>>98598164
>Thread question: What GURPS advantage would you most want to have in real life?
Innate attack, preferably with a combination of enhancements (e.g. Malediction and No Signature) that let me kill people who annoy me without getting caught.

>>98598164
Unaging.

File: b349bf.jpg (84 KB, 873x916)

84 KB JPG

>>98598182
>tfw the guy you attacked in public keeps succeeding his death save and you're praying he hits -5x HP before someone finds you with his unconscious body

>>98598164
Cosmic Power. Even if I only get a single 1-point slot, I'd figure some way to be creative with it. But if I'm allowed to use Power Stunts, then even better.

File: South Park S8E1.gif (523 KB, 640x360)

523 KB GIF

>>98598548

>>98598164
If were going high end Warp

Low end, a few levels of independent income would be nice

File: succ.gif (16 KB, 468x60)

16 KB GIF

>>98598164
My budget build: Allies (5% power; roll of 12 or less; Minion, +50%; Summonable, +100%) [1].

>>98598164
>Thread question: What GURPS advantage would you most want to have in real life?
Probably the highest level of Wealth allowable.
>>98598209
This is better, though.

>>98598164
>TQ
Could go with some really tricked out Patron advantage.

>>98598164
Jumper (Time) would be a risky but op one. Going to the future, getting fitted with all the latest upgrades, then returning to your home time as a god would be pretty sweet

So, if you use affliction on an instant advantage like warp, you get to trigger it immediately.
What if I grab a continuous advantage like "Altered Time Rate" make it last 1 second with fixed duration + reduced duration, and then add >Nuisance Effect: Actual time is for one use only (-5%)
I think this should count as an instant duration advantage now and allow the fella you gave the extra maneuver to just use the maneuver immediately instead of waiting for his turn. And since it's gone with one use, there's no weird effect on his actual turn.

I imagine this isn't RAW but I'd say it makes for a fair house rule, right?

>>98602597
>I imagine this isn't RAW but I'd say it makes for a fair house rule, right?
I think it's still problematic, since without an 'instantaneous effect' it isn't clear what actually happens. If you want to give someone an extra action on your turn, I can't see any real balance issue, but if you're thinking that you get to control their action then that's stretching the definition of an instantaneous effect to breaking point.

>>98602648
>. If you want to give someone an extra action on your turn,
That's what I want to do.
That said, I'd say that if you wanted to control their action you'd have to link mind control to it, and I think it would be fair if done this way.

>>98602659
Yes, that seems legitimate. Mind Control is actually intended to let you control the actions of others, Affliction isn't, and the Advantage enhancement for it is very sketchy, so you need to be careful when designing abilities based on it.

File: suicide is groovy.gif (2 MB, 266x200)

2 MB GIF

Random question: why do so many gamers often directly associate "realism" with "lethality"? GURPS is perhaps the most realistic TTRPG I've read, at least without going full Pheonix Command; that is, for me, it strikes the perfect balance between realism, playability, and customization. Paradoxically, I've found GURPS to be far less deadly compared other RPGs, like Cyberpunk, World of Darkness, and low-level D&D.
Gun shots and stab wounds are absolutely deadly in GURPS. But thanks to core rules like HT rolls for survival at -HP, rules for recovery, plus optional realistic rules like Last Wounds, Body Hits, and Conditional Injury, I've found it actually quite hard to die in GURPS so long as medical assistance is available and I don't get shot in the skull or vitals, which is realistic. It's not always quite how many times you're hit, or even how hard you're hit, but where you're hit, and how deep. I'm sure they're out there, but I have yet to find a single other game system that actually properly models this.
Compare/contrast Cyberpunk, where active defenses against firearms aren't allowed at all, so unless you can find cover, there's no point in trying to lower your posture or move quickly to make yourself a harder target to hit, which removes an entire tactical element from the game. Or World of Darkness, where everyone has the same health track, and most damage types can't be soaked, so a squirrel can tank a .50 cal, but an elephant dies to a papercut.
Sorry for the rant, a couple friends some while ago complained about combat in GURPS not making any sense to them. Then one started running his own Cyberpunk campaign, but sees no problems with the rules, because he refuses to learn the rules. And the other friend asked me to run a Mage the Ascension game. I've already read the GURPS Mage the Ascension book, and I quite like it. But he doesn't want GURPS. So I've been learning WoD game rules and have just been having an endless headache.

>>98603776
I didn't realize how rarely my players have even suffered major wounds to limbs until I had to have them roll for crippling duration recently

>>98603776
I prefer the cyberpunk "no active defense against firearms" thing, and use the rules from one of the pyramid articles that makes it very hard but not impossible to dodge bullets.

>>98603835
I do something somewhat similar:
Basically, to dodge bullets, you need to see the shooter, and you have to declare your defense (including all active defensive options) before you know the result of the shooter's attack roll.
If you have ETS or any cinematic advantage (TbaM, WM, etc.), then you can declare defense after the attack roll, but you still need to see the shooter.
If you can't see the shooter, but can see the bullet coming (make a Sense roll, modified for bullet SM), then you can still attempt a defense, but at a penalty for the bullet's speed modifier.

>>98603835
I think it's a little simplistic since you can move away from where the barrel's pointed IRL, and I think Restricted Dodge from Tactical Shooting models that adequately

>>98603835
I prefer letting my PCs parry bullets with swords like ninjas.

>>98603914
I like the idea of Restricted Dodge representing pre-emptive evasive maneuver against a gunman. The one problem I have with Restricted Dodge is that it only allows you defend from one gunman per turn. I prefer "Do-or-Die Bullet Dodging" from Pyramid #3/34, which still requires you to declare defenses ahead of time, but still allows you to dodge more than one gunman at once.

>>98603874
>>98603988
Forgot to add that I also use the optional rule that penalizes multiple Dodges, so deciding which gunmen are most likely to hit you and which ones you want to Dodge first is a tactical choice.

>>98603984
I'm of the opinion that Parry Missile Weapons always should've been a technique, rather than its own skill, and shouldn't require ETS to parry bullets if you can clearly see where the shooter is aiming.

>>98603998
Different anon here, I literally just typing to ask about that. Good system, I like it.

>>98603776
Possibly related to the general trope across many forms of media that realism must be bleak, depressing, ugly, and boring. There's an obvious motive for those who are in the business of selling fantasy to make reality seem bad, combined with the political agenda of progressivism to portray the past (and the future, if their utopian vision is not followed) as even worse than what they offer, which might explain this.
There's also the fact that one of the most obvious signs of unrealistic fiction is the sense that protagonists are never in real danger. Therefore realistic fiction must surely be extremely deadly, since that is the opposite of extremely safe.

>>98604013
That makes sense, but the default penalty would have to be huge in order to avoid situations where highly skilled fighters could actually parry bullets reliably.

>>98604594
Parry Missile Weapons is a Hard skill, so a default of something like -6 to skill (and half that to Parry, so -3) should probably be fair, then apply the usual modifiers for Parry Missile Weapons. So that gives -8 to Parry bullets, -5 to Parry small low-tech missiles, -3 to Parry large low-tech missiles, then... -1 to Parry small thrown weapons, and +1 to Parry large thrown weapons? To keep things in line with the existing Parry modifiers for thrown weapons, you might drop those latter two modifiers down to -2 and -1, respectively.
-8 to Parry should be functionally impossible for the average dude (skill 10, parry 8), unless he uses both All-Out Defense (Increased Parry) and Extra Effort (Feverish Defense), and even then that only brings up his effective Parry score to a measly 4 (~2% success chance), so it's still more a matter of luck than skill. A master warrior (skill 20, parry 13) with All-Out Defense and Extra Effort could get an effective Parry of 9 (~37% success chance), which doesn't seem too crazy to me.

>>98604830
>>98604830
I think even the -5 penalty to Parry bullets for Parry Missile Weapons is harsh enough. -5 to Parry is equivalent to -10 to skill; practically impossible already by the game's own Task Modifier guidelines. It's the same penalty to Block more than once per turn (an optional rule from Martial Arts), which the Basic Set also treats as impossible.
I'd keep the same modifiers as Parry Missile Weapons on the lower end, but condense the modifiers on the higher end. So it's -5 to Parry bullets, -4 to Parry small missiles, -3 to Parry large missiles, -2 to Parry small throwables, and -1 to Parry large throwables. That way you have a smooth range of modifiers that also match up with the existing penalties for Parrying thrown weapons.
That might still seem generous, but think of it another way. If you can see the shooter, then the speed of the bullet doesn't matter, because you're watching the shooter, not his bullet. Things like the speed of barrel sway and rapidly changing aim are represented with things like Ranged Feints and Prediction Shots. So the only thing that matters is the size, or SM, of the path that the bullet travels. In a manner of speaking, a Parry against a bullet is an attack against its flight path. You're trying to hit the cross-section of that flight path with your weapon.
According to the rules for Combat Writ Large, the area of a melee attack has a SM equal to the attacker's SM-9. Once a projectile becomes smaller than SM -9, it should stop being harder to hit, but by that point, the target is smaller than the area of your attacking/parrying surface. Apply that SM -9 to skill, and half that to Parry, then you get a penalty of -5.

>>98604830
>>98604944
Your logic seems reasonable, but the conclusions don't seem to match reality. I don't think a person with mediocre weapon skill who is trying very hard (or a highly skilled person who is parrying normally) has a 4% chance of parrying a bullet coming at him. I think the odds of that happening are considerably less than 1%. I also don't think that skill and effort will increase your odds very much except at superhuman levels, and the vast majority of your chance to 'parry' a bullet is simply that you can cover a certain fraction of your surface area with your weapon, and the shooter has a certain chance of hitting it by mistake.
Although a bullet's flight path is arguably a valid target, it's one which is not only small but also moves rapidly as the shooter shifts their point of aim and difficult to perceive due to having to infer it from the weapon. So I'd recommend that for parrying things which move too fast for you to see the thing itself, you take an additional penalty equal to at least half the range penalty to the shooter (if you want to make a system which distinguishes exactly when this happens, maybe something like half the range penalty to the shooter, or half the speed penalty for a moving target, whichever is less).

>Quick and Pointless
Sex hehehe.

One of my players wants the ability to spend FP in response to being attacked to reduce the damage taken. They want this to work even if they've all out attacked.
My current build of this is DR 4 (Reflexive +40%, Costs FP 1 -5%, Emergencies Only -30%) [21].
Unsure if this does the job though and it is strictly worse than just buying DR 4

>>98606679
It works, but since it's worse than just plain DR which doesn't require FP loss, it sucks. Multiplicative modifiers would sort of fix this, but you're still paying a lot to add Reflexive to something that didn't need it until you took Costs Fatigue. Incidentally, you should at least be able to take Costs Fatigue at the increased discount for only lasting a second, unless the intention is that once activated this would remain on for the rest of the fight.
Stacking more limitations on it would make it more efficient, but you're still going to have the issue that you're paying +40% to have it work no better than baseline.
I'd suggest a custom nuisance effect 'drains 1 FP when hit' for like -5% on DR and just pay [18] for 4 levels. It's not elegant, but it's better than overcharging to meet a concept.

>>98606679
The Reflexive enhancement is very explicitly only for advantages that take an action to activate. DR is an advantage that does not require an action to begin with, so charging points for it is bullshit.

>>98606749
yeah its only meant to least for a second. I had forgotten about the increased discount for Costs FP in that case.
The final ability will have more limitations on it so it will be cheaper. Maybe for my next game I will do multiplicative multipliers
I will go with a nuisance effect. Thank you.

>>98606865
That is a good point. I thought Costs FP made using the ability require an action but rereading it I seem to have been mistaken.

>>98606865
>>98606884
There's an Active Defense limitation you can use instead. It's in the Powers book as a special under limitation under Damage Resistance. It's specifically for this situation.

Power Ups: Limitations also reprints it, clarifying that it doesn't replace your normal active defense (you can use both). So even RAW it should still usable after an all-out attack.

>>98607007
*special limitation under Damage Resistance

== GURPS Combat Example ==
Combatant A: Guns (Rifle) 13; Armed with Mauser 98 (Dmg: 7d+1, Acc: 5, Fixed x2 Scope: +2)
Combatant B: HP: 10; HT: 10; Unaware, Seated (-2 to hit)
Engagement at 140 yards (-11 to hit)

>Turn 1: Combatant A uses Ready maneuver and braces, giving +1 to next shot; Combatant B unaware.
>Turn 2: Combatant A takes Aim maneuver, giving +5 to next shot; Combatant B unaware.
>Turns 3-4: Combatant A takes Aim maneuver on both turns, giving +4 for next shot (+2 for scope and +1 for each extra turn of aim); Combatant B unaware.
>Turn 5: Combatant A takes All-Out Attack: Determined, firing single round at Combatant B with random hit location. Final effective skill is 12 (-11 for range, -2 for seated opponent, +1 for all-out, +1 for bracing, +7 for acc plus two extra seconds of aim, +2 for scope).
>Combatant A rolls 9 to attack and hits Combatant B successfully, rolling 25 damage and hit location: neck.
>Combatant B drops to -15 health. This is below -1xHP, so he rolls on HT to avoid passing out and then again to avoid dying. He succeeds on both rolls, but he is now bleeding out. Combatant B makes HT rolls at -5 every minute for continued bleeding, losing 1HP for every failed roll.
Charlie Kirk is taken to the hospital and ultimately dies from his injuries.

>>98607007
>Power Ups: Limitations also reprints it, clarifying that it doesn't replace your normal active defense (you can use both). So even RAW it should still usable after an all-out attack.
Seems like that should only be possible if you have Active Defence, Independent. Powers p. 154 makes it pretty clear that the Active Defense limitation usually requires that you would be able to take an active defense even if it doesn't 'use up' an active defense. But if you take that and also eliminate the dice roll, you've reduced it to a 0% modifier, which seems fair, because you've just built an ability which works all the time, just like default DR.
Careful reading of Powers, p. 153 suggests that since the ability qualifies as neither Always On or Switchable, it must be a Transient ability. Since no rule seems to add any requirement for Concentrate or Ready to activate it, it can be inferred that doing so is a free action which can be done at any time. There doesn't seem to be any rule which says you can't interrupt the attack sequence to activate it just before rolling damage. Therefore, it would seem to be valid to just put 'Costs Fatigue, 1 FP/second, -10%' straight onto DR without any other modifier and have it work as a force field which automatically drains your fatigue when it absorbs damage, and which you can choose to deactivate at any time to save FP. I'm not sure how to handle it if you can't turn it off, since it obviously doesn't qualify for 'always on'. I guess it's maybe a nuisance effect.

>>98607186
>Powers p. 154 makes it pretty clear that the Active Defense limitation usually requires that you would be able to take an active defense even if it doesn't 'use up' an active defense
Ah shit, I missed that bit

What the hell, no one told me that GURPS Space has an adventure design chapter.

>>98607320
Everybody is too busy cumming all over the world-design sequence and the alien-design sequence to notice anything else.

Let me see if I understood all of this correctly, about reflexive, reduced time and ranged on non-attacks
Let's take Obscure.
Usually, obscure takes 1 ready to activate.
Reflexive would allow me to activate it when being attacked, out of my turn.
Reduced time would allow me to activate it as a free action on my turn.

If I put "Ranged" on obscure it's now an attack. This means it can no longer take reflexive or reduced time, right?
But Kromm added Reflexive to a healing that had the ranged modifier added, does that mean that reflexive is only forbidden is it's an actual attack that does damage or causes penalties?
>https://forums.sjgames.com/showpost.php?p=1254800&postcount=5

>>98608239
Kromm is only infallible when he's speaking ex cathedra.