Extra-effort in combat, too cheap?

[Lupo]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

Or to be carrying blanket, tent, cooking pot, a few days' rations, water and so on.

I agree with you - in the last post I wrote that I changed my mind:
"After some fights and experiments, I've come to think that generally Extra Effort costs about right and is more or less balanced with other combat/buff options."

The only doubts I still have are about Feverish Defense and Mighty Blow, not Extra Effort in general. I hoped to receive comments about those.

That's fair enough to fudge it. But if you fudge the rules then you can't complain the rules aren't working - because you're not using them. You can only complain that your fudge isn't working.

I am not fudging anything, the rules explicitly says that when the PCs are marching, the GM should assume they've been marching for 1 hour, and assess penalties accordingly.
This is not "fudging", it's a very sensible assumption (because PCs won't march till they are exhausted, they will march/rest/march/rest and so on, thereby recovering FP).

Definitely. But I am one of those vicious sadistic GMs who has the PCs fight in real terrain, not a flat featureless plain, the PCs' foes use common sense, and some of the trained warriors even have Tactics. So there's a lot of using terrain for cover, Evaluating, Feint, and that sort of thing. So that except for ambushes, the combats in my games often last more than 10 rounds.

Why do you assume that I run fights in a "flat featureless plain"? I don't do this, actually I like to use complex maps, with lots of bushes, rocks, trees, buildings and so on.
Nevertheless, many fights happen in relatively clear terrain, and many fights last 7, 8 or 9 seconds. Btw I usually assess FP expenditure anyway.

Thus, the PCs are usually a bit tired, but never well-rested, and only rarely exhausted. This usually gives them a few FP to spend on Extra Effort in combat. Again, I think of adventuring as like soldiering (but without your superiors yelling at you) - everybody is always a little bit tired and uncomfortable.

Lastly I've been using the same approach. I still think it would be simpler if FP loss due to marching/encumbrance were ignored, and Extra Effort were more expensive, but I see your point.

Again, it's not true. Spells generally give the same benefit as Extra Effort but for much longer, or else a much greater benefit for a short time. And there are things spells can do which Extra Effort cannot - for example, to scare people. Unless magic is very common in the game world, seeing an unarmed person wave their hand, there's a shimmering light and the blow is turned away - that'll be frightening to most.

This is a very weak argument. In many fantasy settings, magic isn't that rare. If it is, then mage PCs will have to buy an Unusual Background, so they will pay more for their magic.

Perhaps the wizard is now on 1FP, but does their warrior foe know that?

Because the wizard his sweating and at half move?
Or, if you rule that FP loss can't be noticed, the same should apply to warriors, so there is no "advantage" for wizards.

For all the warrior knows the wizard is about to turn them into a toad :) By comparison, a warrior grunting more heavily than normal as they swing their sword is not so frightening...

I really don't like fantasy settings where magic is supposed to be rare and terryfing, so enemies are totally unprepared against it, and yet every adventuring party has several magic potions and a couple of wizards.
If magic is somewhat common, it shouldn't be too frightening, because most foes should have realized that spells can be Resisted, are hard to perform from a distance, and probably a single spell won't turn anybody into a toad (unless the PC is a well-known archmage, of course.)
If magic is rare and PCs are the only wizards in the area, then magic is more powerful and PCs should pay for an UB.
Assuming that wizards should be more powerful than their CP total indicates, because everybody is terrified by them, is IMHO silly and unbalanced.


Plus, I argue that a huge, armored fighter fighting ferociously (Extra Effort) IS frightening! Not less frightening that a mage casting a spell.

[Kyle Aaron]

Originally Posted by Lupo

I am not fudging anything, the rules explicitly says that when the PCs are marching, the GM should assume they've been marching for 1 hour, and assess penalties accordingly.

I was referring to how I'd said you have to consider the weather, their food and sleep and so on, and you said that was all too complicated to add up, so you just fudged it.

Originally Posted by Lupo

Why do you assume that I run fights in a "flat featureless plain"? I don't do this, actually I like to use complex maps, with lots of bushes, rocks, trees, buildings and so on.

Because you say your combats mostly last less than 10 rounds. So either it's a flat featureless plain, or the PCs and NPCs treat it as one, ignoring the possibilities of cover, jumping onto a rock to get "high ground" advantage and so on. Those are things which make the combat take longer in game turns. Whereas if they just stand there and hack/shoot at each-other, it'll be quicker.

Originally Posted by Lupo

This is a very weak argument. In many fantasy settings, magic isn't that rare.

There's a difference between something between "not that rare" and it being so common that non-magic users won't be impressed by it. By way of analogy, in a war rocket-propelled grenades are "not that rare", but if one is fired at a patrol of infantry, they're still much more intimidated by that than by rifle fire. Maybe the rpg firer has no more rounds, but would you take the risk?

Another factor with magic is that it's magical. When we read the rules about it, it's easy to forget that unless magic is common as dirt, most people won't know exactly how it works. Not many settings will have magic taught like physics at high school. There are only so many things a person can do with a sword. But what can be done with magic? How powerful is the wizard? Did they just blast off their best spell, or could they summon all the demons of hell? What can they do? What can't they do? That mystery should create awe and fear.

Originally Posted by me

Perhaps the wizard is now on 1FP, but does their warrior foe know that?

Originally Posted by Lupo

Because the wizard his sweating and at half move?

Or, if you rule that FP loss can't be noticed, the same should apply to warriors, so there is no "advantage" for wizards.

Once a combat where lethal force is threatened begins, everyone is sweating. That's adrenalin, that's fear and excitement. When you spend FP, you'll usually sweat and grunt. Some people sweat more than others.

How can you tell if someone's at half Move, or near exhaustion, in a one-second combat round? I would say that's an Observation skill check. Observation is the skill of perceiving tactical things like that. Or if you're generous it could an IQ-based weapon skill check. Or perhaps a Per-based Tactics check.

As well as sweating, there's tunnel vision. If you ever go for a hard run you'll notice that your peripheral vision stops, you can just see directly in front of you. The same thing happens to most people when blows or shots begin. For this reason, when I GM combats I say that to see anything much more than the foe directly in front of them the characters need either a Do Nothing round - they stop and look around - or else an Observation check.

So a warrior with Broadsword-17 is adept at fighting, while one with Broadsword-17, Observation-15 and Tactics-12 is adept at fighting on a messy battlefield. The second warrior is the one who'll see that PC Gianni is being pressed back by the orc, and PC Matteo is fighting two orcs but is okay and dealing well with them, so Gianni needs help. They may also be able to see that the enemy wizard is staggering around exhausted. But just Broadsword-17 and Per 10 don't tell them that.

Originally Posted by Lupo

I really don't like fantasy settings where magic is supposed to be rare and terryfing, so enemies are totally unprepared against it, and yet every adventuring party has several magic potions and a couple of wizards.

Rare or not, it can still be mysterious, as I noted above. It's not that it's terrifying as such, but that it's unknown, you don't know exactly how it works or what the wizard's capabilities are.

Once in a game session the PCs were fighting some warriors and met a wizard - the wizard was the father of the warriors. He walked in, and a PC struck him on the neck. But he wore an iron collar around his neck (it contained a geas which gave him his Magery, but also imposed the Truthful disadvantage on him, a gift/curse from the dwarves he'd got his magic from), so the blow bounced off. Next, he cast Flash - a burst of light in the room which blinded half the people in it and made the rest stumble around somewhat (DX-3). He told the PCs to stop fighting and lay down their arms.

And they did. Because he survived a blow to his neck, and then followed up with a flash of light which blinded lots of people. What else could he do? They didn't know. So, half of them severely wounded and some blind, they surrendered. As it happened, he could have done not much - he had a few Mind Control spells, but most of them take some rounds to cast, so they could have cut him to pieces before he fired them off, and none would have destroyed the party in a go the way for example a Fireball could.

But how could they know that? So they were frightened, and surrendered to him. In fact I did not make them roll Fright Checks or anything like that, it was all roleplayed. Of the four players, two gave up, two wanted to fight on; but one was injured and could barely fight, so that left only the warrior who had struck the wizard on the neck - and she didn't want to fight on her own. So the whole party surrendered.

Originally Posted by Lupo

If magic is somewhat common, it shouldn't be too frightening, because most foes should have realized that spells can be Resisted, are hard to perform from a distance, and probably a single spell won't turn anybody into a toad (unless the PC is a well-known archmage, of course.)

That's a nice bit of rational reasoning of the balance of probabilities and possibilities. I'd be interested to hear if anyone has ever done that in a matter of one second - the length of a GURPS combat round.

In addition, if magic is so well-known, then perhaps people will know about powerstones. So that the wizard you see staggering around exhausted may have great reserves of magical energy to use. After all, a wizard with Recover Energy will gain FP back more quickly than the powerstone will recharge itself, even in a high mana area. So a prudent wizard will use at least some of their own FP before using their powerstone. He's sweating! He's staggering! He's about to fall! What? What's that large ruby on a chain around his neck? Uh-oh...

Originally Posted by Lupo

Assuming that wizards should be more powerful than their CP total indicates, because everybody is terrified by them, is IMHO silly and unbalanced.

Some things are innately more frightening than others. Fire is more frightening than blades which are more frightening than blunt weapons. People don't do a rational assessment of how many Hit Points of damage the thing does, "oh well the torch will hurt me as much as the club, so what if it's fire."

I think sometimes you need to forget the rules and imagine how it must be for those in the imaginary world. Just as most warriors won't fight to the death, so too will most people be awed by magic. We as gamers may have a Cartesian understanding of magic and how it works, but our characters usually won't.

And even with that Cartesian understanding, people can still be impressed by things. I know a woman who's an automotive engineer, but when she sees a car zip past at 185km/hr on the testing grounds, she still says, "wow."

Originally Posted by Lupo

Plus, I argue that a huge, armored fighter fighting ferociously (Extra Effort) IS frightening! Not less frightening that a mage casting a spell.

Sometimes, yes. But often, no. The warrior, in the end you know they can just hack you. But what the wizard can do is unknown - how many CP do they have in spells? Which spells? Do they have a powerstone? When we do not know, we often fear the worst. Not all of us, but some of us at least - enough to back off which might turn the tide of a battle, as in my example.

I think magic ought to be magical.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

I think magic ought to be magical.

Fine. In some settings it is and it's perfectly valid to assume that you're using such a setting.

But the CP cost for magic in GURPS assumes that the rules that govern magic are well enough known so that countermeasures can be taken by most foes. If magic is mysterious and frightening to the average foe, those who can use it should be charged a hefty Unusual Background because they gain benefits that the non-magic-using characters in the party do not.

[Kyle Aaron]

Roleplaying goes beyond the point cost of stuff, you know. Otherwise we'd be more scared of IQ 12 [40] than High Pain Threshold and 15CP in combat skills.

Honestly.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by Jim Bob

Roleplaying goes beyond the point cost of stuff, you know. Otherwise we'd be more scared of IQ 12 [40] than High Pain Threshold and 15CP in combat skills.

Honestly.

If it is a feature of a world that trait A is more valuable than trait B, Unusual Background exists to correct that disrepancy.

The basic GURPS Magic system is not designed to be used in a world where magic is rare and frightening. You can use it for such a world, but that requires modifications, such as Unusual Background.

Stating that in the game world being used, one PC arbitrarily has an advantage over another, is not roleplaying. It's favoritism. If it is not arbitrary, what is wrong with acknowledging it before play and charging a balanced point value for the extra benefit?

As an example, having a reputation as a fierce warrior would naturally affect the reactions of NPCs to the character. But do we chalk it up to 'roleplaying' and ignore the point cost? No, we do not. We charge points for Reputation.

You've described a world where magic exists, but the average person has a superstitious aversion for it.

Fine. But the cost of magic in such a world should not be the same as in one where magic exists and the average combatant is familiar enough with it to take mundane countermeasures which minimise his exposure to hostile magic.

GURPS Magic assumes the latter to be true and you can't base your argument about how effective magic is on the former.

Of course, GURPS is universal and generic, so it can support a world where magic is as you describe. But in that world it should cost far more to be a mage.