Example of Modified Attack in error? Poison Bite. Help!

[Rick_Smith]

Hi Everyone.
I'm playing GURPS Space and wanted to make an alien race. They evolved from an animal with fangs with poison, so I decided to give them fangs and venom. This proved to be WAY more complicated than I expected.

After going around in circles for a while, I found Examples of Modified Attacks on page 114 of the Basic Rules (4th edition). Quoting from the book, it says:

Poison Bite: Sharp Teeth [1], plus Toxic Attack 2d (Cyclic, 1 hour, 5 cycles, resistible, +40%; Follow Up, Sharp Teeth, +0%; Resistible, HT–3, –15%) [10].

OK. Let's figure out this example.
Sharp Teeth [1] is from the Teeth advantage (page 91). I understand this.

Toxic Attack? This is not in the index. Affliction (page 35) does not seem to apply since Affliction is a ranged attack. Innate Attack (page 61) also does not seem to apply, since it is also a ranged attack. However, it does have a Toxic attack which costs 4 points per level. Innate attacks do 1 die of damage per level, so if I use Innate Attack, It would cost [8] points.

If I put a limitation on a ranged attack, that it can not be used at range, but only in close combat, it should presumably be cheaper than the ranged version, but this example does not have anything like that.

Cyclic (page 103):
-- 1 hour (+20% more expensive = x1.2)
-- 5 cycles. (Four extra attacks cost x4)
-- resistible. (if it is resistible at all, cost is 1/2.)
OK, 1.2 x 4 x 0.5 = 2.4 = 3.40%. This is WAY off.
I think that they might have thought that 1 hour would be 20% cheaper so x0.8. But that does not work either.

Resistible HT (page 115). Resitable HT –3: costs 15% less, or a x 0.85.

I presume that HT –3 means you make a heath roll with a –3 modifier to the dice roll.
Is that is right?
Pretty easy HT roll, but 2 dice of toxic damage is nothing to sneeze at.

Follow Up (page 105) says sharp Teeth are +0% for innate attacks for teeth, claws, etc. OK, I understand why this is listed as a +0%.

The total is [10] points.

***

Let's assume that I'm correct that I should use the cost of a toxic attack as an Affliction, which would cost [8] points.

([1] +[8]) x (2.4) x 0.85 = [18.36] character points so we are off.

If we assume teeth don't get added on until the end we get:
[8] x (2.4) x 0.85 = [16.32] + [1] = [17.32] points so we are still off.

Also, I am pretty sure that I shouldn't be using the Innate Attack advantage since it is a ranged attack in the first place, and I want to model a bite. I looked thru the Limitations to advantages (page 110) and tried to find something that turned ranged attacks into non-ranged ones. My first thought was Accessibility (page 110).

Make the Accessibility rule "Only in close combat"? Innate Attack is good out to 100 hexes, so "Only in close combat" is 100 times less useful, so 100 times cheaper? That sounds too cheap. Innate Attack has 1/2 damage range of 10 yards, so being conservative, "Only in close combat" should be 10 times cheaper?

However, Melee Attack (page 112) says that it turns the attack into a Melee attack which can be used to Parry, Feint, use Rapid Strike, etc. It does not really make sense to parry blows with fangs. But this seems to be the closest fit, so the limitation "Close combat only", would be a 30% cost reduction. However, the example in the book does not list Melee attack. I think they are assuming "Poison Bite" is a ranged attack.

Reduced Range (page 115) is –30% for 10 times shorter range. No listing for 100 times shorter range.

***

Any insight on what I am misunderstanding would be greatly appreciated. Or maybe they just made a mistake in this example?

Warm regards, Rick.

[Ulzgoroth]

Okay, in order:

Toxic attack is Innate Attack with toxic damage. Follow-up completely removes the considerations of modifying its range, see the follow-up modifier.

Cyclic...what did you do? You converted 20% into 1.2 for some reason, then...okay I actually have no idea what you did to get to 3.4%, that seems pure gibberish. You should have done neither of those things. 20% cost base * 4 extra cycles * 0.5 (resistable) = 40% enhancement price exactly per the writeup.

Resistant: I'm not sure why you think HT-3 is an easy roll.

[Varyon]

You do not turn Enhancements and Limitations into multipliers until the very end. +20% isn't x1.2, it's just +20%, and then you modify that - x4 makes it +80%, x0.5 makes that +40%. Once you have all the modifiers in place, you simply add them together, then convert that into a multiplier. In this case, you have +40%, +0%, and -15%, for a total of +25%; this becomes x1.25, and thus [8] (for 2d tox) becomes [10].

There exists an optional rule, I believe in Powers, called Multiplicative Modifiers that does convert +n% into a multiplier, but not in the way you're doing it here. With that, you add up all the Enhancements normally, then add up all the Limitations normally, convert each result to a multiplier, then apply both. So if the above also had Cosmic +50% to allow it to affect unliving targets but also had Takes Recharge, 5 seconds -10% making it so you can only use it once every 5 seconds, then under the default system that would be +50% +40% +0% -15% -10% = +65%, for x1.65 and [13.2] (round up to [14]). With Multiplicative Modifiers, you'd instead have +50% +40% = +90%, or x1.9, as well as -15% -10% = -25%, or x0.75. [8]*1.9*0.75 = [11.4] (round up to [12]).

As Ulzgoroth notes, you do indeed use Innate Attack here. Yes, the default for that is a ranged attack, but it can be modified into a melee one - typically with the Melee Attack Limitation, but making it a Follow-Up to a natural weapon automatically makes it melee with the same Reach as the natural weapon.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Varyon

You do not turn Enhancements and Limitations into multipliers until the very end. +20% isn't x1.2, it's just +20%, and then you modify that - x4 makes it +80%, x0.5 makes that +40%. Once you have all the modifiers in place, you simply add them together, then convert that into a multiplier. In this case, you have +40%, +0%, and -15%, for a total of +25%; this becomes x1.25, and thus [8] (for 2d tox) becomes [10].
...

Hi Varyon.
Thanks for the reply! It is appreciated!

Your explanation works with this example, but is that the way it is done everywhere?


Let's try some other examples:
Dragon's Breath: Burning attack 4d (Cone 5 yards, +100%, Limited Use 3/day, –20%, Reduced Range x1/5, –20%) [32]

A burning attack in Innate Attacks is [5] / die.
Cone 5 hexes wide at maximum extent +50% + (10% x 5) = +100%. Check.
Limited use 3 or 4 times a day = –20%. This checks the rules.
Reduced Range (page 115) has 1/5 range for 20% off. This looks good, but the regular range of an innate attack is 100 yards. 1/5 of that is 20 yards, not the 5 yards from the Dragon's breath. Hmmm....

Well, let's ignore that, and check the math: [5] * 4 dice = [20]
+100% –20% –20% = +60% = x1.60.

[20] x 1.6 = [32]. Correct.


Hand of Death: Toxic Attack 6d (Contact Agent, –30%, Costs Fatigue, 2 FP, –10%, Delay Variable, +20%, Low Signature +10%, Melee Attack, Reach C, –30%, Resistible, HT –4, –10%) [12]

Innate Attack: Toxic [4] / damage so [24].
Contact Agent: –30%. Check.
Costs Fatigue: –10%. Check.
Delay Variable: +20%. Check.
Low Signature: +10%. Check.
Melee Attack: –30%. Check.
Resistible: –10%. Check.

–30% –10% +20% +10% –30% –10% = –50% = x 0.5

[24] x 0.5 = [12]. checks.


OK, I understand how this works now.

Thank you very much, Varyon, for your courtesy and quick reply.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Okay, in order:

Toxic attack is Innate Attack with toxic damage. Follow-up completely removes the considerations of modifying its range, see the follow-up modifier.

Cyclic...what did you do? You converted 20% into 1.2 for some reason, then...okay I actually have no idea what you did to get to 3.4%, that seems pure gibberish. You should have done neither of those things. 20% cost base * 4 extra cycles * 0.5 (resistable) = 40% enhancement price exactly per the writeup.

Resistant: I'm not sure why you think HT-3 is an easy roll.

Hi Ulzgoroth, thanks for the quick reply. You have 3 points:

Point 1:
Follow-up. This explains why there is no modifier for range. I think what is going on, is that the bite does its damage, then the poison ignores range.

I was thinking, if I'm going to pay for an Innate Attack (which is ranged) which does 2 dice toxic damage, why pay full price for it when it is only close combat? The reason is the damage done by the sting of the fangs.

In other words:
-- If we have a snake with laser beam eyes that shoot 2 dice of toxic damage at long range, this power costs a total of [8] points.

-- If we have a snake with fangs [2] points, which does 2 dice of toxic damage at close combat range (if it penetrates armour). If it does (say) 1d of small piercing damage then it does that PLUS 2 dice of toxic damage for a total cost of [8] +[2] = [10] points.

The first example is a FAR more efficient use of character points. The discrepancy made me think that there was something missing from the example. I forgot the snake bite damage would equal things up a bit.


Point 2:
20% of something is equal to x 0.2. However, the table in Cyclic (page 104) does not say it is 20% of the base cost, it says it is "+20%". Adding 20% on to something is the same as multiplying by 1.2.

1.2 * 4 * 0.5 = 2.4

If you increase something by 100%, then that is x2. (Multiply 2 by 100 then subtract 100% to convert.)
If you increase something by 340%, then that is x4.4. (Multiply 4.4 by 100, then subtract 100% to convert.)

You are right, 340% is gibberish, I added 100% in my conversion of x2.4 rather than subtracting 100%.


So if you are right, I think that the error in the example is that the cost should be 20% rather than +20% on that table on page 104.


Point 3:
So a roll of: HT –3 is rolling 3 dice verses Your HT –3, and not rolling 3 dice, subtracting three and comparing the result to HT. I thought it was the first way at first, but it seemed really cheap to get such a tough roll.

A HT –5 roll costs only –5% (times 0.95) seems REALLY good. Actually, thinking about it, it does makes sense; you pay almost full price for an almost 100% chance of succeeding, but as the modifier gets weaker (so your victim has a better chance of making the resistance roll) the cost of the effect gets cheaper. OK, that is cleaned up.

***

Getting back to the example on page 114, the cost for the Poison Bite totals out at [11] character points. [1] for the sharp teeth, and [10] for the poison special effect.

Thanks for the help!

Warm regards, Rick.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Ulzgoroth, thanks for the quick reply. You have 3 points:

Point 1:
Follow-up. This explains why there is no modifier for range. I think what is going on, is that the bite does its damage, then the poison ignores range.

I was thinking, if I'm going to pay for an Innate Attack (which is ranged) which does 2 dice toxic damage, why pay full price for it when it is only close combat? The reason is the damage done by the sting of the fangs.

In other words:
-- If we have a snake with laser beam eyes that shoot 2 dice of toxic damage at long range, this power costs a total of [8] points.

-- If we have a snake with fangs [2] points, which does 2 dice of toxic damage at close combat range (if it penetrates armour). If it does (say) 1d of small piercing damage then it does that PLUS 2 dice of toxic damage for a total cost of [8] +[2] = [10] points.

The first example is a FAR more efficient use of character points. The discrepancy made me think that there was something missing from the example. I forgot the snake bite damage would equal things up a bit.

So what you're actually paying for with Follow-Up is mainly that if the carrier attack penetrates armor, the follow-up attack bypasses the armor.

That's not necessarily actually a good deal! But it is the benefit.

Well, that and including Link I suppose.

EDIT: Really, in this case, it should probably be a limitation with the effect that your venom is useless if the bite doesn't penetrate. However, for a bunch of rules reasons you can't build that. The limitations that would make the venom not effective when applied externally are forbidden from combining with Follow-Up. Note that toxic damage doesn't have an intrinsic inability to penetrate armor! A small snake with this attack could bite somebody's arm, have the bite blocked by light armor, and have the venom damage overcome the armor and damage the victim...

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Point 2:
20% of something is equal to x 0.2. However, the table in Cyclic (page 104) does not say it is 20% of the base cost, it says it is "+20%". Adding 20% on to something is the same as multiplying by 1.2.

1.2 * 4 * 0.5 = 2.4

If you increase something by 100%, then that is x2. (Multiply 2 by 100 then subtract 100% to convert.)
If you increase something by 340%, then that is x4.4. (Multiply 4.4 by 100, then subtract 100% to convert.)

You are right, 340% is gibberish, I added 100% in my conversion of x2.4 rather than subtracting 100%.


So if you are right, I think that the error in the example is that the cost should be 20% rather than +20% on that table on page 104.

It's not a mistake in the rules, you're injecting an incorrect step into the instructions.

All modifiers are +X% or -X%. That doesn't mean you should add 1 to convert them to multipliers before doing any work with them. In fact, you shouldn't convert them to multipliers at all unless you're using an optional rule! Standard rules, modifiers combine additively to obtain a single +/-X% net modifier for an ability (at which point you do have to multiply by it one way or another.)

The instructions say to multiply and halve the cost of the enhancement. The cost of the enhancement is +20%. It is not 1.2.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

So what you're actually paying for with Follow-Up is mainly that if the carrier attack penetrates armor, the follow-up attack bypasses the armor.

That's not necessarily actually a good deal! But it is the benefit.

Well, that and including Link I suppose.

Of special note here is that the payload attack is dealing tox damage. While this isn't actually stated anywhere that I'm aware of, I believe toxic attacks are invariably assumed to be contact agents or blood agents; indeed, absent Follow-Up (which automatically makes it such, although again I don't think this is actually stated anywhere), toxic attacks are generally created with one of those Limitations. A benefit of making the Toxic Attack into a Follow-Up is that you now have a carrier attack that can get past DR, making it much easier to actually affect your target.

In this particular instance, if using the rules from GURPS Martial Arts, there's also an additional benefit - with those rules a bite can also be a grapple, and you can worry (basically, chew) each round you maintain such a grapple as a free action. So you could bite the foe and latch on, and then hit them with the Follow-Up (in addition to the damage from worrying) every round until you release them or they manage to break free.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Dragon's Breath: Burning attack 4d (Cone 5 yards, +100%, Limited Use 3/day, –20%, Reduced Range x1/5, –20%) [32]

A burning attack in Innate Attacks is [5] / die.
Cone 5 hexes wide at maximum extent +50% + (10% x 5) = +100%. Check.
Limited use 3 or 4 times a day = –20%. This checks the rules.
Reduced Range (page 115) has 1/5 range for 20% off. This looks good, but the regular range of an innate attack is 100 yards. 1/5 of that is 20 yards, not the 5 yards from the Dragon's breath. Hmmm....

It's a cone that is 5 yards wide and 20 yards long. The text never actually says what it's Range is; that 5 yard figure is only for the width of the cone. An argument could be made that the attack should be half damage beyond 2 yards (there's no Increased Range, 1/2D only, and Cone doesn't state that it boosts 1/2D to Max for free), but I don't think Cones normally work like that elsewhere in GURPS anyway, so it may just be that the text for Cone is incomplete.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Of special note here is that the payload attack is dealing tox damage. While this isn't actually stated anywhere that I'm aware of, I believe toxic attacks are invariably assumed to be contact agents or blood agents; indeed, absent Follow-Up (which automatically makes it such, although again I don't think this is actually stated anywhere), toxic attacks are generally created with one of those Limitations. A benefit of making the Toxic Attack into a Follow-Up is that you now have a carrier attack that can get past DR, making it much easier to actually affect your target.

Nope, there's absolutely no such rule and are a number of examples to the contrary. A number of kinds of more literal death touch/death ray are likely to be modeled as toxic damage.

I was able to quickly find examples in Psionic Powers and GURPS DF 3.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Ulzgoroth.

I'm not sure what your sentence with "including Link", means.

Link is an enhancement that lets you effectively couple two attacks so they're made as one. It is not quite the same as Follow-Up, you can check its rules yourself.

But the commonality of letting two separate attack effects be performed as one is what I was going for there.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Varyon

...

It's a cone that is 5 yards wide and 20 yards long. The text never actually says what it's Range is; that 5 yard figure is only for the width of the cone. An argument could be made that the attack should be half damage beyond 2 yards (there's no Increased Range, 1/2D only, and Cone doesn't state that it boosts 1/2D to Max for free), but I don't think Cones normally work like that elsewhere in GURPS anyway, so it may just be that the text for Cone is incomplete.

Hi Varyon,
I played a lot of GURPS 3rd edition, a long time ago. We are using it in a Space game and I'm getting to know the 4th edition rules. I had thought that Cones were always equilateral triangles (likely from some other game, possibly an easier version of GURPS). Thanks for clearing that up.

You are right about the 1/2 damage range being 2 yards making sense.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

So what you're actually paying for with Follow-Up is mainly that if the carrier attack penetrates armor, the follow-up attack bypasses the armor.

That's not necessarily actually a good deal! But it is the benefit.

Well, that and including Link I suppose.

EDIT: Really, in this case, it should probably be a limitation with the effect that your venom is useless if the bite doesn't penetrate. However, for a bunch of rules reasons you can't build that. The limitations that would make the venom not effective when applied externally are forbidden from combining with Follow-Up. Note that toxic damage doesn't have an intrinsic inability to penetrate armor! A small snake with this attack could bite somebody's arm, have the bite blocked by light armor, and have the venom damage overcome the armor and damage the victim...

...

Hi Ulzgoroth.

I'm not sure what your sentence with "including Link", means.

When I put in to my example "bite must penetrate and do damage before poison kicks in", I realized that the modifiers chosen didn't actually say that. But it didn't weaken the point I was making, so I left it in.

But as you point out, the way the modifiers are set up, so long as the snake HITS, then the toxic damage applies and might burn thru the armor (DR) unless you save vs HT! Kind of mind blowing, actually!

Thank you very much for your replies, it has been helpful. I now understand how this whole thing works.

Warm regards, Rick.