Steve Jackson Games - Site Navigation
Home General Info Follow Us Search Illuminator Store Forums What's New Other Games Ogre GURPS Munchkin Our Games: Home

Go Back   Steve Jackson Games Forums > Roleplaying > GURPS

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-23-2022, 06:49 PM   #71
Joseph Paul
Custom User Title
 
Joseph Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is deprecate the change in UltraTech that made the Force weapons non-damaging to Critical Parries at your table if you think it is a problem that is going to come up often enough that it snaps your player's suspension of disbelief in getting incredibly lucky when facing a 7 hex Force Whip...
__________________
Joseph Paul
Joseph Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2022, 08:25 PM   #72
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Paul View Post
It seems to me that the easiest thing to do is deprecate the change in UltraTech that made the Force weapons non-damaging to Critical Parries at your table if you think it is a problem that is going to come up often enough that it snaps your player's suspension of disbelief in getting incredibly lucky when facing a 7 hex Force Whip...
The thing about critical successes is they are random, yeah, but also a factor of skill: you have a higher range of them when you have higher skill.

The issue's also envisioning what's happening, like you can maybe use skill or speed to fling the force fields of the plasma sword without the plasma leaking through as much as it normally would.

Plus getting back to title the issue I guess is also imagining what the forcefield is in terms of HP or DR for composition. Like maybe if it is as "Diffuse" thing that could explain how you can move through it, yet maybe not as readily as one would walk through an insubstantial character?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-23-2022, 10:48 PM   #73
David Johnston2
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Critically successful parries don't give you free retreats or change your hex, we have the "slip" as a combat option to represent this very thing.
Critical successes can do anything the GM thinks is reasonable and/or fun as long as it's good for the character.
David Johnston2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2022, 05:04 AM   #74
Joseph Paul
Custom User Title
 
Joseph Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
The thing about critical successes is they are random, yeah, but also a factor of skill: you have a higher range of them when you have higher skill.

The issue's also envisioning what's happening, like you can maybe use skill or speed to fling the force fields of the plasma sword without the plasma leaking through as much as it normally would.

Plus getting back to title the issue I guess is also imagining what the forcefield is in terms of HP or DR for composition. Like maybe if it is as "Diffuse" thing that could explain how you can move through it, yet maybe not as readily as one would walk through an insubstantial character?
You have spent quite a few pixels showing that keeping the UT version produces a conundrum much like Squaring of the Circle - there is no solution.

There is no good reason to keep trying to find a solution - just change the ground rules.

The original question concerned the advisability of including indestructible weapons. A Force weapon is not indestructible, it's emitter is a fine target for making it non-functional.

I would direct you to my interpretation of how the Force weapons work - the annihilating energy is bound to the outside of the force field allowing it to make contact with the target but not to leave the surface of the force field. That gets around having to have the field flicker or to figure out how it is a one way screen for the energy (Holy Maxwell's Demons!).
__________________
Joseph Paul
Joseph Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2022, 06:31 AM   #75
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
it should basically never be the explanation because the person parrying should be required to specify where they are making contact with their parry (on both ends) before rolling
OK, so you're introducing a new houserule that should have a lot of add-on effects that you're not defining here. It's also not terribly realistic, given you're talking about split-second reactions...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
This posits a universal rules change which is a pretty big wrench to throw in the works.
It uses an existing precedent and just extends it to similar cases. Also, being a change to Critical Successes - which happen rarely, by definition - and only affecting a small subset of attacks would make it more a minor tweak than "ZOMG everything is different now!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Why don't we just design something like Force Extensions (only on a critically successful parry -80%) to represent this?
... because it makes no flipping sense? As Joseph Paul has noted, if you really have a huge issue with maintaining Sense of Disbelief in light of the rule, just throw out the rule. No need to give everyone some sort of magic force field on their hands that rarely lets them ignore Destructive Parry effects. I mean, you can still have that as an option, I guess, but it would be very odd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
Whatever that different option is should be the default option regardless then.
Why? Most Critical Success effects aren't a regular option you can just choose, why does this one need to be?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
We're not talking about emulating ever aspect of a successful critical defense though, like how a critical success parry will make the attacker roll on the crit-fail table.
You're taking a Critical Success result and saying "This should be possible without a Critical Success." If that's true, all Critical Success results should be possible without a Critical Success. Try to think up justifications for why a given Critical Success result is achieved - for 3x damage, this could represent hitting a particularly-vulnerable section of armor that is over a particularly-vulnerable sublocation while the foe is moving toward you, in an optimal manner to create massive Injury, for example - and you'll see that most are things that are theoretically doable on purpose but practically impossible in the chaos of combat. And that's what avoiding damage while Parrying a force sword - or avoiding catching the zombie virus when Parrying a zombie, avoiding burns when Parrying a punch from the Human Torch, etc - is: something theoretically doable on purpose but practically impossible in the chaos of combat. It's a Critical Success.
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2022, 06:57 PM   #76
Joseph Paul
Custom User Title
 
Joseph Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Other thoughts on out-of-reach Parry.

1) Force whip does 4d(5) - An unarmed Parry need not be an un-armored Parry. Wear good armor.

2) Allow Throwing, Thrown Weapon, or Throwing Art to be used as a Parry. Throw an object at the opponent's arm or directly into the path of the whip causing it to lash itself around that object and not you.

3) I am sure I had another option...oh well.
__________________
Joseph Paul
Joseph Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2022, 11:52 PM   #77
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Paul View Post
The original question concerned the advisability of including indestructible weapons. A Force weapon is not indestructible, it's emitter is a fine target for making it non-functional.
I guess I mean "indestructible components" then, referencing the blade.

I guess a similar question could be asked about Innate Attack too. Does a 0.25 dice innate attack essentially have infinite HP and DR regarding "targeting weapons" or breakability?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-24-2022, 11:59 PM   #78
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
you're introducing a new houserule that should have a lot of add-on effects that you're not defining here.
I don't think it's a house rule that you would specify where you're making contact on both ends when parrying.

The GM won't ask when it doesn't matter, but when it does matter (like either char has an aura or isolated body armor) they probably will ask.

To keep an air of mystery they should probably ALWAYS ask (you never know when someone might have an advantage which makes this matter) as otherwise the lack of asking is like free "nothing to worry about" data.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
It uses an existing precedent and just extends it to similar cases.
Not sure if "all aggressive-parry weapons" is necessarily that similar since Force Swords can be unique in the idea of "has something you can lightly touch at low pressures without getting burned (force field) whereas a flaming sword wouldn't have that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Paul View Post
Allow Throwing, Thrown Weapon, or Throwing Art to be used as a Parry. Throw an object at the opponent's arm or directly into the path of the whip causing it to lash itself around that object and not you.

This is a cool idea, I imagine you could use the way Sacrificial Parry operates (can defend an ally within your weapon's reach) as a sort of precedent to represent something like "I don't need to wait until the attack enters my hex to parry it".

IE if someone throws a grenade and I have a reach 3 bo-staff, I should have the option to make contact w/ staff at 3 yards away instead of 1 yard, in case it goes off, so I take less damage from a possible explosion.

I've always thought maybe this should be harder than waiting for reach-C distances to complete a parry though, like -1 per yard away your ally you're defending is (or for parrying exploding attacks from further off)
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2022, 04:35 AM   #79
Joseph Paul
Custom User Title
 
Joseph Paul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
I guess I mean "indestructible components" then, referencing the blade.

I guess a similar question could be asked about Innate Attack too. Does a 0.25 dice innate attack essentially have infinite HP and DR regarding "targeting weapons" or breakability?
Break the user and the Innate Attack is null.

[EDIT to add]

There is also the issue I believe that has come up before about the different expectations between abilities of characters bought with points and equipment bought with money. If I pay points for an Innate Attack I certainly expect it to function as I bought it and that it is not able to be taken from me, suppressed or broken with out a commiserate outlay of points by my opponent(s) for the ability to do so.

Equipment - not so much.
__________________
Joseph Paul

Last edited by Joseph Paul; 01-25-2022 at 07:10 PM.
Joseph Paul is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-25-2022, 10:24 PM   #80
Alden Loveshade
 
Alden Loveshade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Hmm, looks like Earth, circa CE 2020+
Default Re: should there actually be "indestructible" weapons?

As far as I can remember, I don't think anyone I've done GURPS with kept track of damage made to weapons--unless it was something extreme, i.e. you parried an axe with a short bow. To me, it seemed like extra paperwork that would slow down the game. But to each their own.
__________________
Kerry Thornley: Dwarf Planet Eris, Discordianism, and The John F. Kennedy Assassination Without Thornley, there would never have been the Steve Jackson Games edition of Principia Discordia
Top 12 Clues You're a Role-Playing Old-Timer My humorous (I hope) article that also promotes SJGames/GURPS
GURPS Fantasy Folk: Elves My first GURPS supplement
Alden Loveshade is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cannot be broken, cannot break, force sword, rapid fire, ultra-tech

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Fnords are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.