Affliction with Rapid Fire

[younglorax]

Is this legal? Can you apply the Rapid Fire enhancement to an Affliction, and require the target to roll HT for each shot that hits?

[PK]

Absolutely -- as long as you haven't added Malediction to it, an Affliction is a ranged, physical attack, and thus has all the normal ranged attack stats (RoF, Rcl, etc.). It is thus legal to modify those stats using any of the "attack" modifiers, including Rapid Fire.

For simplicity, I usually have the target roll once against HT+1-(number of attacks that hit) instead of rolling HT for each one, but that's a house rule for convenience, not an actual rule, since it does change the probability somewhat (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse; depends on the actual situation).

[younglorax]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Absolutely -- as long as you haven't added Malediction to it, an Affliction is a ranged, physical attack, and thus has all the normal ranged attack stats (RoF, Rcl, etc.). It is thus legal to modify those stats using any of the "attack" modifiers, including Rapid Fire.

For simplicity, I usually have the target roll once against HT+1-(number of attacks that hit) instead of rolling HT for each one, but that's a house rule for convenience, not an actual rule, since it does change the probability somewhat (sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse; depends on the actual situation).

Actually, the idea of that house rule is essentially why I was curious. Usually to get, say, a -5 to the HT roll you need to spend five times as many points. In this version, you are likely to get a -5 for just 7 more points -- even if the affliction itself is tremendously more than that.

Even if you were to use Kromm's suggestion that Affliction be 10 base, 2/level, you still wind up paying 20% of the total cost (after modifiers) by increasing the level, but a fixed cost by increasing RoF.

[SuedodeuS]

Originally Posted by younglorax

Actually, the idea of that house rule is essentially why I was curious. Usually to get, say, a -5 to the HT roll you need to spend five times as many points. In this version, you are likely to get a -5 for just 7 more points -- even if the affliction itself is tremendously more than that.

Even if you were to use Kromm's suggestion that Affliction be 10 base, 2/level, you still wind up paying 20% of the total cost (after modifiers) by increasing the level, but a fixed cost by increasing RoF.

Basing the cost of RoF on the entire ability after modifiers makes a good deal of sense to me. Of course, I do like the idea of a high RoF Affliction, where rolling high gives the target a greater penalty to resist.

[PK]

Originally Posted by younglorax

Actually, the idea of that house rule is essentially why I was curious. Usually to get, say, a -5 to the HT roll you need to spend five times as many points. In this version, you are likely to get a -5 for just 7 more points -- even if the affliction itself is tremendously more than that.

1. It's a house rule of mine, not the official rules, and it's not one that I use to make things more fair -- just simpler.

2. Don't compare apples and oranges. If you're going to compare, compare X and Y, where X is the probability of making several HT rolls in a row because you were hit by several Afflictions simultaneously due to the high rate of fire, and Y is the probability of making a single HT roll at a penalty equal to the number of Afflictions that hit past the first.

For example, say I hit you with three Afflictions and your HT is 15 (just to make up numbers). X would be 0.954^3, or 0.868. Y would be 0.838. So in this case, the house rule hurts the person. Now let's say I hit you with two Afflictions and your HT is 10 (just pulling more numbers out of the air). X would be 0.500^2, or 0.250, while Y would be 0.375. So in this case, the house rule helps the person. There's no real 'better' or 'worse' in this case -- the numbers end up being fairly comparable, but always a bit different.

Quite frankly, the value (in cost/benefit) of higher levels of Affliction is completely tangent to the issue of this house rule. Now, if you want to discuss the value of high-level Afflictions versus the value of high-RoF Afflictions, without getting that house rule involved, that's a fair discussion. But don't start bringing non-RAW stuff into it, or it just confuses the whole issue.

[Refplace]

I like that method based purely on it passing my plausability check.
If your hit with more does of a poison or drug it should be harder to resist IMHO.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Refplace

I like that method based purely on it passing my plausability check.
If your hit with more does of a poison or drug it should be harder to resist IMHO.

Obviously, that's achieved either way. 'You have to resist 10 times' is not the same as 'you have to resist at -9', but both are harder than 'you have to resist once'.

The canonical version is more compatible with afflictions that stack, but that's a fairly special case.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

For example, say I hit you with three Afflictions and your HT is 15 (just to make up numbers). X would be 0.954^3, or 0.868. Y would be 0.838. So in this case, the house rule hurts the person. Now let's say I hit you with two Afflictions and your HT is 10 (just pulling more numbers out of the air). X would be 0.500^2, or 0.250, while Y would be 0.375. So in this case, the house rule helps the person. There's no real 'better' or 'worse' in this case -- the numbers end up being fairly comparable, but always a bit different.

The only time I could see this being an issue is if someone combines Rapid Fire with Cumulative. ;)

[PK]

Originally Posted by cccwebs

The only time I could see this being an issue is if someone combines Rapid Fire with Cumulative. ;)

Yeah, no kidding -- but that would be an awesome build! :)

Too expensive, but awesome nonetheless.

Anyway, I only do it that way for simple, straightforward Afflictions. Anything funky or weird gets the full RAW treatment, of course. But that goes for so many GM calls in my games. There are plenty of situations where I'll simplify something just to streamline things, but I'm always willing to break out the full rules (even going to, say, tactical combat if necessary) if the situation calls for it.

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Yeah, no kidding -- but that would be an awesome build! :)

Too expensive, but awesome nonetheless.

Anyway, I only do it that way for simple, straightforward Afflictions. Anything funky or weird gets the full RAW treatment, of course. But that goes for so many GM calls in my games. There are plenty of situations where I'll simplify something just to streamline things, but I'm always willing to break out the full rules (even going to, say, tactical combat if necessary) if the situation calls for it.

I'm not so sure it's too expensive. From the munchkin perspective, using Rapid Fire (or better yet, Very Rapid Fire) is significantly less expensive (by RAW) than adding levels to Affliction, even when combined with Cumulative. It would be a headache to put into play though.