Pricing a Choice of Skill Enhancement

[Daigoro]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Looking at GURPS Powers, I see that, in the first place, having an ability require a skill roll rather than an attribute roll is considered to be a feature rather than an enhancement or limitation. It gives the benefit that you can raise the ability far above the attribute+Talent, but the drawback that you start out at (attribute-6) to use the ability; those are felt to balance.

I've never understood that. Any character that builds a power with Based on Skill Roll is presumably going to actually have the skill required. Otherwise, they pick up the power in play somehow, then it only takes spending a point or two to negate the disadvantage, so that drawback is almost never relevant.

[Anders]

Originally Posted by Daigoro

I've never understood that. Any character that builds a power with Based on Skill Roll is presumably going to actually have the skill required. Otherwise, they pick up the power in play somehow, then it only takes spending a point or two to negate the disadvantage, so that drawback is almost never relevant.

On the other hand, it's not a huge boon either. You still have to pay points for it.

[JulianLW]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Since skills and attributes are generally interchangeable, it seems fair to say that an ability that can be used with either of two different skills, each of which defaults to attribute-N, is also +40%.

... You're saying that you would make the enhancement of being able to use an innate attack with a different DX-based skill a +40% enhancement of the basic Innate Attack? Really?

More expensive than ... an alternative attack?

Being able to use an attack with a different skill is, in my opinion, comparable to a Skill Adaptation perk. But for the OP to use a lightning attack in exactly the same way only with a different skill - for which the user also paid the points, just not in the Innate Attack skill - you would increase the underlying cost by +40%?

That seems pretty excessive to me.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by JulianLW

... You're saying that you would make the enhancement of being able to use an innate attack with a different DX-based skill a +40% enhancement of the basic Innate Attack? Really?

More expensive than ... an alternative attack?

No, it doesn't work out that way. The +40% doesn't apply to the entire cost of the ability; it applies only to the base cost of the underlying advantage.

But in any case, that appears to be the logical interpretation of the RAW.

[Aldric]

This has me even more confused than the previous answer.

Numbers at hand.

Lightning Bolt (Innate Attack 4d Burning, Increased Range x5 +20%) [24]. Fires a bolt of lightning from the hand using the Innate Attack (DX/E) (Beam) skill.

How many points would a character pay to also be able to shoot lightning arrows from a Bow with the same stats as the attack above ?

Assuming one allows to stat something like:
Lightning Arrow (Innate Attack 4d Burning, Increased Range x5 +20%, Requires Bow -10% (or some other number based on Gadget limitation) [22]
Fires a lightning arrow from a bow, using the Bow (DX/A) skill.

I'd say the final cost should be between 24+1 (using something similar to the weapon adaptation perk) to 24+5(considering the second attack an AA of the first)

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

No, it doesn't work out that way. The +40% doesn't apply to the entire cost of the ability; it applies only to the base cost of the underlying advantage.

But in any case, that appears to be the logical interpretation of the RAW.

I believe Innate Attack explicitly mentions it can be designed to be used with a skill other than Innate Attack (like Guns if it approximates a firearm, or in this case Bow if it approximates a bow), so the initial +20% probably shouldn't apply - building the IA to work with Bow requires only a +0% modifier. Allowing it to work with the default IA or Bow I suppose I could see as +20%, but I think the Perk approach is more appropriate.

Essentially, of the +40%, the first +20% is for being able to set it to something that benefits the character, the other +20% is for being able to vary it under specific circumstances. Seeing as it can already be set to something that benefits the character (the player could have just said it summons a bow and arrow for a moment), the first shouldn't apply.

[JulianLW]

Originally Posted by whswhs

No, it doesn't work out that way. The +40% doesn't apply to the entire cost of the ability; it applies only to the base cost of the underlying advantage.

But in any case, that appears to be the logical interpretation of the RAW.

Yeah. I get how enhancements work. A +40% enhancement on an Innate Attack isn't much worse than an Alternative Attack only up to 2d.

So if I have a regular 3d Lighting Attack (burning), with Can use Bow as well as Innate Attack skill +40%, I pay 21 points.

If I have a regular 3d Lightning Attack, I pay 15 points.

If I have a regular 3d Lightning Attack using a bow (Alternative Ability), I pay 3 more points.

Making the move from 2d to 3d increases the cost of the +40% enhancement over the AA build by 3 CP. Each increase in the base advantage increases the cost by a comparable number of CP. A 4d burning attack would cost 4 points less if bought as an Alternative Ability than with your +40% enhancement. The difference in a 5d attack would be 5 CP, etc.

But the character still pays for two different DX skills (which don't default to each other) that both cost more points. Being able to use an attack with an alternative skill has precedent as a perk.

Like I said, +40% seems excessive. And not logical.

Edit: Sorry if I sound snarky there; just very surprised at the conclusion you draw. Also, thanks for Supers and Social Engineering!

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by JulianLW

But the character still pays for two different DX skills (which don't default to each other) that both cost more points. Being able to use an attack with an alternative skill has precedent as a perk.

That was the first thing I thought of, but the perk is defined as applying only with melee attacks, which this is not.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Aldric

Lightning Bolt (Innate Attack 4d Burning, Increased Range x5 +20%) [24]. Fires a bolt of lightning from the hand using the Innate Attack (DX/E) (Beam) skill.

How many points would a character pay to also be able to shoot lightning arrows from a Bow with the same stats as the attack above ?

Assuming one allows to stat something like:
Lightning Arrow (Innate Attack 4d Burning, Increased Range x5 +20%, Requires Bow -10% (or some other number based on Gadget limitation) [22]
Fires a lightning arrow from a bow, using the Bow (DX/A) skill.

I'd say the final cost should be between 24+1 (using something similar to the weapon adaptation perk) to 24+5(considering the second attack an AA of the first)

The cost would seem to be Burning Attack (4d; Increased Range +20%; Usable with Bow Skill, Accessibility, Requires Bow, +36%) [32], which is an 8-point increase. But it seems that it's cheaper to take it as a straight AA, which is what I would do.

The real point is not that you can't take the AA version, but that you can't save points relative to the AA version by using some arcane combination of advantages and limitations. The AA version already seems pretty cheap.

[Stormcrow]

I think the closest GURPS comes to ruling on this is on page 113 of Powers: "Continuous beams and jets can stream from the hands, mouth, or eyes, and use Innate Attack (Beam), (Breath), or (Gaze), respectively. Solid projectiles and discrete bolts — like fireballs — use Innate Attack (Projectile). For abilities that don't fit neatly into these categories, the GM may arbitrarily assign an existing specialty or invent a new one."

I'd say shooting your Innate Attack through a bow is an example of not fitting neatly into those categories.