Is there a Limitation to Change a Resistance Quick Contest into a Resistance Roll

[Kallatari]

What's the modifier for changing an ability that normally requires a resistance quick contest (e.g., Mind Control of your IQ vs their Will) into an ordinary unopposed resistance roll (e.g., they only need to succeed their Will roll to resist)?

Does such a modifier exist? How would you price it if you made it yourself?

[Christopher R. Rice]

Originally Posted by Kallatari

What's the modifier for changing an ability that normally requires a resistance quick contest (e.g., Mind Control of your IQ vs their Will) into an ordinary unopposed resistance roll (e.g., they only need to succeed their Will roll to resist)?

Does such a modifier exist? How would you price it if you made it yourself?

Weaponized on p. 21 of GURPS Psionic Powers sounds like it fits the bill.

[Blind Mapmaker]

Weaponized is also on p. 19 of Power-Ups 8: Limitations. Though if you give a large enough penalty to the roll it can be +0%. I'm in two minds about making it that cheap. Yes, it does turn the attack visible and able to be dodged, but you could always take No Signature for that.

As it is the limitation seems designed for higher-powered play. If everyone has stats in the 14 to 18 range, even rolling at a -5 penalty won't mean much of a chance of success compared to a (possibly skill-based) quick-contest that's playing to your strengths:

An attribute level of 16 rolling -5 means 36.5% the attack sticks, while a quick contest of 18 vs. 16 would mean 63.8% chance. That's assuming you can hit the target in the first place, of course.

While that seems a little underwhelming for the cost even, things change dramatically at lower levels. If everybody in the 10-13 attribute range, the limitation really enhances your power, provided you can hit.

An attribute level of 12 rolling -5 means 83.8% the attack sticks, while a quick contest of 15 vs. 12 would mean 71.5% chance.

There's still the crux of first having to hit and the drawback of the visibility, but for a tailored ability you're arguably getting a bit more bang for your buck, but as the campaign's power level ramps up it will be less and less useful.

Not sure what to do about that, but I felt like this was one of the cases where utility depends extremely on the exact stat range.

If you make it an unpenalised roll, though, the limitation becomes really crippling fast, even with armour being ineffective.

[Kallatari]

I've been thinking this one over a bit.

Weaponized would be -50% if DR has no effect. But I now need to make a hit roll, and it can be dodged. It also creates a 1/2D range after which opponents get a +3 to resist. If I don't want a hit roll, that would then require adding Cosmic: No Attack Roll, +100%, turning it into a +50% enhancement, and it still leaves them a dodge and possibly +3 to resist if past the half-damage range.

That approach leaves me adding in a whole bunch of modifiers to the modifiers to make it work, and it would still likely end up being an enhancement rather than a limitation.

Looking at the math-based approach, I agree with Blind Mapmaker that the exact probabilities can vary according to the anticipated range of attribute... but should that really change the cost of the trait? The Resistible limitation (p.B115) doesn't change cost based on the value range of the attributes of potential subjects, it just has a flat cost for being resistible, modifier by the penalty/bonus to the roll.

But your post did make me think of Accessibility. So, let's assume statistically average levels for the subjects resistance: 10. That means that 50% of the people will resist, and 50% will fail. If that were an Accessibility, that would be a -20% limitation if you can only get your ability to work half of the time.

Granted, technically some people may have been able to resist before, so it's not as if you are going from works 100% of the time to only 50%, but the exact decrease is also highly variable based on your own attributes or skill.. and those will change over time. So I'm thinking of ignoring this minor detail for simplicity's sake.

So I'm actually leaning toward making this a -20% limitation, to match the value of an accessibility that works half the time. (I haven't completely ruled out making it only -15% since it wasn't all the time before, but I'm not sure this is worth noting, thus for now I'm still at the -20%).