[gurps] Re: Rule of 16?

[hal at buffnet.net]

At 09:08 AM 3/20/2008 -0800, you wrote:
>Jeff Wilson wrote:
>>> From: Anthony Jackson <ajackson at iii.com>
>>> Resisted spells are already unfair -- to the non-mages. The rule of 16 
>>> is one of the few things that makes resisted spells only moderately 
>>> unbalanced.
>> 
>> How do you figure?
>
>High skill fighters typically have less than a 25% chance of hitting one 
>another. Many resisted spells are as or more deadly than being hit by a 
>sword, and combined with a much higher hit chance, are really 
>overpowered IME.

There are some issues involved that mitigate this to some extent, and make
matters worse in others.

For example, in order for a fighter to get a weapon skill up to 16 from a
DX of 12, they must spend (for 4e rules) something along the order of 16
points for the spell itself, plus any prerequisites of the spell desired,
plus 5 character points for Magery 0, plus (usually) 10 character points to
have Magery 1.  While Magery mitigates the issue by adding Magery to
effective IQ, the point cost for spells still is relative to the sword
skill or shield skill, High.

To get a shield skill to 16 in GURPS 4e requires the expenditure of only 12
points for a DX 12 character.

For the point costs involved, it seems like the mundane characters have the
advantage in just about all of the aspects involved.  All ties go to the
defender.  No effective skill of the attacking spell caster can be higher
than 16.  Each hex distant from the defender, the attacking mage suffers an
effective -1 to spell casting skill (usually).  An archer for example,
suffers penalties to his "attack" roll based on range, but no where as
nasty as what the mage does.

Magic Resistance has a two-fold effect on spell casting.  For every point
of magic resistance the target has, the spell caster suffers a -1.  For
every point of magic resistance a target has, their own resistance roll is
increased by 1.  Thus, the Magic resistance advantage has a doubled effect
- as it is used both against the spell caster and for the resister in the
same "contest".

In short - it seems as though the mageborn gets hosed with the rule of 16
as compared against two fighters.

Case in point:

Take a single fighter with a skill 20 and pit him against a fighter whose
defenses are at a base level of 12.  The Expert has a basic 98% chance of
successfully hitting.  The Fighter with a 12 skill, has a basic 74% chance
of defending (exclusive of the crit hit rules that is).  The odds of
securing a hit are .26 x .98 (odds of a failed defense versus a successful
attack) or 25%.  Yet, when the fighter with a 20 skill decides to utilized
the deceptive attack, he can lower his to hit by a given value, which in
turn lowers his opponent's relative skill by 1/2 the given amount.

So, lets drop our effective skill of 20 to that of an effective skill of
16.  Same basic odds of 98% chance of hitting, but now the defender's skill
drops from the base 12 (6 for skill 12, 3 for DB of shield, 3 for active
defense) to that of 10.  .5 x .98 = 46% chance of a successful hit.  We've
gone from only a 25% chance of a successful hit that bypasses the
resistance roll of the defender to that of nearly twice the percentage chance.

Why isn't the "Expert" fighter penalized in the same fashion as the spell
caster?  There is no effective skill ceiling in that "resisted contest",
yet there is for spell casters.

Under the old rules of GURPS where it only cost 2 character points to go up
one skill level in a spell, this might have been neccessary for game
balance reasons.  Today, where GURPS 4e specifies a cost of 4 character
points per level after you reach IQ+Magery+0, it isn't as much of an issue.
 My opinion is that the rule of 16 was bogus to begin with, and is even
more bogus now.  I do however, acknowledge that others may not see the
issue the same as I do - but I note too, that there are those who do not
acknowledge that my viewpoint may be valid.  If I understand correctly,
some rules were implemented not for play balance, but as a result of the
squeaky wheel syndrome.  Even now, I see people complaining that point cost
for magery is too low, or that the advantages conferred upon mages are too
many for their cost in comparison for other costs.  Might not that
complaint mean that some advantages are priced too high?

If you take 100 character points for a mageborn character, and pair off
that character against a 100 point fighter, chances are good that the
fighter will win the battles on a regular basis.  The usual proviso is that
only those spells within GURPS MAGIC from 3e are allowed to be used by the
mage (I agree that some of the spells originally introduced in GURPS
GRIMOIRE are WAY too overpowering or unbalanced as compared against the
original spells in GURPS MAGIC for 3e - let alone with the rest of the
rules!).