Pyramid #3/83: Alternate GURPS IV

[dfinlay]

So, I am totally squeeing about the new ST rules. ST not scaling the same as other attributes and very high ST being stupidly expensive is something that's bugged me for a while. I noticed something that's a bit concerning, though (unless I misunderstood something). Now that ST-damage is logarithmic with force, are the computations for things like bullet damage messed up, since they were worked out with the assumption that damage should be quadratic with energy?

Also, should SM no longer be a 0-point trait, now that in addition to doing all the great things when low that it's always done, it now doesn't even give it's benefits of ST cost reduction when high?

[weby]

Originally Posted by dfinlay

So, I am totally squeeing about the new ST rules. ST not scaling the same as other attributes and very high ST being stupidly expensive is something that's bugged me for a while.

Indeed, me too.

I noticed something that's a bit concerning, though (unless I misunderstood something). Now that ST-damage is logarithmic with force, are the computations for things like bullet damage messed up, since they were worked out with the assumption that damage should be quadratic with energy?

Actually no, now they balance better(Too early to say if it is just "better" or maybe even "well") The problem used to be that ST based weapons did way too much damage compared to things like firearms. Now the ST based damage is scaled down.

In the old scaling going from ST 10 to ST 20 you were *4 as strong(BL) but did *3.6 Swing damage(1d=3.5 average to 3d+2=12.5 average) Where in bullets and such making energy *4 makes for *2 damage.

Also, should SM no longer be a 0-point trait, now that in addition to doing all the great things when low that it's always done, it now doesn't even give it's benefits of ST cost reduction when high?

It depends really. In the basic set you could argue that larger SM is now a penalty to slightly more things that a bonus, but I have been using the "Combat writ large" in pyramid 77 and with those changes large SM seemed like a benefit. Combining that now with these rules seem on first reading to again balance it better. How much better... I do not know yet.

[vicky_molokh]

By first read, the LogST article (Knowing Your Strength) is awesome. Logarithmic lifting is something I wanted to see for quite some while. I'm mildly worried about it being inconsistent with the sqrt(E) calculation of damage now, but I haven't analysed the new damage table deeply (yet?). This is the foot-in-the-door of using alternate atribute mechanics for me - before this Thursday, I was highly reluctant to use anything other than the Basic Set rules for attributes (and almost everything else was meant to be B-consistent for me). Now I'm on the fence, and if I change one attribute, I might as well make some other changes, such as decoupling almost everything.
Oh, I'm also worried that the article further nerfed SM a little bit, which isn't a very good deal even with the ST discount.

I don't particularly agree with Pulver's HT article though. I see HT is largely a cool attribute already. And I would give up some significant points in order to be allowed to base guns on Per (i.e. I consider it very effective, with a [5/level] attribute like that!).

Also, the nontransitive dice article is really nice. I'm not sure where I could use it, but it's cool even as a theoretical exercise!

[mlangsdorf]

The new rules for gradual possession are great, but I am disappointed that Mind Control spells were not addressed in them.

I can cobble something together, but it would have been a strong article if spells had also been covered.

[Langy]

I'm a little concerned with the idea of basing an animal's ST on its weight; larger animals can not lift as much (compared to their body mass) as smaller animals. Ants can lift 10 times their weight; horses can not.

These rules work great for 'fantastic' creatures like giants or super-powered people, but I'm not sure they work out properly for elephants or horses or similar.

[Landwalker]

Originally Posted by ErhnamDJ

The new ST-based damage table seems fine for normal humans, at least for thrusting, as long as you no longer have weapons give their bonus to damage. A normal man can certainly thrust for the average of 1d-2 or even 1d if he's thrusting as hard as he can. The problem comes in when you hand him a naginata or a thrusting bastard sword and he jumps up to 1d+3 damage and becomes the bane of armored men everywhere.

If a man who is four times as strong should deal double the damage, then the way GURPS treats weapons, and other bonuses, such as that from All-Out Attack (Strong), is clearly problematic.

This was my reservation (and disappointment) as well—I had been hoping when I saw an article that finally addressed ST and damage that it would restore the relevance of armor as something other than a minor speed-bump. I appreciate what the article is trying to do and how it's going about it as a starting point, but unfortunately it doesn't resolve that issue (and with the change to thrust damage, might actually make it worse).

[wellspring]

A very exciting issue that'll take more than just one night to digest.

I do want to call out Brandon Moore for the fantastic art. Refocusing on art is a great editorial decision.

[mlangsdorf]

The solution to weapons overpenetrating armor is to increase armor DR and reduce weight. With Better Fantasy Armor, a full suit of head-to-toe heavy mail weighs ~55 lbs and gives DR 9/7*. If a typical knight has ST14, his broadsword is not penetrating that armor on a typical swing (especially if you also use the Edge Protection rule from Low-Tech, which isn't required but is advisable).

[Kromm]

FWIW, rethinking weapon damage and armor DR would be a separate article or three. The focus of mine was mostly to correct Basic Lift and encumbrance, rescaling ST to a level where you don't need three-figure values for living things. It's a partial patch with a narrow focus. Overhauling everything would take a few more pages than I was allocated. ;)

[Infornific]

Originally Posted by Langy

I'm a little concerned with the idea of basing an animal's ST on its weight; larger animals can not lift as much (compared to their body mass) as smaller animals. Ants can lift 10 times their weight; horses can not.

These rules work great for 'fantastic' creatures like giants or super-powered people, but I'm not sure they work out properly for elephants or horses or similar.

Strength (and plausibly ST) scales with animal mass. It's just not a one to one relationship - more like a 2^3 power relationship. The standard GURPS suggestion for ST fits this - base ST off of the cube root of weight which means that big creatures are stronger than small creatures but small creatures are stronger for their size. E.g., a human weighing 125 lbs has a ST of 10, a horse weighing 1,000 lbs has a ST of 20 - the horse is stronger but only 4x as strong in absolute terms despite having 8x the mass. I haven't read the log ST article but I'm guessing it follows the same guidelines.

The one thing that seems odd is that HP still seem to be based on a quadratic scale. I don't think you can cleanly map log ST to a GURPS damage system.