[GURPS resources] T Bone's Games Diner updates & announcements

[tbone]

Originally Posted by mburr0003

Fight you? Lad that's the hill I've chosen to die on. You have my axe...

I'll thankfully take that axe. I'll also accept any and all axes from our dwarven friends... who, if we let Lifting ST help in meeting weapon ST, can actually use those axes.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by tbone

Ah, skill name and level, reunited and forever together. It's heartwarming!

I would personally prefer Diplomacy-15 (IQ+1/H) [8]

Putting the close-open together instead of the close-close, along with the space between, improves readability, in my opinion. Maybe it's because I've been doing a lot of programming recently, and I'm really tired of counting parentheses.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I would personally prefer Diplomacy-15 (IQ+1/H) [8]

That looks great, too. It's easy enough to drop the parenthetical part and the bracketed part if unneeded... or to drop just the parenthetical part and leave the bracketed point cost, which is what a character sheet might call for.

I like!

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by tbone

That looks great, too. It's easy enough to drop the parenthetical part and the bracketed part if unneeded... or to drop just the parenthetical part and leave the bracketed point cost, which is what a character sheet might call for.

I'd say all are useful on a character sheet (except under specific circumstances).

"IQ+1" is useful where a skill might be floated to another attribute.
"H" and "[8]" are useful when increasing the skill with earned character points.

"Diplomacy-15" or "Diplomacy-15 (IQ+1)" is probably sufficient for an NPC card or a character sheet for a one-shot. It might be interesting to see a digital character sheet that could hide the point costs and other "clutter" that wasn't needed during the action.

[tbone]

Originally Posted by RyanW

I'd say all are useful on a character sheet (except under specific circumstances).

Yep, it's all useful. But for a simple character sheet, as you say, Diplomacy-15 [8] is enough. Or for just the info needed in-game, Diplomacy-15 and nothing more.

DFRPG goes with just "Diplomacy-15 [8]" in its templates and pre-gen steers. Beautifully simple, though as I've noted before and as you note, there's a small inconvenience: when modifying skills for a changed attribute, or "floating" a skill level, it's not always immediately obvious what some listed skill is based on.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by tbone

Here I submit that the rules really should specify Lifting ST, not Striking ST, as the trait that helps meet a weapon's ST requirement. Come fight me on this! (Warning: I have dwarves on my side, and my dwarves have bigger weapons than your dwarves.)

I was all ready to throw down - even had my trusty Dwarf repellant (disulfiram) prepared - but then I actually took a read of your article and... I think you may be right. I'm a bit more ambivalent about adjusting the prices - on one hand, we're taking functionality from one and adding it to the other, so adjust each by a point makes sense... but on the other hand, it still feels like Striking ST is a bit more powerful. But then back on the gripping hand, we're basically looking at Lifting ST for Encumbrance, determining damage for bows and firearms (by dictating what you qualify for) as well as grappling, and setting which melee/thrown weapons you can comfortably wield, while Striking ST only gives bonuses to damage with melee/thrown weapons and unarmed strikes. So maybe equal values are indeed appropriate...

[tbone]

Originally Posted by Varyon

I'm a bit more ambivalent about adjusting the prices - on one hand, we're taking functionality from one and adding it to the other, so adjust each by a point makes sense... but on the other hand, it still feels like Striking ST is a bit more powerful...

I really think the basic "use Lifting ST not Striking ST" idea makes loads of sense. But on the matter of repricing... That's something I tossed in as an associated matter that should be looked at, not something I have a strong opinion on.

I haven't really followed past discussions on the cost and merits of Striking ST; I simply note that there appear to be long-running opinions that it's too expensive, and that if we were to move a bit of Striking ST's usefulness into Lifting ST, then hey, that'd be a perfect excuse to lower its cost as well, and maybe even make said opinion-holders happy. (I do like the neatness of an identical 4 points for Lifting ST and Striking ST, though that's hardly important...)

But what are the ideal costs for Lifting ST, Striking ST, or any other components of ST, with or without any rules changes? I'll toss that ball into the court of others who've given it more thought than I have.

[kenclary]

Hm. I think I prefer "Diplomacy 15 (IQ/H +1) [8] or something like that.

I usually do my character sheets in a .txt file (with tabs separating columns) and use "Beam Weapons/Pistol +2 DX+1 12" and "Diagnosis def IQ+2 16" to really show the math flow. ("+2" and "def" are indicating points spent)

[sjmdw45]

Originally Posted by tbone

I'll thankfully take that axe. I'll also accept any and all axes from our dwarven friends... who, if we let Lifting ST help in meeting weapon ST, can actually use those axes.

Personally, I'd rather just let Pickaxe Penchant count towards Min ST requirements for the weapons it affects. I don't want to nerf Striking ST because it would change the balance of templates like Swashbuckler vs. Barbarian, or Catfolk vs. Human. It would bother me e.g. if Catfolk Swashbucklers lost the option to use katanas without a skill penalty.

Originally Posted by RyanW

I would personally prefer Diplomacy-15 (IQ+1/H) [8]

Putting the close-open together instead of the close-close, along with the space between, improves readability, in my opinion. Maybe it's because I've been doing a lot of programming recently, and I'm really tired of counting parentheses.

Hmmm.

Diplomacy-15 [8, IQ+1/H]

Has no nesting, keeps all the audit info in one place, and still makes it easy both to float skills to other attributes and to calculate the cost of additional skill levels.

[Infornific]

Originally Posted by tbone

I really think the basic "use Lifting ST not Striking ST" idea makes loads of sense. But on the matter of repricing... That's something I tossed in as an associated matter that should be looked at, not something I have a strong opinion on.

I haven't really followed past discussions on the cost and merits of Striking ST; I simply note that there appear to be long-running opinions that it's too expensive, and that if we were to move a bit of Striking ST's usefulness into Lifting ST, then hey, that'd be a perfect excuse to lower its cost as well, and maybe even make said opinion-holders happy. (I do like the neatness of an identical 4 points for Lifting ST and Striking ST, though that's hardly important...)

But what are the ideal costs for Lifting ST, Striking ST, or any other components of ST, with or without any rules changes? I'll toss that ball into the court of others who've given it more thought than I have.

The issue with Striking ST (and ST in general) is the argument that the damage inflicting part of ST is overpriced. That's separate from what should be included in Striking vs Lifting ST. Note that Striking vs Lifting doesn't really map to fast twitch vs slow twitch - fast twitch would help for brief bursts of strength, not just strikes but lifting as well. If you really wanted to distinguish between fast & slow twitch muscle they'd probably need to overlap. GURPS Animalia's Increased & Reduced Endurance is probably a better way of mapping fast and slow twitch muscle.

For a simple modified Striking and Lifting ST:

New Lifting ST [4]: Lifting ST [3] & Heavy Weapons Perk.

New Striking ST [4]: Striking ST (-20%, does not apply to Min ST for weapons) [4]

If you use that logic, Mantis Strike now has total limitations of -30% and a new cost of 7 points.


If you want to go further afield for weapon damage, Douglas Cole had a discussion of Trained ST and tying Striking ST modifiers to skill for all weapons.