Pricing of Affliction (Attribute Penalty)

[JCurwen3]

Where did "+5% per -1 to ST or HT, or +10% per -1 to DX or IQ" (p. B36) come from?

It seems to me that the pricing is skewed, lower than it should be. After all, Advantage and Negated Disadvantage (both "increase" the point value of a character) cost +10% per CP, and Disadvantage and Negated Advantage (both "decrease" the point value of a character) cost +1% per -CP.

Well, levels of ST and HT cost 10 CP each, and levels of DX and IQ cost 20 CP each. So why doesn't Attribute Penalty cost +10% per -1 to ST or HT, or +20% per -1 to DX or IQ? Why does the cost of reducing them seem to be half the value than it should be, based on the grander price scheme of Affliction?

[Walrus]

You should clearly check the meaning of such affliction. Not all secondary characteristics are affected, especially HP for ST loss and FP for HT loss. So, not whole price of characteristics is affected.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Walrus

You should clearly check the meaning of such affliction. Not all secondary characteristics are affected, especially HP for ST loss and FP for HT loss. So, not whole price of characteristics is affected.

So then if I wanted to do a "proper" attribute penalty affliction that affected all secondary characteristics, then that would be rules-legally done just by using the pricing for Disadvantage and Negated Advantage?

[cccwebs]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

So then if I wanted to do a "proper" attribute penalty affliction that affected all secondary characteristics, then that would be rules-legally done just by using the pricing for Disadvantage and Negated Advantage?

You could do that, if the GM is ok with it. The more rules friendly way would be to modify each secondary characteristic individually with affliction. GURPS has a tendancy to treat Attributes and Secondary Characteristics as seperate entities when it comes to abilities that modify them during play (something about not wanting the difficulties of recalculating secondary characteristics during play for temporary modifiers to attributes). A more "rules-legally" approach would be to maintain that tendancy and treat them as seperate entities when building the afflcition.