Rules you ignore/alter.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Plane

why not also deviate in being able to waive consent?

It would likely be fine to allow. In fact I use a +45% enhancement for just that (+50% as half of Malediction to allow waiving the resistance check, -5% nuisance effect that they auto succeed if they try to resist since it is assumed to be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Rupert

Actually, it sort of does - while you can't Block bullets with a shield in the RAW, if using the rules for damaging shield (B484) you still get the shield's DB added to your Dodge, and if that DB made the difference the shot hit the shield which acts as cover.

An easy houserule for using a shield as cover would be that attackers trying to fire past the shield take the shield's DB as a penalty. If they miss because of that penalty they hit the shield, which functions as on B484. This is probably unrealistically generous though - DB/2 or DB-1 is probably a more reasonable amount of cover bonus.

I think as a simple rule not allowing blocks works when you aren't using rules for damaging shields. If you are, there's no downside I've found from letting blocks work and it doesn't feel unrealistic at realistic shield levels (and it feels in genre with Captain Americ rip offs who have indestructible shields).

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

You can get that by taking "Fixed +0%" which turns MoF/MoV into 3, so however badly your target fails the roll doesn't affect the duration.

I've seen that and it would be one way. The point wasn't about just having a fixed duration, though. It was about separating it from Affliction level entirely, such that it would be easy to buy short but powerful effects or long lasting weak effects.

Other possibilities:
- 20-HT (min or sec) to bring it in line with side effect.
- 1 min duration. The unmodified duration is the same as "one use" for most lasting abilities.
- 1d sec duration. This make it function more like some spells.

[Plane]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

not allowing blocks works when you aren't using rules for damaging shields

If you are, there's no downside I've found from letting blocks work

and it doesn't feel unrealistic at realistic shield levels (and it feels in genre with Captain Americ rip offs who have indestructible shields).

"my gadget has 1000 DR" is one problem with gadget limitations, where I think you should either need to pay for your gadget's non-covered properties using cash, signature, or Ally, somehow...

I've actually seen DR purchased for weapons as a hit location (DF11p32 under Bow Fencer) so maybe that could be done... (much like 'face' protects 'eyes' without needing 'force field', the 'implied force field' seems to be indicated here? where it protects your gear) so you could just apply whatever penalty it would be to hit the shield?

-40% is given for a -4 to hit... a bow is a baton with reach 1 which is -4 to hit per B400. I'm not sure where 'Striking at Shields' is, but shields tend to have reach 1 so I would assume something similar.

If inherently "Partial, Bow" applies to "any bow I wield" then having DR for just one bow is probably also buying gadget limitations on that DR. That seems better than making DR free.

Maybe even HP of items should be bought like that? Just give HP a similar "Limited, Shield -40%" limitation?

Maybe this could even coexist with ally rules. 100% frequency of appearance (B36 x4 worn like clothing) is a weapon you always have, while lesser means sometimes you need to give the weapon back to somebody, maybe for repairs? This would also allow for 'summonable' weapon character.

You will always lose bonus character points for unnecessarily endangering your weapon but Minion +0% (since it's IQ 0) will at least prevent it from leaving you if you abuse it. You'll also need +50% special powers since he grants you the exotic trait of DR. It would also buy it's innate attack as 'must be wielded' for stuffl ike Bash.

"Dependent" weapons would also be possible to lower prices (maybe even to 0) with further restrictions (B131 dock bonus points if you won't rescue it, can't earn points when it's badly hurt)

Originally Posted by naloth

I've seen that and it would be one way. The point wasn't about just having a fixed duration, though. It was about separating it from Affliction level entirely, such that it would be easy to buy short but powerful effects or long lasting weak effects.

Making resistance based on a leveled enhancement would probably do that I guess, though it doesn't deal with the 'levels' issue regarding power parries.

Should they necessarily be separate though? Buying 'persistent' or 'increased duration' on an Innate Attack scales up with it's damage (powerful effect)

[naloth]

Originally Posted by Plane

Should they necessarily be separate though? Buying 'persistent' or 'increased duration' on an Innate Attack scales up with it's damage (powerful effect)

Obviously, I see it as an issue.

Innate Attack scales up in damage (leveled effect) but area of effect, range, AP, and other effects are purchased separately.

Likewise, I'd have Affliction level up in intensity while other effects are purchased separately.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by naloth

I've seen that and it would be one way. The point wasn't about just having a fixed duration, though. It was about separating it from Affliction level entirely, such that it would be easy to buy short but powerful effects or long lasting weak effects.

Other possibilities:
- 20-HT (min or sec) to bring it in line with side effect.
- 1 min duration. The unmodified duration is the same as "one use" for most lasting abilities.
- 1d sec duration. This make it function more like some spells.

I kind of like the 20-HT idea, using that instead of a resistance roll.

Originally Posted by Plane

"my gadget has 1000 DR" is one problem with gadget limitations, where I think you should either need to pay for your gadget's non-covered properties using cash, signature, or Ally, somehow...

I don't think an indestructible shield would use gadget limitations, or at least the breakable ones. Enhanced Defenses 3 is 90pts and gives no downside to if you succeed because of it. Saying that you have an indestructible shield that does this would effectively be a feature. You'd have to buy some way to actually block separately, which can be a Striker with Force Extension (or just putting it on your limb directly).

Originally Posted by naloth

Obviously, I see it as an issue.

Innate Attack scales up in damage (leveled effect) but area of effect, range, AP, and other effects are purchased separately.

Likewise, I'd have Affliction level up in intensity while other effects are purchased separately.

Hmm. I kind of like the idea that the type of affliction is based on level. The other idea I had was Affliction doing 'damage' that doesn't cause actual injury but still ticks up on the target and doing enough damage will cause some affliction effect that is some flat ratio such as "one damage to +10%" making it so you either want high damage to do big effects easily or you have to hit multiple times to pull off something like a heart attack (this would be instead of resistance).

[Anthony]

The problem is that you have three dimensions on which affliction can vary:

• Ability to overcome defense/resistance.
• Magnitude of effect.
• Duration of effect.

GURPS doesn't mostly multiply three things together., though it's possible. I think I'll create a new thread, though.

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Anthony

The problem is that you have three dimensions on which affliction can vary:

• Ability to overcome defense/resistance.
• Magnitude of effect.
• Duration of effect.

GURPS doesn't mostly multiply three things together., though it's possible. I think I'll create a new thread, though.

Good idea. I definitely think removing "levels" from it entirely seems to be the best option, but that's just my simple thoughts for this thread.

[ericthered]

originally posted in the wrong thread:

I frequently ignore capping talents at 4 levels. Especially IQ-based talents for characters whose concept includes being technically awesome but socially awkward.

[kirbwarrior]

On the note of talents, I'm just looser with them than the rules are (at least in Basic). No hard caps on any talents, although I generally don't want players taking attribute+talent above 20. I'm entirely open to players coming up with talents and focus more on the core or concept of the talent, then help them come up with a good list. And I added Omnitalent [40/lvl] that acts as a catch all for all skills and covers all power talents.

Not necessarily a rule of gurps, but as far as I can tell 10 isn't average, at least for real people. It seems more like a heroic average. Instead, my (not awesome) npcs start at -1 on most attributes, -10% in ST, Low Pain Threshold, and Reluctant Killer (normally comes out to -85pts since I break Per and Will from IQ). That seems to give plenty of points that npcs can easily be 0pts or less.

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Not necessarily a rule of gurps, but as far as I can tell 10 isn't average, at least for real people. It seems more like a heroic average. Instead, my (not awesome) npcs start at -1 on most attributes, -10% in ST, Low Pain Threshold, and Reluctant Killer (normally comes out to -85pts since I break Per and Will from IQ). That seems to give plenty of points that npcs can easily be 0pts or less.

I lean the other way, aiming for an average of 10.5. It helps give some variety to the NPCs: instead of needing to be exceptional in a skill to have an exceptional stat, I ask if the NPC is better or worse than average in the attribute.