My GURPS Questions

[roguebfl]

Because it NOT Errata is a clarification the Basically Rule says ALL attacks, not 'only ranged attacks'

[Witchking]

Originally Posted by Warden

Reputation page 26, Status page 28 and Rank page 29. Are all those modifiers stackable in a given situation or do you use the most relevant?

As has been answered upthread they do stack..I just thought of a neat example I would add.


You are having a conversation with a man in the Napoleonic Era...

...you might be swayed by the fact he is an British Admiral (Rank).
...you may be further swayed by the fact he is a Duke (Status).
...you likely will be fully sold when you realize that in addition to the other two he is also Admiral Lord Nelson Duke of Bronté (Reputation).

As long as the situation and the mods are relevant they all stack.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

Besides, after I finally find the box you're probably talking about it's headed "Optional Rule:Small Size and Combat". Optional rules aren't errata.

The optional part is the use the relative size modifier. It wouldn't make any sense unless the normal rule was to use SM in the first place.

[benz72]

Originally Posted by Witchking

As has been answered upthread they do stack..I just thought of a neat example I would add.


You are having a conversation with a man in the Napoleonic Era...

...you might be swayed by the fact he is an British Admiral (Rank).
...you may be further swayed by the fact he is a Duke (Status).
...you likely will be fully sold when you realize that in addition to the other two he is also Admiral Lord Nelson Duke of Bronté (Reputation).

As long as the situation and the mods are relevant they all stack.

You are indeed likely to see eyes to eye. but you may not be able to shake on any deal he has you agree to.

[sir_pudding]

There's also this post by Kromm:

Originally Posted by Kromm

Per the Basic Set, SM does affect melee.

The part I've made bold is not qualified with "ranged" or "non-melee" or anything similar. What people actually find baffling is:

1. The absence of SM from Melee Attack Modifiers (p. B547), which is simply a case of us missing something in a summary.
2. The absence of a note on relative SM, which is on p. 76 of Powers.
3. The absence of a limit on relative SM in the previous ruling, which is the only house rule here. I like a limit of ±4.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Warden

Reputation page 26, Status page 28 and Rank page 29. Are all those modifiers stackable in a given situation or do you use the most relevant?

While reaction modifiers are stackable in any situation where they apply, Rank is NOT a reaction modifier. Either you have the authority to give orders to someone or you don't. (but Rank usually boosts Status and that is a reaction modifier).

Also bear in mind that characters don't always make a reaction roll and don't always react positively to modifiers. Some characters react to Status with hostility or opportunism. Some characters have fixed reactions and will always be hostile or friendly.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

The list appears otherwise comprehensive and if you don't check the list there's nowhere else in Basic that you find out Large Shields give -2 to hit for their users as just one example.

The inverse of a statement has no bearing on the truth of the original statement. That a modifier turns up in the appendix and not the main text has no bearing on a modifier that turns up in the main text and not the appendix. Both are modifiers given in Basic and thus should be used.

[Warden]

Originally Posted by Witchking

As has been answered upthread they do stack..I just thought of a neat example I would add.


You are having a conversation with a man in the Napoleonic Era...

...you might be swayed by the fact he is an British Admiral (Rank).
...you may be further swayed by the fact he is a Duke (Status).
...you likely will be fully sold when you realize that in addition to the other two he is also Admiral Lord Nelson Duke of Bronté (Reputation).

As long as the situation and the mods are relevant they all stack.

That looks a great example

Thank you very much

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

The inverse of a statement has no bearing on the truth of the original statement. That a modifier turns up in the appendix and not the main text has no bearing on a modifier that turns up in the main text and not the appendix. Both are modifiers given in Basic and thus should be used.

I _said_ there was a mistake somewhere. Sir Pudding turned up a Krommquote where Kromm admitted it had been overlooked in the big list.

[Grouchy Chris]

Originally Posted by Fred Brackin

I _said_ there was a mistake somewhere. Sir Pudding turned up a Krommquote where Kromm admitted it had been overlooked in the big list.

If your point is that size modifiers apply to melee and that it would have avoided much confusion if that had been noted on B547, then I don't think many people would disagree with you. And if you want to call that an editing mistake, again, I think there are a lot of people who would say the same. If you want to say that it's a mistake that amounts to an erratum, because it changes the rules, then fine, but Kromm doesn't seem to think so in this post. If he doesn't think it's an erratum, then it's not going to appear on an errata page.

If your point is something else, then by all means, please explain what it is.