How should i run monsters?

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by maximara

FIrst, given how flexible GURPS is I wouldn't say there is a "canonical solution" to any problem.

Second, Armor Divisor effectively kicks the idea of loading up on DR in the head. Allowing this to have enough DR withstand 6dx10(3) burn at maximum damage (180) is kind of ridiculous.

Besides Magery (racial -40%) Resist Fire-20 is "canonal" as well (Racially Innate Spells under Racial Magic, B453)

DR is "canonical" in the sense that multiple published templates have many levels of DR (Limited, Fire) as a way to model fire resistance in, for example, a fire elemental, fire-infused spirit, etc.

In the right setting, racial magic works fine, but it's a way to model a race with a magical ability to withstand fire (eg. a race of Fire Gnomes whose excellent smithing capabilities are aided by their ability to reach right into the forge, or something like that), as opposed to a race that can't be damaged by fire because of their nature (which may or may not be affected by mana, doesn't depend on a successful skill roll, cannot be negated by Dispel Magic or other countermeasures, etc., like a lava lizard that lives in a volcano).

I'm not saying I'm happy with this state of affairs. I wish there was a cleaner way to have "immune to fire damage" as an ability that costs less than hundreds of points. But clearly the publishers have declared DR the canonical method.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by zionspelunker

Thanks for all the tips. Is there any good way to know what might be a good fight for my players or what is likely to kill them with ease?

My basic method is to look at the DR, IT:DR (Injury Tolerance: Damage Reduction) and HP the party has. I then look at the party's active defenses and make note of them.

It takes some experience (ChaosCoyote can't roll less than a 14 unless it's dramatically appropriate or hilarious), but I aim for a minor enemy to be able to, on an average hit, do about 1/5 to 1/4 of their HP.

Major foes should be able to inflict between 1/3 and 2/3 HP damage on a hit.

Bosses should be able to KO a PC (inflict full HP loss) on a successful hit.

All of these successful hits are related to the characters that are most likely to be on the front line. Characters with lower defenses should be aware of this and should be managing their characters appropriately.

For our Kingdom Hearts game, shadows do 1d-1 cutting, but the party doesn't have any DR or IT:DR yet (I'm also changing IT:DR a bit for this game, it's an HP multiplier, to reduce book keeping).

The party has really good defenses, so long as they're using their chosen items (Ruby's shield gives her a Cosmic block of 12, Kay's sword gives her a Cosmic parry of 11, Karyl's wand gives her a Cosmic parry of 10). So, other than Kay (who is ChaosCoyote's character), the party has a good chance of avoiding damage.

During the first fight, to show the threat of the shadows, the party only got hit once with Kay taking a total of three points of injury.

Originally Posted by Gnome

I'm not saying I'm happy with this state of affairs. I wish there was a cleaner way to have "immune to fire damage" as an ability that costs less than hundreds of points. But clearly the publishers have declared DR the canonical method.

The way I usually do it is base it on Insubstantial. I just call it Insubstantial (Only vs Damage [-10%], Affects Substantial, Limited Defense [from DR]). So, with Multiplicative Modifiers, invulnerability to fire would be 80 points. Since it's a GM-call to allow the ability, I don't require characters to take Affects Substantial on their other abilities since it's just a place-holder for an invulnerability.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by maximara

Ah I was reading "immune" as the way GURPS uses it not as it is generally used.



That still wouldn't result in something being "immune" (take no damage at all) from fire.

That's mostly because GURPS 4th edition decided that immunity to a damage type isn't actually an ability that should exist (though in the case of fire, there's an upper limit to what actual flame can do, so just get that much DR. Of course, you'll still get vaporized by something hotter than chemical flame can achieve).

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That's mostly because GURPS 4th edition decided that immunity to a damage type isn't actually an ability that should exist (though in the case of fire, there's an upper limit to what actual flame can do, so just get that much DR. Of course, you'll still get vaporized by something hotter than chemical flame can achieve).

It's basically that the ability to stop an infinite amount of damage should cost an infinite amount of points.

So, if you want an ability like that, you have to decide how many points it's going to be worth in your game. On the other hand, you can just apply an amount of Fire-resistant DR that equals the maximum damage that any fire can inflict in your game and move on. If it heals them, staple some absorption on it. That's how Fireball does it. He has DR 20 vs fire only with absorption.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Anthony

That's mostly because GURPS 4th edition decided that immunity to a damage type isn't actually an ability that should exist (though in the case of fire, there's an upper limit to what actual flame can do, so just get that much DR. Of course, you'll still get vaporized by something hotter than chemical flame can achieve).

Actually GURPS 4th edition comes close with Insubstantiality, as well as Unkillable 2 (indestructible skeleton) making anything with these immune to physical damage.

Resistant regarding Immunity states: "You are totally immune to all noxious effects, and never have to make resistance rolls". I would say taking damage from fire qualifies as a "noxious effect" so Resistant (Immune, Fire, very common) [30] should be viable by RAW.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by maximara

FIrst, given how flexible GURPS is I wouldn't say there is a "canonical solution" to any problem.

It is specifically how Powers suggests handling it, and how a number of canonical examples do handle it.

Originally Posted by maximara

Second, Armor Divisor effectively kicks the idea of loading up on DR in the head. Allowing this to have enough DR withstand 6dx10(3) burn at maximum damage (180) is kind of ridiculous.

...What type of fire does 6dx10(3) damage exactly? You said immunity to fire, not...rainbow laser cannon?

And, well, who said immunity to major ordinance should be cheap?

Originally Posted by maximara

Besides Magery (racial -40%) Resist Fire-20 is "canonal" as well (Racially Innate Spells under Racial Magic, B453)

It's rules-legal. It also has idiosyncratic failure modes (if the spell gets disrupted you can suddenly burn to death) and basically amounts to 'bypass the build system because wonky Magic mechanics are stronger'.

[WingedKagouti]

Originally Posted by maximara

Actually GURPS 4th edition comes close with Insubstantiality, as well as Unkillable 2 (indestructible skeleton) making anything with these immune to physical damage.

Resistant regarding Immunity states: "You are totally immune to all noxious effects, and never have to make resistance rolls". I would say taking damage from fire qualifies as a "noxious effect" so Resistant (Immune, Fire, very common) [30] should be viable by RAW.

With that line of reasoning, you might as well substitute "Fire" with "Physical damage" and claim you can't be hurt for 30 points.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by maximara

Resistant regarding Immunity states: "You are totally immune to all noxious effects, and never have to make resistance rolls". I would say taking damage from fire qualifies as a "noxious effect" so Resistant (Immune, Fire, very common) [30] should be viable by RAW.

It is, clearly, not.

Originally Posted by Characters, pg 80

Resistant does not protect against effects that Damage Resistance or Protected Sense either stop or provide a HT bonus to resist. This includes Afflictions and Innate Attacks that do not have any of the modifiers given above.

Emphasis from book.

[maximara]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

It is specifically how Powers suggests handling it, and how a number of canonical examples do handle it.

Powers is from November 2005. There have been a lot of tweaks and changes in the some 16 years since it came out.

For example, Basic which is one year older (2004) got the section on Magery with regards to limitations (p 66-67) totally revised in Thaumatology (p 20-21) as explained in Partially Limited Magery

Thaumatology is from 2008 which means there are likely revisions after it.

This is why I don't take much stock in a 16 year old rule given that in just 4 how magery with limitations worked, as presented in the core book, got changed.

I'm not exactly thrilled with this as it reminds me of how Classic started going off the rails where the "Universal" part of the game got effectively thrown out the window as what the "canonal" rules were varied depending on which books you had.

Classic: Aliens is a prime example of that as the Compendiums effectively threw out many of its point totals and even changed how some of the advantages and disadvantages worked.

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by maximara

For example, Basic which is one year older (2004) got the section on Magery with regards to limitations (p 66-67) totally revised in Thaumatology (p 20-21) as explained in Partially Limited Magery

Thaumatology added to Magery rather than changing it. The various source books have always done this. You don't need to use the additions in Thaumatology if you don't want to. Just like you don't need to use the other books new rules in the other books, like Ultra-Tech or Martial-Arts.