|
Related Topics:
| DE GAULLE Class Imperial Attack/Patrol Submarine (late 21C.. - The DE GAULLE Class Imperial Automated Attack Submarine is one of the Empire's most weapon Of the major naval powers of the late 21C, only the Empire uses purely automated the other major powers, while
damage scales - A friend and I were recently the damage scale that the old West End Games Star Wars system used. Differing levels, from personal, to to to capital vessel, to Death Star. (I might be something in the mix, but..
Deliberate amnesia? - Hey gang, I'm trying to figure out how to represent (in 3ed, if possible, but I can backdate a 4ed mechanic if a case of amnesia where the character has and erased his own past from his memory. It's a TL 3 society..
TEMPLATE: Tough Mer ( as in... Mermaid Duuh!)GURPS - TEMPLATE: Tough Mer (Mermaid) All 11 or above cost 60 points ((Mer genetic weeding is done by GREAT WHITE SHARKS, & cost 10 points,DR 5 scales cost 25 (no they are NOT turtle shell I just checked),
A Song Of Ice And Fire's Dire Wolves template - As per subject, I'm trying to build a Dire Wolf PC for a campaign in the setting of A Song Of Ice And Fire, the popular book by Martin. I'll build this racial template, but since I've not a great knowledge of the book series, I'd ask help from you in..
|
|
|
Next: GURPS: Action Is The Key
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 8:30 am
Post subject: Totally abusive Innate Attack
Archived from groups: rec>games>frp>gurps (more info?)
|
|
|
Be it noted that I am one of those who doesn't actually _play_ GURPS.
I just buy the books and wish I were playing.  Furthermore, I'm sort
of a wargamer at heart. Mysteries kind of bore me, to the extent that
I'd rather focus on areas where options and effects are clear and rule-
based, like well-defined economic systems or combat.
So I'm currently writing up my own little version of GURPS as an
unsophisticated computer game (in Python), kind of reminiscent of the
old Gold Box D&D games. You go here, you talk to this person, a fight
starts. You get treasure, you get CP. You go somewhere else. It's
actually more of an adventure game designer, with built-in random
dungeon generation a la Roguelikes or Silmar. Point being, I've
decided that "magic items" will take the form of enabling characters
to purchase exotic or supernatural traits that they could not
otherwise have. I.e. you can find a magic ring that makes you
Invisible, but it still costs you 40 points to learn to _use_ it. (I'm
ignoring the options like Switchable, etc., for the moment, just as
I'm ignoring the fact that it requires equipment. Those considerations
won't affect the game and so are 0-point.)
Thus, I'm currently mining the books for interesting advantages to
build into treasure, and I've discovered what probably doesn't
surprise many people: Enhancements and Limitations on Innate Attack
have totally abusive potential. (This is somewhat inspired by a
"Totally Abusive Assassination Special" which was a 1-point,
corrosive, cyclic attack that took 50 days to kill anyone but was
basically unstoppable.)
Innate attack, 1d-2 burning [base 5*0.4 = 2]
Acc 10 [+50%]
Armor divisor 10 [+200%]
Range x50 [+50%]
ROF 1x300 [+300%]
At ranges under 50 yards, this is a (150d-300 equals) 83d-2(1/15)
burning attack with Acc 10, by the rules for Shotgun Projectiles.
That's about 288 points of damage, so anything with less than 19 DR is
essentially hamburger. Total cost: 14 points. For an extra point I
could make this attack explosive.
Obviously I'm not going to write this ability up and add it to my
game. But it's no wonder I've never delved into the Enhancements/
Limitations before; they appear to be totally broken in terms of point
values. It's possible that GURPS Powers deals with this.
-Max |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 1:33 pm
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 8, 8:30 am, Max Wilson <wilson.....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> At ranges under 50 yards, this is a (150d-300 equals) 83d-2(1/15)
> burning attack with Acc 10, by the rules for Shotgun Projectiles.
> That's about 288 points of damage, so anything with less than 19 DR is
My bad on the math: it actually converts to 65d-2, about 225 points of
damage. So you only need about 15 DR to survive it. Of course, with
Acc 10 it's not too much trouble to aim the attack at, say, eyeslits.
And another 10 points of Acc only costs 1 point.
-Max |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 8, 3:45 pm, Jefferson <Jeff_Wilso... DeleteThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:
> While I'm not up on the Shotgun rules, I do know they've been
> heavily errataed. Can you point to the section that gives the
> (1/15) armor modifier? That is definitely _way_ too low, most
> likely because the rules are assuming a pi- attack not a burn. I
> also don't see where your (150d-300) is coming from.
I'm AFB, but I think it's page 409 of Campaigns. Shotgun and other
multi-pellet projectile weapons, when used at under 10% of their 1/2 D
range, strike at a single projectile instead of an autofire attack.
The example used is Father O'Leary firing his 3x9 shotgun at a demon.
Multiply damage of one projectile by half the number of pellets in the
attack, and multiply DR on the target by the same amount. In Father
O'Leary's case, this means each shot does 4x the damage of a single
shotgun pellet, and the demon's DR goes up by 4x as well, to IIRC 12.
In this case, a 1d-2(10) attack is multiplied by 150 for 150d-300
(which converts to 65d-2 by the +7 = 2d simplification rule). DR of 10
would go up to DR 1500, which is divided by the armor divisor of 10 to
yield effectively DR 150. That's mathematically equivalent to leaving
the DR at 10, but changing the armor divisor from (10) to (1/15), so I
wrote it that way. Either way, DR 10 is going to take about 75 points
of damage from this blast.
-Max >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:45 pm
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Max Wilson wrote:
> Innate attack, 1d-2 burning [base 5*0.4 = 2]
> Acc 10 [+50%]
> Armor divisor 10 [+200%]
> Range x50 [+50%]
> ROF 1x300 [+300%]
>
> At ranges under 50 yards, this is a (150d-300 equals) 83d-2(1/15)
> burning attack with Acc 10, by the rules for Shotgun Projectiles.
> That's about 288 points of damage, so anything with less than 19 DR is
> essentially hamburger. Total cost: 14 points. For an extra point I
> could make this attack explosive.
While I'm not up on the Shotgun rules, I do know they've been
heavily errataed. Can you point to the section that gives the
(1/15) armor modifier? That is definitely _way_ too low, most
likely because the rules are assuming a pi- attack not a burn. I
also don't see where your (150d-300) is coming from.
--
Jefferson
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Thu Jan 10, 2008 2:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Okay, the most abusive version I've come up with yet:
Innate attack, 1-point pi- [base cost: 1]
Acc 30 [+150%]
Ignores DR [Cosmic, +300%]
Range x50 [+50%]
ROF 1x300 [+300%]
Now, with a one-second Aim manuever, you can do 600 points of damage
to anybody within 50 yards by hitting them in the eyes. (pi- goes up
to x4 damage for eye attacks, just like anything else.) If they're
within 3 miles, you can still probably hit them with 10-20 attacks
using the regular Autofire mode, because of the Acc 30. Even if you
don't aim, you can hit anybody within 50 yards for 75 points of damage
in the torso. Cost: 8 points.
I'm having fun, in a sick sort of way. For 24 points this would be
doing 2100 points of damage on an eye-shot. That's cheaper than all
but the single-weapon variant of Weapon Master.
-Max >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 11, 2008
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:37 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
personally i would not use the +7 = 2d simplification rule.
i would apply a multiplier. 150d+300 -> 5d-10 * 30
this would lead to an average damage roll of 225 (ok, pretty high)
but with a chance to do NULL damage.
Just my two cent
-Jan >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:04 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Max Wilson wrote:
> On Jan 8, 3:45 pm, Jefferson <Jeff_Wilso....RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>While I'm not up on the Shotgun rules, I do know they've been
>>heavily errataed. Can you point to the section that gives the
>>(1/15) armor modifier? That is definitely _way_ too low, most
>>likely because the rules are assuming a pi- attack not a burn. I
>>also don't see where your (150d-300) is coming from.
>
> I'm AFB, but I think it's page 409 of Campaigns. Shotgun and other
> multi-pellet projectile weapons, when used at under 10% of their 1/2 D
> range, strike at a single projectile instead of an autofire attack.
> The example used is Father O'Leary firing his 3x9 shotgun at a demon.
> Multiply damage of one projectile by half the number of pellets in the
> attack, and multiply DR on the target by the same amount. In Father
> O'Leary's case, this means each shot does 4x the damage of a single
> shotgun pellet, and the demon's DR goes up by 4x as well, to IIRC 12.
>
> In this case, a 1d-2(10) attack is multiplied by 150 for 150d-300
> (which converts to 65d-2 by the +7 = 2d simplification rule). DR of 10
> would go up to DR 1500, which is divided by the armor divisor of 10 to
> yield effectively DR 150. That's mathematically equivalent to leaving
> the DR at 10, but changing the armor divisor from (10) to (1/15), so I
> wrote it that way. Either way, DR 10 is going to take about 75 points
> of damage from this blast.
I think the issue here is the armor divisor. In my game I'd
resolve it by dividing the armor divisor by the close range
multiplier to a minimum value of 1. Since 10/150 is less than
one that leaves the DR at 1500 which means no damage is going to
get through.
Any system breaks down at the edges, but this isn't a difficult
problem to fix. I'll send in an errata notice and see what happens.
--
Jefferson
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/fiction/ >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 5:40 pm
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 23, 6:04 am, Jefferson <Jeff_Wilso....RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Max Wilson wrote:
> > In this case, a 1d-2(10) attack is multiplied by 150 for 150d-300
> > (which converts to 65d-2 by the +7 = 2d simplification rule). DR of 10
> > would go up to DR 1500, which is divided by the armor divisor of 10 to
> > yield effectively DR 150. That's mathematically equivalent to leaving
> > the DR at 10, but changing the armor divisor from (10) to (1/15), so I
> > wrote it that way. Either way, DR 10 is going to take about 75 points
> > of damage from this blast.
>
> I think the issue here is the armor divisor. In my game I'd
> resolve it by dividing the armor divisor by the close range
> multiplier to a minimum value of 1. Since 10/150 is less than
> one that leaves the DR at 1500 which means no damage is going to
> get through.
>
> Any system breaks down at the edges, but this isn't a difficult
> problem to fix. I'll send in an errata notice and see what happens.
"...dividing the armor divisor by the close range multiplier to a
minimum value of 1." I must be stupid today, but I can't parse this. I
think you're saying the armor divisor should be (1) instead of (1/15),
but that just makes the problem worse. Now you're taking 65d-2 (1) to
your DR 10 armor, which results in 200+ points of damage.
I don't think it's an issue with the armor divisor. You could get the
same effect by taking Cosmic [+300%, Ignores DR]--blech, I hate Cosmic
and think most Cosmic enhancements would need careful vetting by the
GM as opposed to a flat +300%--or taking Corrosive damage. I think
it's a problem with Autofire being too cheap. ROF x300 for +300% is a
hundred times more effective than it's costly. In the normal, Rcl-
limited case this isn't an issue because more rounds have little
effect other than boosting your to-hit a little bit; but the minute
you switch to something like multiple projectiles or area effect or
Fragmentation (IIRC even misses scatter fragments) Autofire is too
cheap. It would be more fair to make ROF x300 cost +3000%, with a
point break if your misses have no effect (no area effect, no
fragmentation, etc.) like a normal bullet.
To put it another way, this whole abusive thread was spawned from me
noticing that ROF 1x300 explicitly costs exactly the same as ROF
300x1. That's a no-brainer exploit--other ways of abusing ROF would
take at least SOME thought.
-Max >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Jan 28, 2008 11:23 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Max Wilson wrote:
> On Jan 23, 6:04 am, Jefferson <Jeff_Wilso... DeleteThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>Max Wilson wrote:
>>I think the issue here is the armor divisor. In my game I'd
>>resolve it by dividing the armor divisor by the close range
>>multiplier to a minimum value of 1. Since 10/150 is less than
>>one that leaves the DR at 1500 which means no damage is going to
>>get through.
>>
>>Any system breaks down at the edges, but this isn't a difficult
>>problem to fix. I'll send in an errata notice and see what happens.
>
> "...dividing the armor divisor by the close range multiplier to a
> minimum value of 1." I must be stupid today, but I can't parse this. I
> think you're saying the armor divisor should be (1) instead of (1/15),
No. I'm saying the armor divisor should be (1) instead of (10).
If the close range multiplier were 4 instead of 150 the armor
divisor would be (10/4) = (2.5). This does have the problem that
the target now takes _no_ damage when realistically it should
take some, but it should still work well in most cases.
> but that just makes the problem worse. Now you're taking 65d-2 (1) to
> your DR 10 armor, which results in 200+ points of damage.
--
Jefferson
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2008 4:06 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 28, 10:23 am, Jefferson <Jeff_Wilso....RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Max Wilson wrote:
> > "...dividing the armor divisor by the close range multiplier to a
> > minimum value of 1." I must be stupid today, but I can't parse this. I
> > think you're saying the armor divisor should be (1) instead of (1/15),
>
> No. I'm saying the armor divisor should be (1) instead of (10).
> If the close range multiplier were 4 instead of 150 the armor
> divisor would be (10/4) = (2.5). This does have the problem that
> the target now takes _no_ damage when realistically it should
> take some, but it should still work well in most cases.
Well, it's up to you, but to me that doesn't make any sense. Why would
an armor-piercing attack be less effective just because it's at close
range? The damage multiplier is just a way of noting that multiple
projectiles are launched on the same trajectory, so either most of
them hit or none of them hit--but that shouldn't somehow lessen the
effectiveness of the ones that *do* hit.
As noted, this doesn't stop somebody from using corrosive damage
(basic damage destroys DR) or Cosmic [ignores DR] either.
-Max >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:11 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 30, 2:22 am, tussock <sc... RemoveThis @clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Everyone knows accuracy only lets you cancel range penalties, not
> help with hitting difficult targets.
That turns out not to be the case. It may be that I'm overlooking a
rule somewhere about accuracy _also_ cancelling out range penalties,
but 4E Characters says that weapon Accuracy is added to your skill
when you take a one-second Aim maneuver first.
> > Range x50 [+50%]
>
> As if range ever matters.
Without it, the "shotgun blast" effect only happens at a distance of 1
yard.
> The GM figures out you've really picked up a 6dx4 short range
> automatic damage with a 1 second recharge, and sets a point cost
> appropriately.
I AM the GM, and I've said all along that I would never, ever write
this up as an advantage and allow it.
-Max >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 23, 2007
Posts: 34
|
(Msg. 12) Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 8:19 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Jan 30, 8:05 am, Jefferson <Jeff_Wilso... RemoveThis @bigfoot.com> wrote:
> Max Wilson wrote:
>
> > Well, it's up to you, but to me that doesn't make any sense. Why would
> > an armor-piercing attack be less effective just because it's at close
> > range? The damage multiplier is just a way of noting that multiple
> > projectiles are launched on the same trajectory, so either most of
> > them hit or none of them hit--but that shouldn't somehow lessen the
> > effectiveness of the ones that *do* hit.
>
> That's just the point. The standard rules magnify the
> effectivenesss, reducing the armor divisor puts the effect back down.
The rules don't magnify the effectiveness of the armor divisor, they
alter the way ROF works to make it an all-or-nothing proposition. The
"correct" response to the rule change you've just proposed is to
either buy Cosmic [ignores DR] or a Corrosive attack with ROF 3x100.
It will be slightly more expensive than the pi- version, but each shot
degrades 7 or 8 points of DR so the third one will do the full 70 pts.
I think reducing the effectiveness of the armor divisor at short range
is optimizing the wrong thing, as well as unrealistic.
-Max >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Nov 06, 2004
Posts: 108
|
(Msg. 13) Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 9:05 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Max Wilson wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:23 am, Jefferson <Jeff_Wilso....RemoveThis@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>>No. I'm saying the armor divisor should be (1) instead of (10).
>> If the close range multiplier were 4 instead of 150 the armor
>>divisor would be (10/4) = (2.5). This does have the problem that
>>the target now takes _no_ damage when realistically it should
>>take some, but it should still work well in most cases.
>
> Well, it's up to you, but to me that doesn't make any sense. Why would
> an armor-piercing attack be less effective just because it's at close
> range? The damage multiplier is just a way of noting that multiple
> projectiles are launched on the same trajectory, so either most of
> them hit or none of them hit--but that shouldn't somehow lessen the
> effectiveness of the ones that *do* hit.
That's just the point. The standard rules magnify the
effectivenesss, reducing the armor divisor puts the effect back down.
--
Jefferson
http://www.meanspc.com/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/ >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 16, 2004
Posts: 1280
|
(Msg. 14) Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:41 am
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:22:14 +1300, tussock wrote:
> Max Wilson wrote:
>
>> Okay, the most abusive version I've come up with yet:
>>
>> Innate attack, 1-point pi- [base cost: 1] Acc 30 [+150%]
>
> Everyone knows accuracy only lets you cancel range penalties, not
> help with hitting difficult targets.
That's not the case. Acc adds to your hit chance when you aim.
>> Ignores DR [Cosmic, +300%]
>
> Fine.
>
>> Range x50 [+50%]
>
> As if range ever matters.
The 1/2D range of an Innate Attack starts at only 10 yards. I think 500
yards is probably more than one will usually need, but less than 100
yards is asking for it.
--
Rupert Boleyn <rboleyn DeleteThis @paradise.net.nz> >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Apr 28, 2004
Posts: 1013
|
(Msg. 15) Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:22 pm
Post subject: Re: Totally abusive Innate Attack [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Max Wilson wrote:
> Okay, the most abusive version I've come up with yet:
>
> Innate attack, 1-point pi- [base cost: 1] Acc 30 [+150%]
Everyone knows accuracy only lets you cancel range penalties, not
help with hitting difficult targets.
> Ignores DR [Cosmic, +300%]
Fine.
> Range x50 [+50%]
As if range ever matters.
> ROF 1x300 [+300%]
Expensive, really.
> Now, with a one-second Aim manuever,
The GM figures out you've really picked up a 6dx4 short range
automatic damage with a 1 second recharge, and sets a point cost
appropriately.
Same for the bad man with the automatic weapon, I know. Oh, wait,
GURPS, not Heroes. 8]
> Cost: 8 points.
At least 60 or so, dude, or fix the problem rules.
As a quick fix for the shotgun rule, throw it away. Then you'll be
doing a little more reasonable amounts, even with accurate cosmic
autofire.
--
tussock
Zzzzzzzzzz... uh, wha? What the hell? I was sleeping, bugger off. >> Stay informed about: Totally abusive Innate Attack |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
