. That's simple. Our "affliction that deals damage" is stranger and going to have unintended consequences. If we must go with an affliction, 2 is superior to 3 because it works more like we'd expect afflictions to, the only "strangeness" is that it deals damage, rather than some kind of effect.

Ha! Shows how much of a difference perspective makes. I would have said "#3 is simpler because it works just like any normal ranged attack, only it uses a quick contest instead." or "because it works just like Malediction without Cosmic: Irresistable bundled in".



And yes, sloppy writing. I appologize - I did intend choosing hit locations to have the usual skill penalties attached. I briefly considered halved penalties for #2 (like on a grapple) because defenses are higher, but ...

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

#2 allows the target a bonus equal to the location's DR in the contest. Against a target with DR10+, choosing eyeslits for -10 is obviously preferable to the default torso.

This exact effect made me dump it immediately as an idea. You don't generally Grab people by the eyeball, after all.

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

#3 has conventional DR application, so that -8 for torso chinks will allow actual damage to be dealt to wearers of DR10 or less. This isn't terribly promising, but it is a way for additional skill levels to be useful that would otherwise be mooted by the Rule of 16.

One of the benefits of #3 from a system perspective is that DR works the way the defender expects it will - it doesn't influence hit chance, it does absorb damage. It makes the odds of hitting and penetrating damage more transparent over #1.

[Psychotime]

I read your clarification about DX substituting HT depending on the situation, and it sounds like a pretty cool idea. I reminds me of video game RPGs in the vein of Final Fantasy.

The idea behind using HT is resiting magic attacks that appear on the target instead of the traditional flying toward the target, I don't think DR should protect them at all.

Cooking an armored bad guy from the inside out is alot different than attacking him with a flamethrower.

I think this system would need a Magic DR, which adds more to the Final Fantasy flavor.