Kromm has spoken!
#1: Is it legal to put Limitations on Disadvantages?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kromm
Yes . . . but only rarely. Aside from Mitigator -- which is specifically designed for disadvantages -- standard limitations rarely make sense on disads. Generally, those that do are limitations that restrict a disad's effects to less than 100% of the time, like some forms of Accessibility. Restrictions on ease, frequency, or duration of use -- Costs Fatigue, Limited Use, Takes Recharge, etc. -- are right out. So are restrictions on activation, such as Preparation Required, Trigger, and Unreliable. So are most limitations!
|
#2: Does the %-value of a Limitation change when applied to a Disadvantage?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kromm
If a limitation makes sense on a disad in the first place, it can sometimes use its usual value. However, one has to examine each case and be very careful. The GM would be well within his rights to declare that Onset, 1 minute, knocks 80% off the price of Berserk instead of 10%, because it takes away almost all of the danger associated with that disad in combat. And Always On might be an excuse for a disad with a self-control number to have a multiplier of 2.5 and offer no self-control roll -- which more of an "enhancement" than a limitation!
|
#3: Is the construct "Disadvantage + Not Disadvantage" legal according to the rules?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kromm
No. It falls into the forbidden zone of Negated Disadvantages (p. B120).
|
"Colorblindness (only at night -20%) [-8]" is obviously different from "Colorblindness [-10]; Not Colorblindness (Only at night -20%) [+8]; Total [-2]".
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kromm
This is better handled by noting that "Only at night" is perhaps worth -80% on Colorblindness, because the night is usually dark and most people can't see colors in the dark anyhow . . . See my answer to #2, above.
|