[Powers] What is the point in buying Create (Destruction Only) instead of Create (Tra

[Gurps Fan]

Based off Create (Powers, pp. 92-94) advantage, there are two ways to design an ability of erasing from existence any inanimate solid object.

Ability 1: Buy Create (Solid; Destruction Only, +0%) [40/level]. This ability converts the target solid object into the same amount of vacuum. Takes 2 FP per use.

Ability 2: Buy Create (Solid; Transmutation, Solid to Gas, +50%; Transmutation Only, -100%) [20/level]. This ability converts the target solid object into the same amount of any kind of gas (if you simply want to vanish it, just declare "I'll turn it into air"). Takes 1 FP per use.

In virtually all gaming situations, "converting the target into vacuum" is equivalent of "converting the target into air". Furthermore, the latter ability can not only erode the target into air, but also conjure up any desired kind of useful gas -- hydrogen, radon, VX gas, whatever -- with half expenditure of FP.

So, obviously, Ability 2 is more advantageous, while less costly, than Ability 1. Then, what is the point in buying Create (Destruction Only) instead of Create (Transmutation Only)?

[Gurps Fan]

Oops, too long subject line. I intended to write "[Powers] What is the point in buying Create (Destruction Only) instead of Create (Transmutation Only)?"

[NorphTehDwarf]

The point would be that a GM who wanted the ability to destroy matter to cost a lot probably wouldn't allow the second one. A GM who had no problem with cheap matter destruction would probably be fine with Transmutation.

I'd say this one comes down to GM fiat based on his/her opinion of what is balanced.

I should note that I'm not too experienced with Powers, though.

[Pomphis]

Powers p.94: "If the product is worth more than what you started with, it’s unstable and will revert to its original form after 10 seconds unless you stabilize it with your Creation Pool – in which case point cost depends on the difference in value. This might be why alchemists can’t transmute large amounts of lead into gold!"

If you want to get rid of something, presumably whatever you transmute it into is more valuable to you than what you want to get rid of.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Powers p.94: "If the product is worth more than what you started with, it’s unstable and will revert to its original form after 10 seconds unless you stabilize it with your Creation Pool – in which case point cost depends on the difference in value. This might be why alchemists can’t transmute large amounts of lead into gold!"

If you want to get rid of something, presumably whatever you transmute it into is more valuable to you than what you want to get rid of.

I think "value" here is meant to be market value as a commodity. A kilo of nuclear waste is still worth something for people who have a use for it, even if that use is stockpiling it to keep it away from bad people. A kilo of nitrogen gas is worth something, too, but much easier to come by so transmutations of solid nuclear waste to nitrogen gas are considered stable for game purposes.

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by NorphTehDwarf

The point would be that a GM who wanted the ability to destroy matter to cost a lot probably wouldn't allow the second one. A GM who had no problem with cheap matter destruction would probably be fine with Transmutation.

I'd say this one comes down to GM fiat based on his/her opinion of what is balanced.

Of course, the GM can always make a arbitrary rule like "No, no, don't buy. Transmutation is prohibited in my campaign!". It's the easiest way. However, "transmuting matter into another matter" itself is a perfectly valid ability concept, and banning it entirely looks a bit ungenerous. I think the problem lies in that Destruction is too expensive, not that Transmutation is too cheap.

Originally Posted by Pomphis

Powers p.94: "If the product is worth more than what you started with, it’s unstable and will revert to its original form after 10 seconds unless you stabilize it with your Creation Pool – in which case point cost depends on the difference in value. This might be why alchemists can’t transmute large amounts of lead into gold!"

If you want to get rid of something, presumably whatever you transmute it into is more valuable to you than what you want to get rid of.

That passage simply says, "If the value of the target object becomes higher than before the transmutation, then you must pay from Creation Pool a point per 10% of the campaign's starting wealth." Since it's supposed to determine the point cost paid from Creation Pool, the word "value" used there should be interpreted as solely meaning dollar price. Reading the "value" as the emotional value the caster receives doesn't sound making much sense -- it's unlikely to be converted into "X% of the campaign's starting wealth" in any sensible way.

[Captain-Captain]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

Based off Create (Powers, pp. 92-94) advantage, there are two ways to design an ability of erasing from existence any inanimate solid object.

Ability 1: Buy Create (Solid; Destruction Only, +0%) [40/level]. This ability converts the target solid object into the same amount of vacuum. Takes 2 FP per use.

Ability 2: Buy Create (Solid; Transmutation, Solid to Gas, +50%; Transmutation Only, -100%) [20/level]. This ability converts the target solid object into the same amount of any kind of gas (if you simply want to vanish it, just declare "I'll turn it into air"). Takes 1 FP per use.

In virtually all gaming situations, "converting the target into vacuum" is equivalent of "converting the target into air". Furthermore, the latter ability can not only erode the target into air, but also conjure up any desired kind of useful gas -- hydrogen, radon, VX gas, whatever -- with half expenditure of FP.

So, obviously, Ability 2 is more advantageous, while less costly, than Ability 1. Then, what is the point in buying Create (Destruction Only) instead of Create (Transmutation Only)?

In theory, you can UNtransmute the air back into the original article for one thing. Destroyed is destroyed.

You also leave evidence the air you created. Admittedly there are lots of scenarios where this isn't going to matter, but it could, particularly against the right type of Detect.

Buying a big Detect and then buying lots of smaller Detects as alternate abilities is relatively cheap.

[Dinadon]

Originally Posted by Gurps Fan

In virtually all gaming situations, "converting the target into vacuum" is equivalent of "converting the target into air". Furthermore, the latter ability can not only erode the target into air, but also conjure up any desired kind of useful gas -- hydrogen, radon, VX gas, whatever -- with half expenditure of FP.

I think you're understating the usefulness of making something gone in its entirety. If you transmutate something it can be transmutated back. If you destroy something then you need to create something to replace it. This is why destruction costs the same as create, the two are balanced against each other.

Transmutation is a mixture of both create and destroy. If you are using transmutation to make something useful then the correct comparison is create. If you are using transmutation to get rid of something useful then the correct comparison is destruction. However, transmutation will always leave a by-product which may or may not be important depending upon the situation.

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

In theory, you can UNtransmute the air back into the original article for one thing. Destroyed is destroyed.

There's no free "un-transmutation". Transmutation, Solid to Gas is one enhancement, and Transmutation, Gas to Solid is another, separate enhancement. See the description on p. 94 of Powers.

Originally Posted by Captain-Captain

You also leave evidence the air you created. Admittedly there are lots of scenarios where this isn't going to matter, but it could, particularly against the right type of Detect.

That's true, but it doesn't seem to account for the significant difference in point cost between the Abilities 1 and 2 above. "Cheaper by 20 points per level" is a big gap.

[Gurps Fan]

Originally Posted by Dinadon

I think you're understating the usefulness of making something gone in its entirety. If you transmutate something it can be transmutated back. If you destroy something then you need to create something to replace it. This is why destruction costs the same as create, the two are balanced against each other.

Hmm . . . sorry, I don't understand what "the usefulness of making something gone in its entirety" is actually like.

For example, the effect "Your gun is transmuted into air . . . but you can transmute the same amount of air back into a bulk of iron if you have Create (Transmutation, Gas to Solid), paying some unspent points from your Creation Pool, and then you could take it into a gunsmith to manufacture a new gun out of it" seems to me virtually the same as "Your gun is gone!".