Attribute N/A, Useful concept or not?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by SCAR

PK has an article on his site Nipping Problem Allies in the Bud, which includes a discussion on the issue of non-sentient Allies (Non-Sentient Allies on the Cheap), and the extra 400 points to spend issue created by buying DX and IQ down to Zero.
The solution involves non-sentient Allies having IQ (and Per/Will) of N/A for 0 points.

Like I said, this is basically where I have a problem. An IQ 1 insect ally is cleary more capable than an IQ 0 vehicle ally that requires CM: Controls or Possession to actually be useful. An IQ 10 ally that is basically (or literally) a person is way more independently functional then an IQ 0 vehicle.

Why should a car ally with IQ 0 and CM: Controls, and the same model with an onboard IQ 10 AI and CM: Controls be built on the same number of points? Which is a more useful Ally: a stock '82 Pontiac Trans Am (normally available as a Vehicle perk) or KITT?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by SCAR

If there is a game mechanical reason why something can't use an Attribute, or can't be affected by something which targets (or is resisted by) that Attribute, then it seems reasonable to say that it has N/A for that Attribute.

I have a big problem with people categorising the two in the same class. An analogy: if something targets DR (e.g. Affliction: Negated Advantage), someone without DR is immune to it; if something is resisted by DR (most normal Afflictions and Innate Attacks), not having DR is not a reason to become immune to it.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I have a big problem with people categorising the two in the same class. An analogy: if something targets DR (e.g. Affliction: Negated Advantage), someone without DR is immune to it; if something is resisted by DR (most normal Afflictions and Innate Attacks), .

Things are reduced by DR, not resisted by it.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

Things are reduced by DR, not resisted by it.

Afflictions certainly are resisted by it. A hypothetical construct with HT 0 and DR 15 will roll against 15 when Resisting an Affliction.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by SCAR

If there is a game mechanical reason why something can't use an Attribute, or can't be affected by something which targets (or is resisted by) that Attribute, then it seems reasonable to say that it has N/A for that Attribute.

If you're immune to something a category of effect it should be clearly stated. An additional bonus of statting (for instance) 'mindless thus impervious to mind magic' with 'Immunity to mind affecting' is that it doesn't arbitrarily ban the concept of abilities resisted by an attribute whether or not the target 'has' that attribute.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Afflictions certainly are resisted by it. A hypothetical construct with HT 0 and DR 15 will roll against 15 when Resisting an Affliction.

There are no constructs with HT 0.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

There are no constructs with HT 0.

Sure there are. They just don't stay together for long.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vierasmarius

I can't think of any entities from Star Trek that would obviously have an attribute N/A.

It's very rare for a character, whether PC or NPC, to have an attribute N/A; it's mostly the 'object' metatrait that results in N/A for attributes.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

My basic problem with it is that 0 attributes are serious disadvantages that come with a whole mess of baggage (ST 0 means you can't manipulate anything, IQ 0 forbids anything involving mentality or volition at all, and so on). They clearly aren't 0 point traits and equivalent to a score of 10.

Able has a sapient human ally with IQ 10 [0], Betsy has an non-sentient giant robot Ally with IQ N/A [0], and Charlie has a sentient but non-sapient giant wasp familiar with IQ 1 [-80].

• Able can talk to his ally, and interact with it like any other person.
• Charlie's ally can act on its own instinctively like an insect, or according to preprogrammed instructions.
• Betsy's ally cannot act at all, and must be controlled in some fashion (CM: Controls, Possession, whatever) that itself costs more points.

Why does Betsy have to pay more points than either of the others for a less functional Ally?

Well, I'm kinda thinking that there may not be a need to distinguish between 'N/a' and '0'. If that former was put in place as a separate level for attributes, I imagine it would be worth around the same as an actual zero, though there might be some discount or premium added to the cost of selling the stat down *not sure*

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I don't understand what you mean here. The only "N/A" in the RAW is the FP feature of Machine. I'm not sure how "chucking" something that doesn't even exist in the system can have negative repercussions.

I meant for my purposes (and for the purpose of discussion). I haven't forgotten that it's not RAW ;)

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I have a big problem with people categorising the two in the same class. An analogy: if something targets DR (e.g. Affliction: Negated Advantage), someone without DR is immune to it; if something is resisted by DR (most normal Afflictions and Innate Attacks), not having DR is not a reason to become immune to it.

That looks weak to me. DR is not a resisting attribute, but an adder to a resistance attempt.