11-25-2016, 06:35 AM | #21 |
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Snoopy's basement
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
For alternative builds, what about:
-Some modified version of automatic Shrinking that only applies to inbound attacks? -Or maybe there's a way using the Power Ups 4: Enhancements to price reduced SM against attacks only? -Or what about a Reversed Line of Sight Affliction that makes attackers less competent? |
11-25-2016, 01:22 PM | #22 | |||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Quote:
I didn't get into GURPS until 4e, but from what I've read the main problem with PD was that it caused heavy armor to turn characters into Dodge-monkeys. That's not an issue here. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
*I previously mentioned adding them to the attack roll, but I don't see why a character with IT:Blur should get a free pass on needing to attempt a defense. Basically, the way it would go would be the enemy attacks, then if the character opts to defend he rolls both the defense and the IT:Blur effect; if the defense succeeds, that’s the end of that, but if it fails then the IT:Blur result determines if the character is hit or not. Quote:
These would all result in attack penalties, for which Obscure (Anti-Targeting -20%*) is a good fit. That's not what this thread is about, however. *Was that a typo? Affecting targeting seems like either an Enhancement or a +0% Modifier to only affect targeting, but I don't have Psionic Powers (Psi isn't generally in my interests) to confirm. ... That addendum to my response to Ghostdancer makes me realize some more modifiers that would be appropriate for IT:Blur. First would be the ability to know, in advance, if IT:Blur will negate an attack or not - this allows the character to avoid wasting a defense against an attack that wouldn’t connect anyway. It’s a decent ability, but overall not that great - I’m thinking instead of a modifier this would be something with a straight cost, maybe [5]. A name for this Trait would be welcome. Another that would be very common would be one that makes your ability apply to your gear as well - Force Field +20% should do it. The default for IT:Blur is that it only applies to attacks against you, but for partial insubstantiality and the like, it would make sense that it would sometimes cause you to miss your target as well. I’m thinking -50%, based on the +100% of Affects Substantial. This is per attack, not per round. Characters with this trait - we’ll call it Two-Way -50% - get Force Field for free. A character with has the ability to know when IT:Blur will work can take Two-Way at only -20% - with this version of the trait, the character rolls for IT:Blur before choosing a maneuver, and can act based on it. For example, if you know you’d have to attack three times before you’d actually have a chance to harm your foe this maneuver, you might instead opt for a Feint, All Out Defense, or similar. For some types of IT:Blur - again, partial insubstantiality comes to mind - it makes sense for the trait to functionally negate the same in another character. By default (well, default when this is in play), you can simply subtract the IT:Blur level of the attacker from that of the defender, to a minimum of 0%. Optionally (or automatically if the attacker has either form of Two-Way), roll for both characters - if the attacker and defender are both affected or both unaffected by IT:Blur, the attack succeeds; otherwise, it fails. This is a +0% Enhancement, but the modifiers on both versions of IT:Blur must match - IT:Blur (Insubstantial +0%) doesn’t interact with IT:Blur (Evasion +0%). Again, for some types of IT:Blur, there may be particular powers that ignore the effect. Insubstantial is typically Limited: Physical -20%, and being negated by Affects Insubstantial is arguably worth -10%, for -30% total. Being negated by a substance (or whatever) is simply an appropriate Bane. For powers that are basically “Negates this one Advantage” (like Affects Substantial), +20% is comparable to a Common Bane, +40% an Occasional Bane, +60% a Rare Bane. (As an aside, I intend to allow for powers that are treated as being something non-standard - like a Crushing IA that’s a block of salt or a Burning IA that’s treated as sunlight - that is a Weakness or Vulnerability to pay +20% for a Very Common material, +40% for Common, +60% for Occasional, and +80% for Rare. Affects Substantial is thus priced the same as a Very Common material, but is functionally Common instead because it has such a limited scope). Note many of the above could be ported back to IT:DR. For example, a super who gains IT:DR by lessening his physical interaction with reality would also likely do less damage with a strike (there was a speedster in Worm with exactly this secondary power), for Two-Way, and having IT:DR protect your gear can make sense (although note this wouldn't multiply the DR of any armor worn, it would just mean that it doesn't get damaged as much by being penetrated; might need work if you have ablative/semi-ablative DR, however). |
|||||
11-25-2016, 01:38 PM | #23 |
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Personally, I like the idea - I think it fills some niches that Obscure doesn't. For example, if you're literally "stuttering" in and out of reality, it would logically affect attacks that Obscure wouldn't touch, such as area-effect blasts and such. I would suggest changing the name to Injury Tolerance (Attack Evasion), however. "Blur" is just confusing the issue.
However, I don't think pricing this just the same as Injury Tolerance (Damage Reduction) is right. I think this is actually more effective than IT (DR), because it should logically work on effects that don't do damage. For example, IT (DR) won't have an effect on an Affliction, or Binding, or a Crushing Attack with No Wounding but Double Knockback, whereas this logically would (at least, for some explanations of the mechanic). Therefore, I think the base cost of this should be twice as much as IT (DR). Some thought should also be put to how it works against continuous attacks - these are usually resolved as a single damage roll per turn, but logically, if you're just skipping out every 1/10th of a second, you should still be getting effected by 9/10ths of the damage, since it's really happening over a period of time. |
11-25-2016, 02:54 PM | #24 | |
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Quote:
This is not really clear in the description of Obscure but has later been clarified. As for the Forcefield, I would go with the Can Carry enhancement instead. Its more versatile and specific in how much it can apply to.
__________________
My GURPS publications GURPS Powers: Totem and Nature Spirits; GURPS Template Toolkit 4: Spirits; Pyramid articles. Buying them lets us know you want more! My GURPS fan contribution and blog: REFPLace GURPS Landing Page My List of GURPS You Tube videos (plus a few other useful items) My GURPS Wiki entries |
|
11-25-2016, 03:40 PM | #25 | |||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Quote:
Quote:
Here's my thought, then - default IT:Blur simply deletes any injury you suffer if it comes into play (shunts it to another dimension, say) but doesn't have any impact on effects that aren't explicitly injury. A Crushing attack will still send you flying (although IT:Blur can still negate the damage from hitting a wall at the end of the flight), a Burning attack still set you on fire (that only has a chance of actually injuring you each round), and so forth. The Attack Evasion +100% modifier extends this to all attacks (including Afflictions and the like) and their effects, and also functionally gives you an enhanced version of Slippery that works even if you're grappled with teeth, claws, or similar and has no upper limit to the number of levels you may take (Slippery is usually limited to 5 levels). You are essentially given 4 levels of Slippery (Cosmic, Extended +50%) per level of IT:Blur. That is, divide the base cost of whatever level of IT:Blur you have by 25 and multiply by 4 (round down); that's how many levels of Slippery you gain. For reference, every level of Slippery is +1 to ST, DX, and Escape rolls for slipping restraints, breaking free, etc, and if using Technical Grappling every two levels is +1 to Control Resistance. These effects apply equally to your foe, however - it's a lot easier to break away from someone who's only there 10% of the time as well! If you want to be able to grapple freely, you can waive the Slippery effect, but this means anyone grappling you can attack you freely and enjoys the benefits of your IT:Blur (you're trading in Slippery +50% for Affects Others +50%, where the latter doesn't require a willing target but also isn't under your control). This must be chosen when the trait is purchased. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(A more nuanced version of Force Field that is limited to less than Extra Heavy Encumbrance could be interesting, however) |
|||||
11-25-2016, 04:09 PM | #26 | |
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Yukon, OK
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Quote:
__________________
My GURPS publications GURPS Powers: Totem and Nature Spirits; GURPS Template Toolkit 4: Spirits; Pyramid articles. Buying them lets us know you want more! My GURPS fan contribution and blog: REFPLace GURPS Landing Page My List of GURPS You Tube videos (plus a few other useful items) My GURPS Wiki entries |
|
11-25-2016, 05:30 PM | #27 | ||||
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Quote:
In any case, I think this highlights a general issue with this idea - you need to pin down a little more firmly what it's actually doing to produce this effect. Just doing a pure game-mechanical "it has a miss chance" is not enough to really work out what should or should not be affected. Compare Injury Tolerance (Damage Reduction), which is definitely saying what is happening, in world - your body resists damage better than others. The reasons for this may change, but the effect is consistent. I think you need to pin this trait down similarly. And if it's just a visual thing, where you're not quite where people think you are, the general consensus that Obscure already does this is correct. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||
11-25-2016, 05:36 PM | #28 |
Dog of Lysdexics
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Melbourne FL, Formerly Wellington NZ
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Such as Stun guns
|
11-25-2016, 06:27 PM | #29 | |||||
Join Date: Jun 2013
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Quote:
Admittedly, the lines get a little hazy if we have two instances of IT:Blur with the same setup cancel each other out, as at that point the trait is no longer fully defensive in nature (it gives up some of its defensive ability for some offense). In that case, I'd be tempted to replace Force Field with Can Carry Objects, possibly at a reduced price (as it's only impacting a part of the trait). I'd probably go with +5% for No Encumbrance, +10% for Light, +20% for Medium, +50% for Heavy, +100% for Extra Heavy. If we do this, however, it would be fair to allow characters with other versions of IT:Blur (or even other traits, like DR) to reduce the worth of Force Field if it doesn't work with Extra Heavy Encumbrance. Maybe +2% for No Encumbrance, +5% for Light, +10% for Medium, +15% for Heavy, and +20% for Extra Heavy (the default for Force Field). Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
As for sensory effects, for a game that isn't too serious you can either ignore it or come up with an explanation ("It looked like my character was swimming through the pool of acid because my power was playing tricks on everyone - I actually found a safe ledge I could cross, but still got some acid on me"). For a more serious one, a Limitation to not work against indiscriminate attacks would be appropriate for such a power. Quote:
One thing to keep in mind with sensory effects - if my power is causing you to think I'm half a yard away from my actual position, it doesn't matter how skilled of a shot you are - what matters is if my power makes the mistake of projecting my location as still being in line with my body (such that your arrow goes through the projection and hits me, rather than being harmlessly aimed to my right). That is why a straight percentage miss chance is more appropriate than a to-hit penalty. |
|||||
11-26-2016, 10:38 AM | #30 | |||
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Saskatoon, SK, Canada
|
Re: Injury Tolerance: Blur
Do you mean here that it wouldn't have it?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||
Tags |
injury tolerance, insubstantiality, powers |
|
|