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 10-20-2021, 08:40 PM   #11
Farmer
 
Farmer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Sydney, Australia
Default Re: Water Jet damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
That's by using steam to displace the air, thus removing oxygen from the fire. A steam jet won't do that, and if this can do direct damage to a fire being, so should quite a few other things that currently don't. Note that Steam Jet does 1d-1 damage per point to everything that would normally take damage from a burning attack, which is nearly as much as from a Flame Jet, and even the 1-point level is doing more than a normal fire does (seeing as the jet isn't hitting the whole body). We're talking 'escaped from a high-pressure steam boiler' steam here, not 'you put your hand over the spout of your kettle' steam, the sort that is invisible until it mixes and cools at the end of the jet, and which cuts through objects and people like a cutting jet.

If it wasn't magical, and thus following such rules as 'it's made from water, so it hurts things of fire' rather than physics as we understand it, it should be doing cutting damage and be invisible.
Yes, it's displacing air (not oxygen) and putting water vapour in its place, which contains less accessible oxygen by volume. Much the same as if you punch into a fire create with steam - it reduces the possible combustion at that point which reasonably (noting this is magic...) could hurt the creature.

And, yes, high pressure steam is invisible and cuts you because the water pressure is doing the damage not the heat (becuse it takes time for heat to transfer and there's not enough steam (and therefore heat) to do a lot burning damage in a short period of time.

A larger jet, though (and it's magic, so it can exist), is putting a lot of heat onto an area. I've provided first aid to a couple of pretty decent steam burns over the years. Volume of steam in a cloud of a "magical" jet certain carries a lot of heat and can transfer that onto skin.

Given it's magic, and it's a game mechanic designed for some level of balance, it's reasonable. If you want to make it piercing or impaling or cutting or whatever, there's a basis for that, too.
__________________
Farmer
Mortal Wombat
"But if the while I think on thee, dear friend
All losses are restored and sorrows end."
Farmer is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 10-21-2021, 06:12 PM   #12
Pursuivant
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Default Re: Water Jet damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rupert View Post
If it wasn't magical, and thus following such rules as 'it's made from water, so it hurts things of fire' rather than physics as we understand it, it should be doing cutting damage and be invisible.
Seconded. "Live Steam" is invisible and very dangerous. High pressure live steam even more so.

I knew a retired navy engine room chief who said he required his engine room crew to check for live steam leaks using rolled up newspapers. When the newspaper's end suddenly got sliced off they knew they had found the leak. Anyone idiot enough to check for a live steam leak using their hand would instantly lose it.

Realistically, this sort of leak would do 1d to 3d cutting damage with 1d-3 to 1d-1 burn damage as follow-up.
Pursuivant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 09:37 AM   #13
Polkageist
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Default Re: Water Jet damage

That's probably also an argument towards water jet doing some sort of damage by referencing high-pressure water cutting tools.

But we're playing with magic!

In the other jet thread I posted a thing about alternative fire-jet options that do damage and act like magic swords. Kromm also posted that while Magic was proofread, it wasn't done so at a very opportune time and so it didn't get "tuned" for 4e since it sat at the back of the priority queue.

I think its perfectly reasonable to tweak and adjust spells to fit properly into a setting. DF trims a huge number of spells to streamline things. I added a few fun ones back in for my own game.
Polkageist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 03:22 PM   #14
Varyon
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Default Re: Water Jet damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Plane View Post
I don't really like that though... isn't the whole reason fire creatures have Vulnerability x 2 from water attacks so that -100 +100% = taking damage from normally undamaging things?
No. Vulnerability doesn't negate (or offset) No Wounding. The order of operations here is you roll for damage, see how much penetrates, and apply the relevant Wounding Modifier(s) as multipliers, not as percentage additions. So, if 5 points penetrate DR, you multiply by 0 for No Wounding and by 2 for Vulnerability x2, for at total of 0 wounding (any real number - and a lot of imaginary ones - multiplied by 0 is 0). Note if, instead of No Wounding on the attack, the target had overlapping Vulnerability and IT:DR, it's still a multiplier - if all crushing injury is reduced to 1/3rd due to the latter, and all water damage is doubled due to the former, you end up with 2/3rd (1/3*2) wounding.

For a Powers-based Water Jet to still wound fire elementals, you'd need No Wounding to have a Limitation, such as "Not against Fire Elementals." If that's -5%, then you're looking at No Wounding (Not against Fire Elementals -5%) -47.5% instead of just No Wounding -50%.

That said, some GM's might allow for caveats like that without needing to account for them points-wise. Much as it's suggested that a Water Jet Power be able to put out fires, soak things, etc, the GM is well within rights to say "Eh, it's a fire elemental, your Water Jet's "No Wounding" doesn't apply to it." He or she would then need to decide if it does normal wounding, or if the wounding is doubled (or more, depending on how the fire elemental is built) due to the Vulnerability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Polkageist View Post
That's probably also an argument towards water jet doing some sort of damage by referencing high-pressure water cutting tools.

But we're playing with magic!

In the other jet thread I posted a thing about alternative fire-jet options that do damage and act like magic swords.
A "Water Sword Jet" spell could be an option, justifying itself as being like a high-pressure water cutter. It might function similarly to the basic uses of the Ensui from Flame of Recca (and an item made with it might resemble such a weapon).
__________________
GURPS Overhaul
Varyon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 10:11 PM   #15
(E)
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: New Zealand.
Default Re: Water Jet damage

For a comparison a police water cannon has official gurps (3rd edition) stats.
I'm away from my books though.
__________________
Waiting for inspiration to strike......
And spending too much time thinking about farming for RPGs
Contributor to Citadel at Nordvörn
(E) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2021, 11:18 PM   #16
Plane
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Default Re: Water Jet damage

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
Vulnerability doesn't negate (or offset) No Wounding.
Horror 72 mentions that Vulnerability x4 from Hot Fat results in taking x3 damage from it...
The extra damage from the Vulnerability is applied to the spirit; the host takes only normal boiling-fat damage.
This seems to be based on "substantial stuff can't normally harm insubstantial stuff" being a -100% damage modifier similar to No Wounding.

IE even if you have an immunity to damage (either because it's No Wounding or you are Insubstantial) if you get points for a Vulnerabilty it should mean the Vulnerability over-rides your normal immunity.

Sort of like if you had either Vulnerability: Beheading Attacks (H59/H66) or Vulnerability: Head Shots (H91) you probably should not be allowed to take "Injury Tolerance: No Head" until you buy off those vulnerabilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
The order of operations here is you roll for damage, see how much penetrates, and apply the relevant Wounding Modifier(s) as multipliers, not as percentage additions.
Basically "+300% becomes +200%" is how I interpret the Wendigo precedent of only applying the "extra damage" reducing a x4 multiplier to x3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
For a Powers-based Water Jet to still wound fire elementals, you'd need No Wounding to have a Limitation, such as "Not against Fire Elementals." If that's -5%, then you're looking at No Wounding (Not against Fire Elementals -5%) -47.5% instead of just No Wounding -50%.
You don't limit a limitation, you limit an enhancement which cancels it out.
So you'd take No Wounding -50% at full discount, then then instead of Yes Wounding +50% to offset it, we apply an Accessibility limitation to Yes Wounding.

If we say "1 in 10,000 people is a fire elemental, -50%" (PU8p4) then that would reduce +50% to +25% making the net limitation -25%.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
That said, some GM's might allow for caveats like that without needing to account for them points-wise. Much as it's suggested that a Water Jet Power be able to put out fires, soak things, etc,
I can't find mention of a Water Jet power, but P140's "Water Cannon" mentions it's useful for "putting out fires".

I don't believe it's right to let a raw/wild "Crushing Attack" (as P140 stats it) do that, but I believe these "Examples" (part of the "Elemental Attacks" section starting P137) are intended to be coupled with an appropriate power modifier.

The reason we don't see the modifier is because the modifier might have a different discount depending on what source is used.

P135-136 has three possible costs listed for Water:
-10 for divine or magical or super or elemental
-20 for super AND elemental
-25 for spirit

Which modifier is chosen could also influence how it operates.

In addition to that, the "focus" (P7) of that power which might introduce special properties to advantages within that power.

That said, there should still be some property (trait) of an opponent which causes them to react to that trait. A "this trait means I am made of fire" aspect.

B262 for Body of Fire I think tries to do that via Weakness: Water but as it's a "per minute in environment" fixed damage instead of a multiplier it doesn't really interact with No Wounding situations.

Perhaps an interesting point for comparison is H93's "Cihuateto" as they have Vulnerability: Fire x 3 and Vulnerability: Impaling to Heart x4, yet being derived from Lilitu they are Specters (H27) which are Spirits who spend a lot of the time Insubstantial where normal fires and impaling attacks (lacking "affects insubstantial" enhancements) wouldn't be able to harm them in the first place.

So it raises the question: is this only meant to affect them while materializing, or to allow "Fire x 2" and "Impale x 3" substantial-only attacks to harm them while insubstantial?

Being able to harmed in insubstantial form by damage lacking "affects insubstantial" enhancements was a thing in 3e (Spirits). It was the standard assumption if you took the Vulnerability at full value, because you could only get half the normal value if the vulnerability couldn't harm you while insubstantial.

If we don't make it the standard assumption then I don't really know how to stat it. You could define "fire which harms the insubstantial" as a narrower vulnerability (rarer, worth fewer points as a disadvantage) and then buy "not vulnerable to insubstantial-damaging fire" as an Alternate Ability to Insubstantiality, if you don't want "affects both" giving a multiplier while in substantial form.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varyon View Post
the GM is well within rights to say "Eh, it's a fire elemental, your Water Jet's "No Wounding" doesn't apply to it." He or she would then need to decide if it does normal wounding, or if the wounding is doubled (or more, depending on how the fire elemental is built) due to the Vulnerability.
I could see if you're a fire elemental defining your abilities as falling under P27's "Elemental" power modifier, whose -10% is a bit confusing since it is either from "mundane countermeasure" or "mundane insulator" or more weirdly "a little of both".

That could cover stuff like "water puts out my fire" disabling stuff like Burning Attack (Aura) but doesn't quite get us to "the 2d no-wounding crushing attack which doesn't injure humans injures you!" realm...

We could lump this under "special effects" (P113) but I think the problem is there's no actual root trait to modify here. We're talking about a situation of "a limitation on an innate attack doesn't apply against me".

Something like "No Wounding attacks hurt me" would be like saying "Insubstantial Only attacks hurt me while I'm substantial too!" or "I get knocked back by attacks limited by No Knockback".

We would need to decide whether "my crushing puts out fires" is a Functional Special Effect (113 left) or Cosmetic Effect (113 right) or Minor Benefit (114 top).

But then also: what is the disadvantage (quirk or otherwise) that designates "I am the target for such a Special Effect.

Maybe it works out to 0pt feature because "Accessibility: Humans Only" makes being a human a disadvantage when it's an attack, but a benefit when it's healing/buffing?

So "I'm an elemental" is a bad thing when enemies have "only hurts elementals" abilities, but a beneficial thing when your allies have "only heals elementals" abilities?
Plane is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
damage, jet, knockback

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 06:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.