Enhancement of the Sun?

[supersaiyandoyle]

I'm creating an innate attack for a paladin of light, and I wanted it to be considered damage from the sun in terms of weakness to sunlight. How would I go about doing this?

[sir_pudding]

If it's exploiting an existing Weakness or Vulnerability then it's a +0% enhancement. If it does double damage to a specific type of target without exploiting the target's own traits then it's Accessibility: Half Power against everything except X.

[Anthony]

Arguably, if it also causes other effects of sunlight (sunburn, whatever) it might be a small Hazard enhancement, but I probably wouldn't bother.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

If it's exploiting an existing Weakness or Vulnerability then it's a +0% enhancement. If it does double damage to a specific type of target without exploiting the target's own traits then it's Accessibility: Half Power against everything except X.

While that's probably RAW, considering that a) your targets aren't really "getting points back" for their Weakness/Vulnerability (because they aren't PC's, and those don't need to be built on points), b) the effect may be against a rather large class of targets, c) there probably aren't targets with Limited Defenses against Sunlight Only, and d) Sunlight is often considered to be particularly "special" and unique (plenty of light-generating methods are available, but mimicking the Sun is almost always a Big Deal), I'd be very tempted to charge for it. +20% might be appropriate.

In a setting where Sunlight isn't such a Big Deal, and the types of foes against which this particular aspect applies are exceedingly rare, a Perk or simply +0% Enhancement would be appropriate.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Varyon

While that's probably RAW, considering that a) your targets aren't really "getting points back" for their Weakness/Vulnerability (because they aren't PC's, and those don't need to be built on points).

You probably should still list Weakness or Vulnerability under Traits for monsters. If you don't, then the ability that "counts as sunlight for creatures with an appropriate Vulnerability or Weakness" doesn't have any special effect on that creature; even if it is a "vampire", but the ability with "Half damage except against vampires" does full damage.

[Anthony]

I might be tempted to handle it via unusual background, actually. A power special effect that many creatures are vulnerable to and few are resistant to is logically more valuable than a special effect that many creatures are vulnerable to and few are resistant to, but which category a given special effect fits into is an issue of world design, and unusual background is in large part intended for balancing out that sort of setting-specific benefit.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

You probably should still list Weakness or Vulnerability under Traits for monsters. If you don't, then the ability that "counts as sunlight for creatures with an appropriate Vulnerability or Weakness" doesn't have any special effect on that creature; even if it is a "vampire", but the ability with "Half damage except against vampires" does full damage.

Certainly! It's just that charging extra points for abilities that exploit such Disadvantages can sometimes be viewed as "double-dipping" (the target already has more points in butt-kicking than it "should," so why do I have to pay extra?; on the flipside, forcing enemies to pay extra to exploit your Disadvantages can stink of munchkinry), but that really isn't the case outside of something like a gladiatorial PC vs PC campaign.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by Varyon

In a setting where Sunlight isn't such a Big Deal, and the types of foes against which this particular aspect applies are exceedingly rare, a Perk or simply +0% Enhancement would be appropriate.

I think it's always going to be +0% personally.

If you define your Innate Attack as being bolts of fire, you don't pay extra for it because some things might have a weakness against fire, or for that matter pay less because some things will have DR against fire. Same deal with "sunlight". Sure it'll occasionally zap some monsters more effectively, but it'll occasionally be totally useless because the targets are sitting a pool of magical darkness.

And in the setting where sunlight *is* that big a deal, there probably *should* be defenses. If you happen to run up against a vampire lich who has an Endure Sunlight spell - a not particularly bizarre thing to have worked on if you are an immortal magic user with a special vulnerability - your attack does nothing even though a light attack defined as a laser beam might be normally effective.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Certainly! It's just that charging extra points for abilities that exploit such Disadvantages can sometimes be viewed as "double-dipping" (the target already has more points in butt-kicking than it "should," so why do I have to pay extra?; on the flipside, forcing enemies to pay extra to exploit your Disadvantages can stink of munchkinry), but that really isn't the case outside of something like a gladiatorial PC vs PC campaign.

I'm saying it's not worth any points. You were arguing for a +20% enhancement.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by malloyd

I think it's always going to be +0% personally.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by malloyd

If you define your Innate Attack as being bolts of fire, you don't pay extra for it because some things might have a weakness against fire, or for that matter pay less because some things will have DR against fire. Same deal with "sunlight". Sure it'll occasionally zap some monsters more effectively, but it'll occasionally be totally useless because the targets are sitting a pool of magical darkness.

Weakness and resistance to fire are probably about equal. Weakness and resistance to light errs a bit on the weakness side, although not by enough to typically be a bit deal. Weakness vs resistance to sunlight (as a subset of light) is almost exclusively on the side of weakness, with rare exceptions of True Good foes (who you probably aren't fighting if you're a Paladin of the Light).
EDIT: I'm talking about frequency of occurrence in most fiction, naturally.

Originally Posted by malloyd

And in the setting where sunlight *is* that big a deal, there probably *should* be defenses. If you happen to run up against a vampire lich who has an Endure Sunlight spell - a not particularly bizarre thing to have worked on if you are an immortal magic user with a special vulnerability - your attack does nothing even though a light attack defined as a laser beam might be normally effective.

In settings where Sunlight is a Big Deal, it's typically because it is some sort of condensed radiation of Good - a vampire can't directly resist it much more easily than he could resist getting backhanded by God Himself, regardless of how much time he's spent on it. If this isn't the case, and a vampire can get away with such a spell, he's simply changed the Sunlight-enhanced Innate Attack so that it no longer benefits from being Sunlight - it's probably still doing the damage it would against a foe who lacked the vampire's Weakness. As I said, however, if specific resistance to sunlight is fairly common, +0% works.

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I'm saying it's not worth any points. You were arguing for a +20% enhancement.

I still feel +20% is appropriate, I was simply giving an explanation for why I think it's worth additional points. It doesn't make your attack any weaker (barring the existence of defenses that work against sunlight specifically, but such tends to be quite rare) but does give it additional utility against an often-wide range of foes (Evil being hurt by sunlight specifically is a common trope) when compared to making it consist of simple run-of-the-mill light. Generally speaking, the only defenses that work against sunlight are those that work against most/all light, while foes that are unaffected by light that isn't sunlight are hardly unheard-of.