GURPS Shotguns Weaker at Close Range?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

In terms of a quick and simply GURPS solution I'd be tempted to make trees homogenous

That's not a 'quick and simple solution', that's 'bare minimum rules execution'.

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

To get more detailed I'd have to start thinking about tree botany and how Unliving, DR, IT*, homogeneous all might apply to it, and I hated botany ;-0

You can't stack Unliving and Homogeneous, they're mutually exclusive alternative forms of Injury Tolerance.

You can add Injury Tolerance: Damage Reduction on top of either, but I'm not sure that's actually helpful for modeling this.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That's not a 'quick and simple solution', that's 'bare minimum rules execution'.

yes

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You can't stack Unliving and Homogeneous, they're mutually exclusive alternative forms of Injury Tolerance.

You can add Injury Tolerance: Damage Reduction on top of either, but I'm not sure that's actually helpful for modeling this.

I wasn't talking abut stacking them? I was talking about looking at a few likely GURPS rules thet might potentially apply when trying to model trees as a living organism and collection of tissues and their resistance to physical trauma of different types

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

I wasn't talking abut stacking them? I was talking about looking at a few likely GURPS rules thet might potentially apply when trying to model trees as a living organism and collection of tissues and their resistance to physical trauma of different types

So you were proposing that trees should perhaps be demoted from Homogeneous?

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

To get more detailed I'd have to start thinking about tree botany and how Unliving, DR, IT*, homogeneous all might apply to it, and I hated botany ;-0

[...]

*or whatever the advantage that aversion of resistance where you apply a divisor to damage (think it's in powers)?

Injury Tolerance: Damage Reduction, typically abbreviated IT:DR. Armor divisors should arguably apply against it when trees are involved (AP ammo should punch through tree cover more readily than FMJ), which isn't normally the case for IT:DR. A variant of it, which I call Injury Tolerance: Armored Flesh (IT:AF), would work rather well here. IT:DR is effectively [25] per level (RAW you have to buy two levels to start it off, for base [50] for an injury divisor of 2, but I don't see why you couldn't get an injury divisor of 1.5 for [25]), while IT:AF is effectively [15] per level. Armor divisors apply against the injury divisor, to a minimum of 1 (so IT:AF 3, for 1/3 injury, would be reduced to 2/3 injury by an attack with armor divisor (2), for example). IT:AF also increases the amount of Cover DR you grant, which isn't normally the case for IT:DR.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

So you were proposing that trees should perhaps be demoted from Homogeneous?

are they already homogeneous? Cool problem solved then!

Originally Posted by Varyon

Injury Tolerance: Damage Reduction, typically abbreviated IT:DR.

That's the one cheers!

Originally Posted by Varyon

Armor divisors should arguably apply against it when trees are involved (AP ammo should punch through tree cover more readily than FMJ), which isn't normally the case for IT:DR. A variant of it, which I call Injury Tolerance: Armored Flesh (IT:AF), would work rather well here. IT:DR is effectively [25] per level (RAW you have to buy two levels to start it off, for base [50] for an injury divisor of 2, but I don't see why you couldn't get an injury divisor of 1.5 for [25]), while IT:AF is effectively [15] per level. Armor divisors apply against the injury divisor, to a minimum of 1 (so IT:AF 3, for 1/3 injury, would be reduced to 2/3 injury by an attack with armor divisor (2), for example). IT:AF also increases the amount of Cover DR you grant, which isn't normally the case for IT:DR.

cool, cheers

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Tomsdad

are they already homogeneous? Cool problem solved then!

That would be why I called it "bare minimum rules execution".

Which, considering that I already knew that when I made my first post, might suggest something about whether I think it solves the problem.

[Tomsdad]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

That would be why I called it "bare minimum rules execution".

Which, considering that I already knew that when I made my first post, might suggest something about whether I think it solves the problem.

Ah OK got what you mean, I didn't know trees were already homogeneous so when you posted "bare minimum rules execution" in response to my suggestion to use homogeneous as a "simple solution" I took your meaning to be that the homogeneous rule was in and of itself a "bare minimum rules execution" rather than making trees homogeneous was a "bare minimum rules execution".

i.e. I didn't know that, and since you 1st post didn't mention it I didn't know you knew it either ;-)