What does Unfit apply to?

[trooper6]

Originally Posted by Anders

No one's ever taken it. That may be because they think it's worth too little.

I've had people take it in my campaigns. But then I seem to be one of the rare birds on the forums that I and my players tend to approach character creation and advancement from an RP point of view rather than an Optimizer point of view.

We have people with Unfit. We have people who don't always optimized their attribute/skill relationship. We have people who spend points on multiple techniques.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Except the time usage rule officially wins over unitedly break down in costs over thing like Combat Reflexes as well.

Where do you get Combat Reflexes' pricing having anything to do with Time Use?

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Where do you get Combat Reflexes' pricing having anything to do with Time Use?

I think what he means is that Combat Reflexes costs less (much less) than the sum of its parts. Whereas there are few (none?) occasions where the Time Use rule has been violated. So it would seem that Time Use is broken less often than "price an advantage according utility".

I think this is a bad argument because we have so many more examples of advantages than of Time Use rules being used that there's not enough data to make a solid comparison.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Where do you get Combat Reflexes' pricing having anything to do with Time Use?

From statements from Kromm about combat Reflexes being a utility advantage for Warriors that it was princes that if you didn't start with it you could easily gain it in play in a reasonable amount of time, what people tried to argues it was too cheap

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

From statements from Kromm about combat Reflexes being a utility advantage for Warriors that it was princes that if you didn't start with it you could easily gain it in play in a reasonable amount of time, what people tried to argues it was too cheap

And you think that 'gain it in play' means 'gain it by hour-to-point conversion'? Because I am almost certain that is not what it means.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anders

Should Unfit really be worth less than -2 FP?

It is hard for me to say what -2 FP represents, since it is both highly abstract and relative to HT. Improving stamina beyond improved cardiovascular fitness isn't easy though. Unfit represents poor cardiovascular fitness that is relatively easy to correct through routine exercise so it should probably be easier to buy off than it is to raise FP.

Originally Posted by Anders

Also true. I don't know how much surgery is required to go from Attractive to Beautiful, but spending 1 600 hour under the blade sounds excessive.

Appearance isn't learnable and surgical transformations use their own rules, so this isn't relevant.

If you are suggesting that Unfit should be - 15 and you should get to just buy it off for free by fiat after some short period, then it is clearly too good and practically is free points.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

And you think that 'gain it in play' means 'gain it by hour-to-point conversion'? Because I am almost certain that is not what it means.

Whatever it is that a Stimulus Response Course equates to, is enough.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

It is hard for me to say what -2 FP represents, since it is both highly abstract and relative to HT. Improving stamina beyond improved cardiovascular fitness isn't easy though. Unfit represents poor cardiovascular fitness that is relatively easy to correct through routine exercise so it should probably be easier to buy off than it is to raise FP.

Reduced endurance* (without a reduction of overall fitness, which includes more than endurance). Come to think of it, it's Fit/Unfit that is the more abstract one: it multiplies how good one's endurance points are for most mundane purposes. If someone came to me and said "Hey, GM, can I buy a fixed-price trait that makes my [type of points] twice as good", I'd react with a high amount of caution. E.g. people would be very leery of a trait that makes HPs twice as good, or makes ST twice as good (though IIRC there was such a thing in 3e, and it was removed in 4e), or makes you get twice the per-session character point award. There are traits that skim the line, such as IT:DR, or Talents multiplying training speed (or the ATR variants in Back to School), but in general this things are not handed out trivially.

* == People having different endurance is pretty reasonable. Interactions between inborn predisposition towards endurance, endurance training etc. are pretty complicated in life, way more complicated than in RPGs; they also aren't balanced IRL, of course.

[Flyndaran]

Most forms of endurance, trained and innate, are more specific than all physical activity. Quite a few people can run for hours, but would likely suffer exhaustion if forced to move heavy objects from the ground to shelves for a day. And vice versa, of course.
I really like The Last Gasp trained skill rule similar to this concept and think a more limited form of (Un)fitness is both more realistic and less point skiffy.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If you are suggesting that Unfit should be - 15 and you should get to just buy it off for free by fiat after some short period, then it is clearly too good and practically is free points.

Now you are just being ornery. I think I have said all I wanted to say in this thread and so I take my leave.