In previous GURPS editions, Hit Points (HP) was based on HT. In GURPS 4e, it's based on ST. In previous GURPS editions, Fatigue Points (FP) was based on ST. In GURPS 4e, it's based on HT.

Did this matter much to GURPS players? Did it make sense? Did anyone really notice the change all that much?

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1102479In previous GURPS editions, Hit Points (HP) was based on HT. In GURPS 4e, it's based on ST. In previous GURPS editions, Fatigue Points (FP) was based on ST. In GURPS 4e, it's based on HT.

Did this matter much to GURPS players? Did it make sense? Did anyone really notice the change all that much?

It seemed fine to me. It makes ST a little more useful, where previously it was only melee fighters that would raise it. They also reduced the cost of both HT and ST.

I have some problems with GURPS stats in how important they are as a package deal, such that they can be very definitional to a character.

ST is scaled differently in GURPS 4e, if I remember.

I felt like it made WAY more sense. I really dig the refinements in 4e. The whole game just clicked with me better than 3e.

Quote from: trechriron;1102503I felt like it made WAY more sense. I really dig the refinements in 4e. The whole game just clicked with me better than 3e.

This. I'm extremely grateful for the FP/HP swap. Also getting rid of fucking Passive Defense.

Edit: I do have gripes about 4th edition, though. Quick example (but I might gripe more later), Perception and Will defaulting to IQ. Just a bad choice. Fortunately it's one of the easier problems to fix (they just default to 10, IQ / Per / Will cost the same even after being decoupled).

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1102479In previous GURPS editions, Hit Points (HP) was based on HT. In GURPS 4e, it's based on ST. In previous GURPS editions, Fatigue Points (FP) was based on ST. In GURPS 4e, it's based on HT.

Did this matter much to GURPS players? Did it make sense? Did anyone really notice the change all that much?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but since mages use fatigue points, this change made the swol wizard less likely.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1102546Correct me if I'm wrong, but since mages use fatigue points, this change made the swol wizard less likely.

Indeed. There's also Mana Reserve, which makes it possible to have a frail wizard albeit with a massive pool of energy totally independent from their physical condition.

Quote from: trechriron;1102503I felt like it made WAY more sense. I really dig the refinements in 4e. The whole game just clicked with me better than 3e.

I like 4e better overall. The only thing I miss, and it is minor, is Passive Defense. It made sense to me with how it was setup in 3e. But in 4e shields still have passive defense except it is called a defense bonus.

But on the flip side your defense scores went up overall so ultimately it is a wash. And even if it wasn't it is still a minor issue.

Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;1102479In previous GURPS editions, Hit Points (HP) was based on HT. In GURPS 4e, it's based on ST. In previous GURPS editions, Fatigue Points (FP) was based on ST. In GURPS 4e, it's based on HT.

Did this matter much to GURPS players? Did it make sense? Did anyone really notice the change all that much?

1. Does it matter to Gurps players? I asked in the Gurps Forums why the change was made, and I got the "No more body-builder wizards!" reply.

2. Did it make sense? Not to me. Most games have the health-type attribute influence the health-type pool. As for the wizard argument, it just replaces very strong wizards with very tough wizards. Why not use a Mana pool and divorce it from either attribute?

3. Did anyone notice the change? I don't think so. But people on the Gurps Forums say they like it.

Quote from: Aglondir;11026591. Does it matter to Gurps players? I asked in the Gurps Forums why the change was made, and I got the "No more body-builder wizards!" reply.

2. Did it make sense? Not to me. Most games have the health-type attribute influence the health-type pool. As for the wizard argument, it just replaces very strong wizards with very tough wizards. Why not use a Mana pool and divorce it from either attribute?

3. Did anyone notice the change? I don't think so. But people on the Gurps Forums say they like it.

When was the last time you actually played GURPS and what edition? Your comments seem completely out of touch with the community and fairly ignorant of both editions if I am being totally honest. As an example you would know mana pools do exist so forgive my hesitance towards your body of knowledge.

It's a big improvement and makes a lot of sense in context but people are often confused by the health not being hit points issue.

Personally I'd HP = ST + HT and increase the base damage at 10 ST to 2d.  Then you could scale down to smaller scores without doing 1d-5 damage.

I do think they made a mistake with ST and Super Effort ST.  If they'd kept the old extra effort rule you'd be able to increase your lifting capacity by 10% for every point you made your ST roll by.  For guys with a 100 Strength, they could boost by 800% with almost no chance of failure.  This is how it worked in at least one version of 3e Supers.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1102664When was the last time you actually played GURPS and what edition? Your comments seem completely out of touch with the community and fairly ignorant of both editions if I am being totally honest. As an example you would know mana pools do exist so forgive my hesitance towards your body of knowledge.

My comments are definitely out of touch with tbs Gurps community (at least the Gurps forum) which is highly conservative when it comes to  rules variations or anything they feel runs contrary to RAW. I'd seen too many interesting ideas (most of them not mine) shot down by forum regulars who just want to posture. It happens on other forums as well, but not to that degree. Then again, that was a few year ago, perhaps the climate has changed.

I can't address your comment about "ignorant of both editions" unless you provide specifics. To answer your other question,  I like Gurps but do not play it on a regular basis,  nor do I consider myself an expert on the rules. I do not consider myself an expert on any rules system, for that matter.

On the subject of Mana pools, my idea is to have wizards have a separate pool of Mana to draw from that is neither based on ST or HT, which negates 90% of the arguments I've heard on the Gurps forum concerning the switch between editions. I thought it was an original idea, but if you can cite a source, much appreciated.

Quote from: Aglondir;1102702My comments are definetly out of touch with tbs Gurps community (at least the Gurps forum) which is highly conssrvative when it comes to  rules variations or anything they feel runs conlrary to RAW.

That is more or less what I was guessing, because the answer you seem to remember receiving is not the only benefit (and since you're not active on those forums I'm not sure why you would feel particularly qualified in presenting their viewpoints...) There are more benefits to the FP / HP swap, easy example being that HP and ST now both being able to plausibly linked to physical mass and thus be included logically in such calculations as falling, slams, etc.

Quote from: Aglondir;1102702I can't address your comment about "ignorant of both editions" unless you provide specifics. To answer your other question,  I like Gurps but do not play it on a regular basis,  nor do I consider myself an expert on the rules. I do not consider myself an expert on any rules system, for that matter.

I mean that you do not appear to know either edition well enough to meaningfully comment given the inaccuracies and blind spots in your currently supplied commentary. Ignorance is not an issue (I have plenty of that myself), save for the fact that you felt qualified to answer the question and offer a (unnecessary) 'fix' regardless.

Quote from: Aglondir;1102702On the subject of Mana pools, my idea is to have wizards have a seperate pool of Mana to draw from that is niether based on ST or HT, which negates 90% of the arguments I've heard on the Gurps forum concerning the switch between editions. I thought it was an original idea, but if you can cite a source, much appreciated.

Powers p119, Pyramid 3/120 "The fifth attribute", multiple other options scattered throughout Thaumatology and etc. This is without even going into the multitude of alternative magic systems which do not function based off of FP at all.

For the record, Health =/= HP in GURPS. Particularly in fourth edition they represent very different things, and it makes vastly more sense for FP to be linked to HT. You may also be missing that FP can be bought up directly without increasing HT, so even without a separate 'mana pool' you do not run into a "super tough wizard" problem.

As far as your original point #3, I think this thread alone is indicative that the statement is wrong let alone the multitude of threads on SJG.

Quote from: David Johansen;1102676Personally I'd HP = ST + HT and increase the base damage at 10 ST to 2d.  Then you could scale down to smaller scores without doing 1d-5 damage.

Yes, the low end of the damage / HP scale is still pretty wonky. I'm also not a fan of ten 1-point rat bites having the potential to make the average person unconscious. Conditional Injury (recent Pyramid article) went a ways to address that (as well as the hundred muskets v. galleon problem), but it doesn't integrate seamlessly and it has its own oddities.

Quote from: David Johansen;1102676I do think they made a mistake with ST and Super Effort ST.  If they'd kept the old extra effort rule you'd be able to increase your lifting capacity by 10% for every point you made your ST roll by.  For guys with a 100 Strength, they could boost by 800% with almost no chance of failure.  This is how it worked in at least one version of 3e Supers.

ST scaling is still borked and the pricing is a problem. The article "knowing your own strength" to make it logarithmic was a decent thought, but it integrates poorly with a LOT of other stuff and ultimately it's half-baked. The ST/Damage/HP relationship really needs to be torn out at the root and rebuilt entirely to iron out some of the weird edge cases.

Absolutely.  The rat bite issue can be dealt with by increasing DR a bit.  I think you'd bumping damages up by 1d rather than doubling them all the way up.  DR levels would need to increase by 3.5 across the board but it would allow for some finer definition of low DR values which matters for fairies, rats, and shrinking superheroes who don't retain their mass while increasing density.  I'd have to look at the chart and think out the damage progression for low values.  Personally 1d-3 is pretty weak regardless.  Shock would probably be Damage / 2 - 3.  But it might be Damage -3 / 2, I'm not sure which works better but both are a bit wonky.  The thing is that a cat or other small animal can do less than one point of damage and still cause shock.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1102705That is more or less what I was guessing, because the answer you seem to remember receiving is not the only benefit (and since you're not active on those forums I'm not sure why you would feel particularly qualified in presenting their viewpoints...)

I asked the question, got the dumb "wizard" answer, and moved on. Most of the other answers were "I like the switch" without any supporting rationale.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1102705There are more benefits to the FP / HP swap, easy example being that HP and ST now both being able to plausibly linked to physical mass and thus be included logically in such calculations as falling, slams, etc.

You should have opened with that. Why not create a bulleted list of the changes, and how they were improvements from 3E and 4E? It's probably the answer Shawn is looking for.