Why is shock capped at −4 in 4e?

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Momentum doesn't exist in GURPS combat.

Shock is the momentum mechanic in GURPS combat. Score a hit, and it's more likely that you'll hit again next turn, prolonging the shock, and less likely that you get hit. The relative advantage tilts your way as long as you can keep it going.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Shock is the momentum mechanic in GURPS combat. Score a hit, and it's more likely that you'll hit again next turn, prolonging the shock, and less likely that you get hit. The relative advantage tilts your way as long as you can keep it going.

Shock doesn't penalize defenses.

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Shock doesn't penalize defenses.

Not by RAW, no; Kromm's noted that rule (like a couple of others) is mostly just to save recalculation. But it's not hard just to houserule that Shock/2 is a penalty to Active Defenses, since that's the effect it would have if you recalculated from scratch. Though you might not want actually to do that, as it amplifies the death spiral momentum effect the cap is meant to curb.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

Not by RAW, no; Kromm's noted that rule (like a couple of others) is mostly just to save recalculation. But it's not hard just to houserule that Shock/2 is a penalty to Active Defenses, since that's the effect it would have if you recalculated from scratch. Though you might not want actually to do that, as it amplifies the death spiral momentum effect the cap is meant to curb.

Without a defense penalty, there is no momentum effect. If anything, there's the opposite, because causing shock does encourage the subject to take a defensive maneuver that makes it harder for the attacker to land the second hit than it was to land the first one.


...And as always, if you want to be talking about a houserule like 'shock applies to active defenses', that's something that needs to be stated because otherwise there's no way to know that context...

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Without a defense penalty, there is no momentum effect. If anything, there's the opposite, because causing shock does encourage the subject to take a defensive maneuver that makes it harder for the attacker to land the second hit than it was to land the first one.


...And as always, if you want to be talking about a houserule like 'shock applies to active defenses', that's something that needs to be stated because otherwise there's no way to know that context...

I think that if Shock was to applied to active defences, or was to be uncapped, High Pain Threshold would have to be repriced. It's already under-priced in any campaign where combat or other sources of damage and pain are at all common. Make pain and/or shock stronger, and HPT becomes an even better bargain and even more mandatory.

[ravenfish]

If one is going to house-rule in uncapped shock penalties, it might be reasonable to change High Pain Threshold from "ignore all shock penalties" to "reduce shock penalties by four" to avoid the trait becoming a must-buy as people are worrying about.

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by ravenfish

If one is going to house-rule in uncapped shock penalties, it might be reasonable to change High Pain Threshold from "ignore all shock penalties" to "reduce shock penalties by four" to avoid the trait becoming a must-buy as people are worrying about.

I thought I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I have a draft of a house replacement for HPT:

Pain Tolerance
2 points/level
You have a high tolerance for physical pain. Each level of this advantage negates −1 in penalties from the shock of an injury. Pain penalties are alleviated as well, to a minimum of −1 for moderate pain, −2 for severe pain, and −3 for terrible pain. Finally, you receive a bonus of +1 per level to rolls to resist knockdown and stunning after a major wound (but not stun from afflictions or other sources).

[Rupert]

Originally Posted by VIVIT

I thought I mentioned this earlier in the thread, but I have a draft of a house replacement for HPT:

Would you allow high levels to allow functioning whilst suffering Agony, as HPT does? And do you intend to cap the bonus vs knockdown and stunning (HPT gives a total +3 bonus)?

[VIVIT]

Originally Posted by Rupert

Would you allow high levels to allow functioning whilst suffering Agony, as HPT does? And do you intend to cap the bonus vs knockdown and stunning (HPT gives a total +3 bonus)?

As for Agony, I don't like that rule to begin with. Agony is an incapacitating condition; if you aren't incapacitated, you aren't suffering Agony. It would be more consistent, I think, to apply the bonus to resistance rolls vs. effects that cause agony as well as to stun checks.

As for the bonus to stun checks, I think I would actually leave that uncapped and soft-cap the advantage itself instead.