Quote:
Originally Posted by Celjabba
I would use aspected (-20%) or (houserule) Aspected(one skill/ability) (-40%).
|
I'm with Celjabba on this one.
As to why I believe this, according to RAW, Aspected is worth -20% and that already brings you down from allowing you to use Luck (or Super Luck, etc.) with several hundred skills, all attributes, and many other rolls, to just perhaps 5 or 6 different types of rolls that fall under one theme.
Yes, this number can vary a bit, but it's what the players will roll. While Aspected Combat does allow you to use it with probably a good 50 combat skills, most players will typically only use 5 to 6 different combat skills and related traits (like Dodge) anyway. The fact that you might use it with some obscure weapon on some rare occasion is to me insignificant.
So based on that, why would going from 5 or 6 different rolls at -20% suddenly jump to -80% for a single skill. That just doesn't make sense. I'd also use the -40%.
As another reason, you can also model the cost after Accessibility. I don't remember where I saw the more detailed breakdown on how the price Accessibility (Power, I think), but it gave you a modifier based on how often you thought it would limit you. A clearly remember that a limitation that would limit you 50% of the time was a -20% limitation. At the worse case, if something only allowed you to use your ability 5% of the time or less, it was the maximum -40% Accessibility limitation.
I would speculate that a "One Skill" limitation might mean that it applies to 5% or less of all the rolls you'll make. So, to me, making "Only one skill" a -40% limitation sounds more appropriate than -80%.
Anyways, that's my opinion as to how to price it, and why. It's been working well in my campaign.