Accessory vs Power

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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.

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.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

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

No, it's not.

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

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

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.

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]
...

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

No, it's not.

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 :)

Originally Posted by Basic Set

Accessory 3 1
Your body incorporates a tool or
other useful gadget (e.g., a siren or a
vacuum cleaner) that provides minor,
noncombat benefits not otherwise
covered by a specific advantage.

Emphasis mine.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

No, it's not.

Weapons are not permitted as accessories, you know.

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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]
...

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.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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.

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.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Bruno

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.

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.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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.

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.

[RyanW]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

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

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.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

... 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?

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