Are Imbuements expensive?

[Bicorn]

Originally Posted by Kelly Pedersen

They only suffer from Neutralize or Static if the source modifier includes the -5% for "anti-power" countermeasures. Sources like Chi or Divine don't include such a modifier, ergo Neutralize (Divine) or Static (Chi) don't exist.

I've always found the reasoning for the existence of that modifier kind of suspect. The whole point of Neutralize is that it's a weapon against a particular type of power, so why does the power get a discount for it existing? Zombies don't get any point break for being vulnerable to Turn Zombie, it's just a 0-point feature.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

Zombies don't get any point break for being vulnerable to Turn Zombie, it's just a 0-point feature.

Actually, the thinking on this has evolved a bit. While early 4e sources definitely did use "Can be turned by True Faith" as a 0-point feature, later sources, such as Zombies, have made it a quirk (basically defined as a trivial Dread). And if a zombie's abilities were vulnerable to being dispelled by True Faith, I'd definitely give them the -5% limitation.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

I've always found the reasoning for the existence of that modifier kind of suspect. The whole point of Neutralize is that it's a weapon against a particular type of power, so why does the power get a discount for it existing?

Because it exists only for some powers. A power that lives in the same universe as an "I win!" button against it is less useful than a power that faces no such countermeasure.

Originally Posted by Bicorn

Zombies don't get any point break for being vulnerable to Turn Zombie, it's just a 0-point feature.

That's because zombies are at the same time not vulnerable to things that affect the living: Death Vision, Sense Life, Soul Jar, Steal (Attribute), Steal Energy, etc. They more or less get immunity to those spells in return for vulnerability to Control Zombie, Pentagram, Sense Spirit, Turn Zombie, and Zombie Summoning. It's a tradeoff, not a uniformly positive or negative thing.

To offer a comparison: Everybody accepts that attack abilities that are affected by armor should cost less than those that bypass all armor; armor is a common countermeasure, and its existence splits the price range of attacks between a high cost for those that just ignore armor and a much lower cost for those that must deal with it. But corrosion attacks cost the same whether their special effect is "acid" or "disintegration," burning attacks cost the same whether their special effect is "fireball" or "heat ray," and so on, which is what GURPS Powers calls a "functional special effect": a description that matters in play but doesn't alter overall capability.

[AlexanderHowl]

Of course, if you want Neutralize and Static to apply to every source, you need to give every source without countermeasures an extra -5% discount.

[Kromm]

The GM can build the world in whatever manner seems pleasing! But all other things being equal, the abilities of powers that have countermeasures should cost less than those of powers that do not. Needless to say, if the GM plans to allow Neutralize, Static, and similar anti-abilities (e.g., Afflictions that target specific powers, or Obscure and Resistant against particular powers), it becomes important to specify what powers are valid targets and to factor that into the power modifier for those powers. This is why freeform power-building is a terrible idea . . . really, powers must be planned from the campaign's outset.

[Bicorn]

Hmm. Looks like the way I've been looking at Neutralize et al is a bit different from the design intent - I've been thinking of them as general "category-specific countermeasures" similar to Resistant, while the intent is apparently that they can only interact with abilities specifically classed as Powers. So you can't have, for example, Neutralize(Electronics) because electronics aren't classified as a Power. That about correct?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

Hmm. Looks like the way I've been looking at Neutralize et al is a bit different from the design intent - I've been thinking of them as general "category-specific countermeasures" similar to Resistant, while the intent is apparently that they can only interact with abilities specifically classed as Powers. So you can't have, for example, Neutralize(Electronics) because electronics aren't classified as a Power. That about correct?

About, although technically Electronics is a -30% power modifier in Supers. But 20% of that is the Electric limitation.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Bicorn

So you can't have, for example, Neutralize(Electronics) because electronics aren't classified as a Power. That about correct?

I’d allow for that if it fit with the (meta)physics of the setting, but if anyone had an ability that was fluffed as using electronics (likely for a Gadget), they’d get a -5% Limitation.