Innate Attack and Striker

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

First, thanks to those who helped me with my Essential Earth question
earlier. All is much clearer now

I'm still using 4th ed GURPS.

I have moved on and am now confused as to the difference between the
Innate Attack advantage and the Striker advantage. It seems to me that
it is wholly feasible to construct the near equivalent of a Striker
from an Innate Attack, so I wonder why the former is necessary at
all. To add to the confusion, the Limitations chapter seems to regard
them as wholly different things as you can buy "Armor Divisor" on an
Innate Attack but apparantly not on a Striker.

I have built a pincer type attack as a Striker with Crush damage since
that seems to be exactly how you're supposed to use Striker, but
wonder if my desire for an Armor Divisor should technically force me
to redesign it as an Innate Attack with the Melee Attack limitation in
stead.

The only drawback to using an Innate Attack is that it seems
reasonable for a pincer to base its damage on the creature's ST, and
Innate Attacks don't do that. As drawbacks go, I consider that an
unusually annoying one for some reason.

My current inclination is to go with the Striker, stick an Armor
Divisor on it and hope the GURPS Police doesn't come knocking

Can anyone shed some further light on the conceptual difference
between these two ways of building an attack ability and why a Striker
shouldn't be allowed an Armor Divisor?

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> First, thanks to those who helped me with my Essential Earth question
> earlier. All is much clearer now
>
> I'm still using 4th ed GURPS.
>
> I have moved on and am now confused as to the difference between the
> Innate Attack advantage and the Striker advantage.

i believe the greatest difference (iirc, idhtbifom) is that Innate
Attack is a Ranged Attack and Striker isn't. range information and
such should be given, and a skill is required for its use. not
positive, but that's my recollection.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

Bent C Dalager wrote:

> Can anyone shed some further light on the conceptual difference
> between these two ways of building an attack ability and why a Striker
> shouldn't be allowed an Armor Divisor?

First of all, striker damage is modified based on strength. You considered
this annoying, but its the heart of the difference. If you want to do
extraordinary damage, but still apply the strength modifier, you apply the
Follow-Up enhancement (+0% for natural weapons).

I imagine that strikers don't have have an armor divisor because they are
assumed to be constructed of bone, wood, or other standard structural
materials. Extraordinary materials require Innate Attacks.

Jefferson
http://www.picotech.net/~jeff_wilson63/rpg/

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <1112038256.157429.144940@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
s.familiar <somethingfamiliar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>i believe the greatest difference (iirc, idhtbifom) is that Innate
>Attack is a Ranged Attack and Striker isn't. range information and
>such should be given, and a skill is required for its use. not
>positive, but that's my recollection.

Adding the "Melee Attack" limitation seems to eliminate the range
difference.

It does occur to me, however, that while Striker uses the Brawling
skill, Innate Attack uses the Innate Attack skill, which is another
inconvenience with the latter.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:03:52 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

>
>First, thanks to those who helped me with my Essential Earth question
>earlier. All is much clearer now
>
>I'm still using 4th ed GURPS.
>
>I have moved on and am now confused as to the difference between the
>Innate Attack advantage and the Striker advantage. It seems to me that
>it is wholly feasible to construct the near equivalent of a Striker
>from an Innate Attack, so I wonder why the former is necessary at
>all.

Why, because you use your strength to do damage with a Striker.


To add to the confusion, the Limitations chapter seems to regard
>them as wholly different things as you can buy "Armor Divisor" on an
>Innate Attack but apparantly not on a Striker.
>
>I have built a pincer type attack as a Striker with Crush damage since
>that seems to be exactly how you're supposed to use Striker, but
>wonder if my desire for an Armor Divisor should technically force me
>to redesign it as an Innate Attack with the Melee Attack limitation in
>stead.

Yes it would.

>
>The only drawback to using an Innate Attack is that it seems
>reasonable for a pincer to base its damage on the creature's ST, and
>Innate Attacks don't do that. As drawbacks go, I consider that an
>unusually annoying one for some reason.

I can think of a reason, but the reason I'm thinking of would do you
little credit.

>
>My current inclination is to go with the Striker, stick an Armor
>Divisor on it and hope the GURPS Police doesn't come knocking

Ah, a foin, foin rules rape that would be, to be sure.

>
>Can anyone shed some further light on the conceptual difference
>between these two ways of building an attack ability and why a Striker
>shouldn't be allowed an Armor Divisor?

I would think that would be obvious. Because you could realise HUGE
effectiveness versus cost rewards simply by getting your striker with
an armor divisor and then buying up your strength. Striker is only 8
points so getting an armor divisor on it would be virtually free.
Doing it that way would be an attempt to scam your GM.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <42481178.95392283@news.telusplanet.net>,
David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>I would think that would be obvious. Because you could realise HUGE
>effectiveness versus cost rewards simply by getting your striker with
>an armor divisor and then buying up your strength. Striker is only 8
>points so getting an armor divisor on it would be virtually free.

I was afraid it might be something like this. In order to balance such
an attack, then, its cost would basically have to depend on the amount
of ST, which seems a tad complicated.

I am trying to build a pincer attack that can break rock without
necessarily doing insane amounts of actual damage. Armor Divisor
seemed like a decent way to go about it but it appears to be causing
all sorts of problems ... I might just have to go with large amounts
of Striking ST in stead.

>Doing it that way would be an attempt to scam your GM.

Well, I am my GM so that doesn't worry me overly much

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:06:58 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

>In article <42481178.95392283@news.telusplanet.net>,
>David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>>I would think that would be obvious. Because you could realise HUGE
>>effectiveness versus cost rewards simply by getting your striker with
>>an armor divisor and then buying up your strength. Striker is only 8
>>points so getting an armor divisor on it would be virtually free.
>
>I was afraid it might be something like this. In order to balance such
>an attack, then, its cost would basically have to depend on the amount
>of ST, which seems a tad complicated.
>
>I am trying to build a pincer attack that can break rock without
>necessarily doing insane amounts of actual damage.

What's it for?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <424ab275.12842111@news.telusplanet.net>,
David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
> What's it for?

It's a giant underground insect species that burrows (albeit slowly)
through solid rock (ok, it's more mandibles than pincers I suppose).
While I want them to be able to do this, I don't particularly want
them to be _too_ fearsome in combat so anything to enhance
rock-digging while not doing a huge amount of basic damage has
potential.

Seeing as 1 inch of rock has 8-12 DR and a standard insect of this
kind looks to be doing around 2d6 crush damage, something extra seems
to be needed to enable them to munch rock on a regular basis. I was
hoping to simply add an Armor Divisor (2), which is where this
started.

I don't much like using an Innate Attack for this because I think the
attack shold be ST-based and I think they should be allowed to use
Brawling for it.

I considered giving them some sort of rock-softening chemicals but I
would prefer for them to simply crush it "raw".

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

I would suggest a combination of high pressure water, possibly some
chemicals (Hydrochloric Acid -like what is in your stomach), and
possibly a inate magic =Soften Rock (a varient of the Stone to Earth
spell), in addition to the rock crusher mandibles. Also consider that
most rock surfaces have some form of grain structure. Obsidian being one
of the major exceptions. Critter doesn't necessarily have to bore
through all varieties of rock. Then there was the silicon life form
from one of the original Star Trek episodes- used Hydrofluoric IIRC.

Roger

Bent C Dalager wrote:
> In article <424ab275.12842111@news.telusplanet.net>,
> David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>
>> What's it for?
>
>
> It's a giant underground insect species that burrows (albeit slowly)
> through solid rock (ok, it's more mandibles than pincers I suppose).
> While I want them to be able to do this, I don't particularly want
> them to be _too_ fearsome in combat so anything to enhance
> rock-digging while not doing a huge amount of basic damage has
> potential.
>
> Seeing as 1 inch of rock has 8-12 DR and a standard insect of this
> kind looks to be doing around 2d6 crush damage, something extra seems
> to be needed to enable them to munch rock on a regular basis. I was
> hoping to simply add an Armor Divisor (2), which is where this
> started.
>
> I don't much like using an Innate Attack for this because I think the
> attack shold be ST-based and I think they should be allowed to use
> Brawling for it.
>
> I considered giving them some sort of rock-softening chemicals but I
> would prefer for them to simply crush it "raw".
>
> Cheers
> Bent D

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 08:10:05 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

>In article <424ab275.12842111@news.telusplanet.net>,
>David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>> What's it for?
>
>It's a giant underground insect species that burrows (albeit slowly)
>through solid rock (ok, it's more mandibles than pincers I suppose).

Then armour piercing is the wrong way to go. Just give it a burrowing
super power.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:42481178.95392283@news.telusplanet.net...
> On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 19:03:52 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
> Dalager) wrote:

>>Can anyone shed some further light on the conceptual difference
>>between these two ways of building an attack ability and why a Striker
>>shouldn't be allowed an Armor Divisor?
>
> I would think that would be obvious. Because you could realise HUGE
> effectiveness versus cost rewards simply by getting your striker with
> an armor divisor and then buying up your strength. Striker is only 8
> points so getting an armor divisor on it would be virtually free.
> Doing it that way would be an attempt to scam your GM.

I think there should be a way to buy the armor divisor for the *entire*
damage (STR and all).

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <jsGdnTlbdK79xM_fRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>I think there should be a way to buy the armor divisor for the *entire*
>damage (STR and all).

If all one's attacks have Armor Divisor, then this could presumably be
achieved by applying the "Armor Divisor" enhancement on the "Striking
ST" portion of the ST cost. This would effectively increase the cost
of the ST stat for such a character.

If only some attacks have Armor Divisor, then one might apply an
availability limitation on the Armor Divisor enhancement to Striking
ST.

Which nicely sums up why I initially said it might get a tad
complicated to compensate for Armor Divisor on a Striker by having it
affect ST cost

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

"Bent C Dalager" <bcd@pvv.ntnu.no> wrote in message
news:d33dl1$s7i$1@orkan.itea.ntnu.no...
> In article <jsGdnTlbdK79xM_fRVn-qw@comcast.com>,
> Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think there should be a way to buy the armor divisor for the *entire*
>>damage (STR and all).
>
> If all one's attacks have Armor Divisor, then this could presumably be
> achieved by applying the "Armor Divisor" enhancement on the "Striking
> ST" portion of the ST cost. This would effectively increase the cost
> of the ST stat for such a character.

Do you give them ST 10 for free, though? I would apply it to the damage
from ST, comparing the swing damage to the damage of a striker.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 21:06:58 +0000 (UTC), bcd@pvv.ntnu.no (Bent C
Dalager) wrote:

>In article <42481178.95392283@news.telusplanet.net>,
>David Johnston <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote:
>>
>>I would think that would be obvious. Because you could realise HUGE
>>effectiveness versus cost rewards simply by getting your striker with
>>an armor divisor and then buying up your strength. Striker is only 8
>>points so getting an armor divisor on it would be virtually free.
>
>I was afraid it might be something like this. In order to balance such
>an attack, then, its cost would basically have to depend on the amount
>of ST, which seems a tad complicated.

It wouldn't be that complicated to buy your ST with an armour divisor
although it's sort of a Hero way to go about it.

>
>I am trying to build a pincer attack that can break rock without
>necessarily doing insane amounts of actual damage.

Well, I can't really think of a good reason why a pincer attack that
can break rock won't do insane amounts of actual damage. The fact is,
you just don't see a lot of high-velocity super-sharp pincers.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.gurps (More info?)

In article <jLSdnXytrJijysvfRVn-iw@comcast.com>,
Malachias Invictus <capt_malachias@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Do you give them ST 10 for free, though?

I don't think so. There would be a difference that would be calculated
into the racial template cost.

Cheers
Bent D
--
Bent Dalager - bcd@pvv.org - http://www.pvv.org/~bcd
powered by emacs