02-16-2011, 07:16 AM | #1 |
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
|
Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
...I have become a bit curious about this question because the whole issue has been popping up more than once in the threads I had read.
Follow up is effectively a zero point enhancement which automatically SHARES certain enhancements and limitations with its carrier attack, you make one attack for the whole thing and if the carrier penetrates the DR, the Follow-Up attack effectively receives a free enhancement of ignoring any DR itself. Link on the other hand, in its +10% form usually will ALSO end up in the user making one attack with only two separate damage rolls. Effectively, you will also want to make both attacks share many enhancements and limitations, especially those listed under follow-up. However, if separate damage rolls mean each attack has to face the DR, it is in almost any possible way worse than Follow_Up, which would then perform better regardless (the worst case scenario of follow up is that the carrier fails to penetrate and thus the follow up too has to face DR). Even if one would interpret it as DR being split between both attacks, does that make link so much better that it is worth paying extra instead of trading of the ability to attack with two attacks simultaneously for the flexibility to use them as stand-alones? Then again, when does linking up non-attack abilities really pay off? The 20% version is evident in being an advantage, though again, mostly one for combat abilities which are usually the only once really to profit from the expediency to do two things at once. So, is there any built of an ability where one of you really could say: "yes, link is pretty good for this."? One further question, when applying costs fatigue to a linked ability or one with follow up, do the costs really add up? If so, why does, apparently, takes extra time or preparation required not do so? Or what about a trigger? since all those limitations (and others) add extra resources needed(time, materials, "energy") to the ability, shouldn't all be ruled the same way? Or on the other side, if buying extra levels of the same ability doesn't have the fatigue costs of each level stack, why should linked stuff, which, just as much, is technically one ability? And if it is a +20% link, shouldn't the result look something like a variable attack? Last question: For passive abilities which are switchable in a set (for example invisibility and insubstantiality), it is usually suggested not to link them (for an effective +20% / +10% for the abilities), but instead to buy one, invisibility, with an accessibility limitation of - 10% for being only available while also insubstantial. Granted, paying +10%, in this case 4 points only to be able to become both invisible and insubstantial in one action seems rather pointless, but on the other hand, getting -10% off for what link always does in the +10% version, making abilities only usable in tandem AND getting switchable for free seems rather unbalanced. Other abilities and combinations make that point even more valid, especially the discussions about alternatives to the Shape-Shifting rules as discussed here. My personal feeling is that Link SHOULD be used to build such abilities, only, the +10% makes it simply too unattractive. So, why not save Link form being shunned because of sleeker, cheaper alternatives and at the same time preventing point crocks through the clever abuse of switchable abilities which have pseudo-accesibility-links with other abilities and end up with strangely divergent point costs depending on which ability you use as the basis? Is there no brave official who will save Link from this and being totally overshadowed by follow-up?^^ Or am I missing something really big here? |
02-17-2011, 12:16 AM | #2 | ||||
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
Quote:
Quote:
You could think of it as for combining attack abilities and non-attack abilities. I've never really thought of it that way, but it works :J Quote:
Quote:
__________________
If you must feed the troll, take it to PMs. "If it can't be turned off, it's not a feature." - Heuer's Razor Waiting For: Vehicle Design System
|
||||
02-17-2011, 02:58 AM | #3 |
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
Well, while I only theoretically made linked attack abilities, I did decide to apply the highest fatigue cost and split DR, since both attacks pretty much hit as a unit after all, not like some rapid fire attack.
Hmh, well, regarding that, well, you gave one example where two different (and in some points conflicting abilities) should pay +10% extra (Obscure and innate attack) and one where you think it is justified to place the accesibility limitation (and thus award the player points)... I do think though that only being able to attack with obscure (which will also obstruct you and your allies) and only obscure with an attack (which might seriously be a bad idea when, say, you want to escape from the "good guards" who mistook you for the criminal) is at least as limiting as only being invisible when you are intangible, which after all also combines to be a perfect spying ability (you are inaudible and unsmellable by definition and don't even have to worry about someone bumping into you) at least... Honestly, my personal feeling would be to make link a 0% feature for abilities permanently linked and only an enhancement if you can decide to use them together or not. It could even be regulated that it counts as a nuisance effect if both abilities have a bad synergy at many times (but only with GM approval). I#d definitely not want to give switchable for invisibility for free like the accessibility does. Being invisible all the time is a huge drawback and shouldn't be so easily negated. Then again, It would likely be better just to change invisibility to 45 points and say that it is switchable by default... ...and perhaps pack in some minor bonus. I for example always found it weird that machines can see you by default even if your invisibility normally affects their vision, especially since you still are limited since most machines will have a couple of other sensory capabilities to detect you anyway. |
02-17-2011, 05:27 AM | #4 | |
Join Date: Dec 2009
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
Quote:
If you have Invisibility and Insubstantiality, bound together(one way or another), how much do you really benefit from not needing a second Ready to switch them? Sure, there's nonzero benefit, but it'd put a pretty small dent in a -10% modifier for not being able to stay invisible while you attack.
__________________
If you must feed the troll, take it to PMs. "If it can't be turned off, it's not a feature." - Heuer's Razor Waiting For: Vehicle Design System
|
|
02-17-2011, 05:37 AM | #5 |
Join Date: May 2010
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
There are some cases where Link and Follow-Up together make sense. For example, take a red-hot broadsword, and say you hit someone in armor with it. Let's say it does 1d+1 cutting damage with a 1-point linked burning attack. In GURPS, even if the sword penetrated their armor and entered their flesh, the heat wouldn't do any damage!
I wouldn't know how to rule an enhancement cost to make two attacks function as both Link and Follow-Up together, though. It substantially increases the damage of the attack - because if one attack manages to penetrate armor, you automatically deal full damage with the other one. Maybe +40% over and above the normal cost for Link. I'm not sure, though. |
02-17-2011, 06:48 AM | #6 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Canada
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
Quote:
A Follow Up attack goes off even if the carrier doesn't penetrate - they tend to splatter against DR. That sword shouldn't be a linked attack, it's a follow up attack. A Link might be, I don't know, a scissors mechanism making two sword blades against the same target with one action. That "carrier" effect on the sword isn't a Link, which is why you find the effects weird.
__________________
All about Size Modifier; Unified Hit Location Table A Wiki for my F2F Group A neglected GURPS blog |
|
02-17-2011, 07:43 AM | #7 | |||
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Orange County, VA
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
Link and Follow Up are different enhancements that can sometimes work the same. Follow Up is designed for attacks and attacks only. Link is designed for use with any combination of advantages.
Consider the poison dart, the flaming weapon, etc. Each of those abilities would be best modeled with Follow Up because the "secondary" attack is more dependant on the first attack. An explosive smoke grenade, gas cloud bomb, etc would be modeled by Link (mostly because you're combining a non-attack advantage with an attack advantage). Quote:
So, for example, if I have Insubstantiality (Link-Invisibility, +20%) [96] and Invisibility (Link-Insubstantiality, +20%; Switchable, +10%) [52] I gain the ability to go both isubstantial and invisible at the same time, or go insubstantial without becoming invisible, or become invisible without becoming Insubstantial. If I take Insubstantial [80] and Invisibility (Only while Insubstantial, -10%) [36], I gain the ability to become insubstantial and invisible at the same time but I must be both insubstantial and invisible not one or the other. If I take Insubstantial [80] and Invisibility (Switchable, +10%) [44], I can become insubstantial or invisible in one turn then use the other ability the next turn but I can't activate the abilities together during the same turn. The +10% version of Link isn't really effective in this example. Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
02-21-2011, 07:28 AM | #8 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
@Link + Follow-Up: Yes, this is the wrong way to do it as Bruno said, no need to pay double for something you get anyway.
@Accesible Invisibility: Well, I do get both your points about the invisibility not being switchable like the enhancement would do, BUT... ...it does not stay on all the time either. In other words, you do not have the huge disadvantage of being never visible and thus excluded form a whole lot of possible social interactions. You get exactly what a linked ability does, only that the cost differs by 30%. No link needed, no switchable needed, accessibility on top. The accessibility might be reasonable, not paying for switchable is not. Quote:
That would be 20% for reduced time. In other words, you could have the same benefit, paying 20% on one ability instead of paying 10% on both and it would have extra value for when you want to only activate one of them... Unless it says somewhere you can only ever switch on one ability per turn (where?), that seems superior, even more a reason to have link changed... Actually, unless you produce some text passage to the contrary, I really don't see why any non attack ability (which cannot be reduced to free actions) should be built with link at all, reduced time seems to cover it all... And by the way, since people bring up the obscure + innate attack built... Ranged obscure is an ATTACK ability... So, technically, you can make it a follow up, however unlogical that seems, you can have a follow up smoke bomb... No, really, we have a modifier which is supposed to model combining different abilities, but there is hardly any reason to use it because there is either a CHEAPER enhancement, another way which actually gives you points back or the method of just making the abilities so quick to use it doesn't matter anyway. I can only think now of one thing that makes any sense and that is the 20% link of different types of attacks, pretty much the only reason not to make attacks alternative attacks anyway. One could argue if this is worth the enhancement's costs... Quote:
If you can only use two abilities together, it is absolutely justified to make them both get the price cut, if the can be combined or used on their own, why make it different from a variable same type thing? |
||
02-21-2011, 07:40 AM | #9 | |
Join Date: Aug 2004
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
Quote:
|
|
02-21-2011, 11:34 AM | #10 | |
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Germany
|
Re: Are there any official rulings on Link and Follow-Up? + some Questions
Quote:
And even reading it like that, doesn't that make it even more strange that attacks which actually benefit from a follow up (possibly gaining ignores DR) are cheaper to link up than stuff which doesn't get any extra benefits from this kind of link? Moreso, there are few cases where you'd not want to use two damage dealing attacks together, but clearly, stuff like the often cited obscuring attack have some serious limiting effect on the use of each ability, or? I think it is valid to say that obscure and innate attack have if possible more cases where you would not want them combined than invisibility and insubstantial, yet only the one gets the link as a limitation instead of an enhancement... |
|
Tags |
accessibility, costs fatigue, follow-up, link, official rulings |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|