[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Why is it important to get "back" to 100 points?

Originally Posted by Ketsuban

Except the post literally demonstrates how it's just an application of RAW.



Not Naked, +30% cancels out Naked, -30% when applied to the same Jumper advantage, because all enhancements and limitations are summed before being applied to the base cost of the advantage (p. B101). Not Naked, +30% is then limited by the Preparation Required limitation (Limited Enhancements box, p. B111).

Originally Posted by evileeyore

And I disagree as Jumper (Naked, -30%) [70] is not the default condition.

Jumper [100] is the default RAW state.

If you alter this for your campaign, then you are setting a house rule, and that's the territory y'all are entering.

OK, got it. For the limited purpose of getting back to the value of your original advantage from your original value adding the reverse sign of your limitation works quickly and simply. Mind you, I think it should just be called cancelling the Limitation rather than an effective Enhancement because it can lead to confusion, (as witnessed here, where it just did).

But when you need to convert a known Limitation into an unknown Enhancement, reversing the sign doesn't work. Admittedly, naked vs. not naked doesn't work very well as an example because there aren't any advantages where naked is the starting point. But there may well be cases where you want to Enhance an Advantage and that Enhancement doesn't exist in its own right in the rules. The proposed Enhancement produces an effect that is the exact opposite of a Limitation that does have a distinct existence in the rules and the Advantage in question doesn't have that Limitation to start with.

In that case you need a fair value for the Enhancement and the calculations I've been talking about will get you that fair value. I haven't been worrying about Limiting Enhancements (or Enhancing Limitations, for that matter). All I've been considering is how you would turn a Limitation into it's equivalent Enhancement and vice versa and that's why it was important to get back to 100 points.

But I don't think the problem I was attempting to address enters house rule territory because I'm not changing what the default condition is. I never intended to change what the actual default condition is. All I was saying was that if you started off knowing the point value of the Limited Advantage and that its value was derived by applying a -30% Limitation to default advantage, but not what the value of the original default advantage was, you couldn't arrive at it by adding 30% of the Limited Advantage's value to itself.

By the by, thanks, kdtipa. Those were my points. You posted while I was writing this up or I'd have let your answers speak for me.