Accessory vs Power
 

This response in the Robot Repair Robot thread got me thinking. What is the difference between

• Accessory: Night-Vision Goggles
• Nightvision (the advantage)

or

• Accessory: Knife
• A Melee Weapon Innate Attack

or

• Accessory: Shield
• Buying a Defense Bonus plus highly-limited DR

or more prosaically

• Accessory: Flashlight
• Control Light

What do you get for it being an innate power that you don't get by buying it an accessory?

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

The last example of a flashlight vs. Control Light is out of whack.
It would be more like a limited Create Light.

However to the point of your question....
Powers are available to people who can have them becasue of the right special effect. Tech is available to anyone who can afford the gear and is in the right time and place to get it. You can have a fireball as an IA in fantasy or Supers but maybe not access to a high powered rifle.
However if anyone can go to the store and say buy a flashlight then it seems odd to have to pay a lot of points for one, even if your accessory perk means its built in. That is still cool and all and may resist being taken away from you so is worth something (hence the perk) but not really worth as many points as if your the only one who can shine a light on something.
Perks are a discount for fairly common items so they can be bought as powers to level the playing field between tech gear and powers.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

It's much easier to take away someone's night vision goggles than to take away his eyes.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

'Accessory' doesn't mean they're literally carrying around NVGs - that would be Signature Gear (Night Vision Goggles). It means they effectively have NVGs at all times.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Accessory only lets you get things at least very similar to equipment that would be available to you.

Advantages can be anything, and can be part of a Power, meaning you might be able to do various tricks with them, like the psi techniques in Psionic Powers.

Basically, Accessory exists as a perk so you don't have to waste points on powers that the rest of the players are just going to buy with cash anyway.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Remember that Accessories come with all the limitations of the item they mimic except that they can't be easily taken away.

The flashlight and NVGs need a power source (probably batteries) and are vulnerable to being broken. Without a UB you can't reasonably buy Accessories from a TL higher than your own. Powers can upgrade and evolve as you gain points, Accessories cannot.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

First, bear in mind the RAW says Accessories can provide only minor, non-combat benefits. Accordingly the knife and shield are not technically allowed (although I'm aware some GMs house-rule otherwise).

I think that practically Accessories should be considered subject to the 'natural' item-limitations (e.g. Breakable) that would appear to flow from their nature. Night Vision goggles should be subject to electrical shorts etc., while Night Vision would not.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

This is not necessarily the case. For some good examples of "Accessory"-like perks, check out Ergokinesis in Psi Powers (pg 35). Light Amplification doesn't mimic any specific flashlight, doesn't require batteries, and isn't subject to being broken. It just lets the character focus light in an area around himself. It's not really superior to a flashlight, except in being less vulnerable. Likewise, Interface lets you function as an input device for a computer, Phreaker lets you make calls by touching a phone cable, and Power Source lets you function as a small battery. None of these are actual gadgets that are built into the character, and can't be broken. They are dependent on his Ergokinetic abilities, and would be shut down if his psionics were neutralized or suppressed, which seems a fair balance.

Basically, Accessory lets a character emulate the abilities of one particular device, but not necessarily by having the device physically built-in. A cyborg's Illumination perk could be an actual flashlight that pops out of his hand, while the equivalent perk for a mage would let him light up his staff with a gesture. It's really up to the GM whether a particular effect is minor enough that 1 point is enough to enable it. In the case of Night Vision goggles, it would have to carry with it significantly more drawbacks than the actual Night Vision advantage for it to qualify as a perk.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

That description makes it a classic example of Perk-creep, IMO.


Actually, per B100:

"Your body incorporates a tool or
other useful gadget (e.g., a siren or a
vacuum cleaner)..."

What makes it only a Perk is that it's really not much better than buying an object that you hold in your hand or clip to your gear.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

The former include No Peripheral Vision, Colorblindness, and several other drawbacks when used; see GURPS Tactical Shooting for details. They can also be overloaded. The latter just eliminates darkness penalties with no drawbacks whatsoever.

For both, the former is not GURPS-legal while the latter is. :)

I'll assume you meant Create Light.

The latter is powerful. Even 1000kW is enough to flood a cave with bright light lasting for minutes. You can cover every nook and cranny, bend the light to illuminate behind things, spot secret doors and passageways (by flooding the cracks with light), flash your opponents (weakly, but still), and so on. It's a super-power.

The former lets you remove darkness penalties in a fairly narrow beam in one direction.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Maybe so, but it is quite definitely crept from that definition. PU2 and PP both use it for powers that are roughly equivalent to incorporating a tool or gadget.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

No, it's not.

{EDIT -- Ignore this post ... I misunderstood what I was replying to.}

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

The result would be you can build a godlike being for very few points at TL10.

Forcefield projector (but not a projector, just the effect)[1]
Morphing armor (but not armor, just the effect) [1]
Onboard battlecomp (but not a computer, just the effect)[1]
Grav flight-belt (but not a belt, just the effect)[1]
...

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

I have no idea what you mean here. Please expand, because unless you're saying a Melee attack isn't legal, or buying Enhanced Defenses isn't legal, I can't figure out what you're trying to say.

If that IS what you're trying to say, you're kind of wrong.

EDIT: If you're going for some kind of double negative thing saying that "Accessory: Shield" is legal, you're also wrong :)

Emphasis mine.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Weapons are not permitted as accessories, you know.
Well, except that at least some of those are not allowed as accessories (armor is excluded, isn't it?), I really have to go with sure-and-why-not?

The computer is basically standard in THS, but may not do some of the things you're presuming it would (and it needs to be loaded with software). The belt might work if it's allowed.

If anything I'd lean to calling the high actual-rules point cost of the field projector and armor are the problematic bit, not the cheapness of being able to have the stunning abilities that are available to basically anyone at no point cost.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

I believe "flashlight built into hand" an an Accessory perk is balanced with "can project beam of light from hand" as a power perk, since the former is subject to battery drain, breakage, etc. and the latter to whatever limitations your power normally suffers.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

I am saying that a shield is disqualified as an Accessory because it contravenes the text.

The text says minor, non-combat benefits.

A shield violates both parameters where even one would be enough to rule it out.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Yes, and that's exactly what Reverend said. He said neither Accessory was valid, while both powers were valid.

So I'm still not sure what's going on.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Which is exactly what you seemed to be disagreeing with. The Good Reverend was saying that Accessory: Knife and Accessory: Shield were illegal, while Cutting Attack and Defense Bonus+DR were legal. I think you have misparsed his statement.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Yes, I would think armor is excluded too, by the same text as shields and weapons. I was letting two discussions mingle by mistake.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Ryan, Bruno, thanks. I see now I completely misread what RPK said.

Sorry RPK.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Hmmm, I've wondered this often regarding cybernetics. The implant computer is one point (actually 6, because you gain photographic memory, though I'm not clear why this is separated out). While I'll grant that this is a tiny computer, as it increases in complexity, you can gain access to things like targeting programs and augmented reality for +1 to vision. These are not non-combat bonuses (though one can argue that a flashlight gives "combat bonuses" in a similar fashion).

But then we flip to implant radios, and those are designed the actual telecommunication advantage, not an accessory (Radio). Why not? Why design it with an advantage and not an accessory? It would seem to me, especially in an ultratech setting, that a radio is less powerful than a computer, and yet the radio costs more.

I don't really follow the logic of this. Why accessory(tiny computer) but not accessory(radio)?

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

". . . provides minor, noncombat benefits not otherwise covered by a specific advantage." (p. B100)

The first two clearly provide combat benefits. The fourth provides benefits that are far from minor.

Not all technological devices count as "minor." A flashlight, a shovel, a siren, a vacuum cleaner, and the like are modestly priced and provide benefits that are smaller than the most nearly equivalent advantages. I'd allow the computer, since Transhuman Space treats having a computer as part of one's physical makeup as a perk, but the battle software's a different story.

Bill Stoddard

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Because there exists no advantage that gives you the ability to run programs like word processing software, but there does exist an advantage which gives you radio communication. (There is an advantage that gives you the ability to run skills-as-programs.)

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Okay, sure, but there's also an advantage that gives you the ability to shine light on things (create light), but we still treat that as an accessory.

So it's not enough that an advantage doesn't exist, it needs to be sufficiently minor that it's not worth much, but in a setting where everyone has cell phones and comm systems, why isn't having one implanted an accessory.

Make a different one: Implanted time-piece: Accessory (Watch) or Absolute Timing?

Keeping in mind that tiny computer is WAY more useful than a watch.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

The justification there was that "flashlight" is such a heavily limited version of "create light" that it should just be a perk.

Re: Accessory vs Power
 

Indeed. As noted to another poster, I incorrectly conflated another concern into those examples.