Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellboy
Disadvantages are cheaper to afflict than Advantages so I'm not understanding the purpose of all this.
The issue here is whether or not your target tries to resist or accept your affliction. If they don't want the disadvantage-causing limitation on your advantage then they can choose to resist the advantage.
This is explained in the optional "Beneficial Afflictions" section of Powers page 40.
If you have Malediction, Afflictions can be voluntarily accepted automatically. Otherwise, consent means that (with "unquestionably positive that no one would ever object" stuff) you get the Affliction by making a HT save instead of failing it, and duration is based on how much you won by not how much you lost by.
The downside to this, of course, is while you're pretty much guaranteed to get nice juicy durations for Afflicting your already-beefy HT 20 buddies with even more advantages (afflict 'cumulative' extra HT ad infinitum for ever-increasing durations!) it actually makes it a lot harder to help out your HT 5 dependents who probably need the beneficial Afflictions much more.
Which is largely why this system is sort of broken and why it should be rewired somehow. Which is very possible since this is merely an 'optional' rule.
The HT roll should represent instinctive resistance the body has to outside forces. Being willing shouldn't somehow flip that around so suddenly healthy bodies are accepting outside forces.
Instead, the way it ought to work, if willingness matters, is something like "if the target consents to the Affliction, apply his Will as a penalty to his HT roll".
This way, low HT guys who need help aren't screwed, high HT guys still have problems, but being willing still helps out in receiving it.
|
This is why I usually just throw Malediction on anything I intend to be a Benediction, which is kinda ironic linguistically. If I wanted something that didn't act like a Malediction but could have an optional resistance roll, I'd probably beg the GM to allow it for +50%.