[RULES] Rule of 16!

[Anaxim]

I was unable to search for ANY topics with 16 in them.
I am completely dumbfounded as to why this rule was conceived.
On the exact point of an SL30 spell against a 16 resist. Why should the prior be decreased to accommodate the latter?
Isn't the point of extra high levels to actively be able to quash the enemy relentlessly?

Please help.

[Desthro]

The Rule of 16 is in place to prevent people with excessively high skill from doing exactly that. This way, there is no guarantee that the skill will work 100% of the time, which is a key point to the GURPS system, nothing is 100% guaranteed, and there is an enhancement designed to allow that (cosmic), but many find it unpalatable. Note that the Rule of 16 doesn't increase the resisted target's defense to 16, and high skill still helps with penalties, despite the limitation.

[Anaxim]

I hear your logic, my friend does not. He claims that when tied at 16+ skill, given there is 16+ on the defender, the odds to get anything done are poor.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Anaxim

I hear your logic, my friend does not. He claims that when tied at 16+ skill, given there is 16+ on the defender, the odds to get anything done are poor.

50/50. That's not great, but "poor" is pushing it.

[Anaxim]

Friend states:
Not 50/50. Since a smaller margin on your side, as well as tie, result in failure.
Additionally, if we understood right - if both fail, only the caster suffers.
Friend writes:
Furthermore, there's a difference between giving the resisting character a fighting chance and reducing a more potent attacker to a position of weakness.

[Pagan]

Originally Posted by Anaxim

I hear your logic, my friend does not. He claims that when tied at 16+ skill, given there is 16+ on the defender, the odds to get anything done are poor.

Have your friend run a gurps campaign for a few months where skill 30 mages are blasting Attribute 16 characters without the rule of 16. I'd like to know his opinion on how much fun that would be.

LOL, plus, remember, the rule of 16 works for you also.

[Anaxim]

Pagan, you make fine points.
I've appeased the friend by using the text for regular contests with scores over 14 and applying it to contests. Not sure if those should apply to quick, though.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Anaxim

I hear your logic, my friend does not. He claims that when tied at 16+ skill, given there is 16+ on the defender, the odds to get anything done are poor.

The answer is to use means other than resisted spells against enemies with high resistance. Create Fire and Zombie are good places to start.

[cmdicely]

Originally Posted by Anaxim

I was unable to search for ANY topics with 16 in them.
I am completely dumbfounded as to why this rule was conceived.
On the exact point of an SL30 spell against a 16 resist. Why should the prior be decreased to accommodate the latter?
Isn't the point of extra high levels to actively be able to quash the enemy relentlessly?

Please help.

IMO, the Rule of 16 is somewhat overkill; it serves a real purpose, but as it is it somewhat overbalances things in favor of resistance.

It might make sense to have a a magical analog of Deceptive Attack that provides a -1 to the target's resistance in favor of a -2 to effective spell skill. This would particularly make sense if using the Alternate Magic Ritual rules and other rules that provide reasons for spellcasters to trade spell skill for other effects (if reducing resistance is the only thing to trade off skill for, there's little reason not to trade off all skill over 16 for it every casting.)

[Edges]

Not everyone is in favor of the Rule of 16.

Some ways to get around it:
There's the Rule of 17 perk in Power-Ups: 2. (And I've hear of house rules pushing it higher.)
On an advantage, you can take the +50% enhancement, No Rule of 16.
For an advantage you can get Based on (Different Attribute), to target weaker defenses.
You can just get rid of it in a campaign and see how it plays.


From the guru.