Are Powers Overpriced?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

Never heard of it. Where can I find it?

Spaceships 2:26-27.

[AlexanderHowl]

It is a modifier costing +1% per 5% of protected assets, but it only applies to SM+2 or larger items. So a character with Wealth (Filthy Rich) at TL8 could declare that a $1,000,000 airplane was Signature Assets for 10 points.

[dataweaver]

I see. Well, Signature Assets has the same problem that AtE's Signature Gear does: you're still spending cash for the gear. I would have no problem completely scrapping the Signature Assets enhancement and replacing it with an AtE-style Signature Gear perk.

But again, that's if you're willing and able to pay cash for the Signature Gear. If you either can't or won't, that's where the original pricing for Signature Gear comes in. For big-ticket items, I could see revising the price structure to be geometric instead of linear, with two caveats: the item must be something non-portable (the essence behind Signature Assets' Size 2 requirement), and it must be something you can't or won't liquidate (the latter really ought to be a built-in part of all Signature Gear anyway, along with a “one item per advantage” restriction). But if you meet those requirements, I could see following the Speed/Range progression, reading “yards” as “starting wealth”. So 1 point gets you ×0.5 as usual; 2 points get you ×0.7, 3 points get you ×1; 4 points get you ×1.5, 5 points get you ×2, 6 points get you ×3, 7 points get you ×5, 8 points get you ×7, 9 points get you ×10, 10 points get you ×15, and so on. Or something like that.

Of course, this geometric progression wouldn't be appropriate for portable gear, and as such isn't particularly relevant to the idea of capping an ability's cost at the cost of equivalent signature gear.

[AlexanderHowl]

So, I can own the Earth with Multimillionaire 2 and 50 points in Signature Assets?

[dataweaver]

If you can put a price tag on Earth, why not? People owning planets isn't beyond the pale in a science fiction setting.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Starting cash isn't the main purpose of Wealth:

With all respect to Dr. Kromm, that's a retcon designed to patch the fact that wealth is broken in games that have the possibility of significant asset gains from adventuring. The RAW effects of wealth are:

1. Alters starting wealth
2. Alters income, both from jobs and from advantages such as Independent Income. In games where PCs have regular jobs, this will eventually outweigh the starting wealth effect. In adventuring games, this is usually utterly irrelevant.
3. May grant status.

[dataweaver]

I don't care if it's a retcon or not. All I care about is whether or not it makes Wealth work.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

I don't care if it's a retcon or not. All I care about is whether or not it makes Wealth work.

It doesn't. Wealth should basically be banned in adventuring games.

[dataweaver]

Right. Nobody should ever be allowed to play Tony Stark or Scrooge McDuck. </sarc>

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by dataweaver

Right. Nobody should ever be allowed to play Tony Stark or Scrooge McDuck. </sarc>

Neither character exists in a setting where wealth is particularly mutable. The basic problem is that any advantage that can be easily acquired during play should cost minimal or zero character points, and in the case of classic 'adventuring for loot' settings wealth is such an advantage.