A form of Innate Attack



DR applies


In a 2012 post by "Not another shrubbery" he alleges Kromm said the following:

This could go either way, as you are probably aware if there's a thread on it (I surely haven't had time to follow that). Some folks will say that "giving up" the ability to cause HP is a limitation; others will say that the guarantee of safety is an enhancement. As for me, I know why Fatigue Attack costs more than other Innate Attacks
1. Most big, tough targets have fewer FP than HP. A ST 100, HT 14 'zilla has 100 HP but just 14 FP.
2. It's safe, within reason. You need to roll a lot more dice to knock someone down from full FP, through -FP, and on down or past -HP.
3. It defangs FP-powered abilities along the way. Wizards and martial artists without the optional ER rules are disempowered as well as knocked out.
Frankly, I'm with you: The guarantee of safety feels like an enhancement, because it's boosting my selling point #2. Why would anybody pay 10 points/level for a Fatigue Attack if lethality were their goal? Just buy a Toxic Attack for that! On the other hand, it's no big thing. I'd call the safest version +10% at most and the next-safest one +5%. What those levels actually are would need discussion, but I'd propose "can't inflict HP at all" as safest and "can't inflict HP past -FP" as next-safest.

No URL can be found for this though so maybe it was deleted?

See alsoEdit