"Requires (Attribute) roll" simplified?

[pgb]

I'm pretty sure this is a stupid question, because there really ought to be an existing way of doing this - I'm either not finding it, or not thinking about it correctly. Anyway...

How do I modify an advantage that by default doesn't require any roll, to just require a simple success to activate, without any of the overhead that goes with "Requires (Attribute) roll" - specifically, without a FP cost for failure. Obviously, such a modifier wouldn't always make sense, but for something where time is of the essence, just needing the success is clearly a limitation (as long as it's not a Free Action).

[johndallman]

"Requires (Attribute) Roll", Powers, p. 112, seems to do what you want. I don't see any FP cost for failure there.

[pgb]

Originally Posted by johndallman

"Requires (Attribute) Roll", Powers, p. 112, seems to do what you want. I don't see any FP cost for failure there.

You're right, there's no cost for failure. What I meant was the cost for successive attempts after failure, not shown there but inherited from Unreliable. BUT I was misreading that text; I was missing the point about trying again at no penalty, and skipping straight to "Each successive attempt costs one FP". So yes, the existing version does what I wanted. Thanks!

[pgb]

For what it's worth, I have figured out why I didn't read the original text (p.B116) properly. It's because I was reading the version of Requires (Attribute) Roll that's in Power-Ups 8: Limitations (p.17). That says something different!

That version doesn't rely on p.B116 for the details (though it does, indirectly, link to it). Instead, it says explicitly that, for a defensive ability, which is what I had in mind* "If your roll fails, all future attempts to activate the ability (until you succeed) cost a flat 1 FP". For an ability that isn't defensive, there's no mention of an FP cost; so in both cases, it contradicts what's in Powers.

I don't know if this is fixed in errata somewhere - I haven't had chance to check. I was just relieved to find that this wasn't wholly down to lazy reading on my part.

* I do know that there's a separate Active Defense limitation. But that doesn't resolve the contradiction.

[pgb]

I can't find anything in the errata that reconciles the two versions from Powers/Basic and Power-Ups. If anyone can shed any light on why things are this way, or on authorial intent, I'd be interested.

I do now have what I need, in a sense, but it feels a bit unsatisfactory to just arbitrarily choose one version over the other, since they have the same names and costs but one is strictly better. For current purposes, I don't think I need to have both versions in use, but there's no reason that couldn't happen, and that would makes things even less satisfactory.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by pgb

You're right, there's no cost for failure. What I meant was the cost for successive attempts after failure, not shown there but inherited from Unreliable. BUT I was misreading that text; I was missing the point about trying again at no penalty, and skipping straight to "Each successive attempt costs one FP". So yes, the existing version does what I wanted. Thanks!

I'm confused as to your current reading, since it seems clear to me that unreliable imposes no penalty on repeated attempts but does charge FP?

[Plane]

Originally Posted by pgb

What I meant was the cost for successive attempts after failure, not shown there but inherited from Unreliable.

BUT I was misreading that text; I was missing the point about trying again at no penalty, and skipping straight to "Each successive attempt costs one FP".

So yes, the existing version does what I wanted. Thanks!

B116's "Each successive attempt costs one FP" seems to have no exceptions where you wouldn't pay that 1 FP.

I'd posit something like "only for paying FP on successive attempts" to be something like a -80% limitation if we applied it to the +20% "REduced Fatigue Cost" enhancement, reducing it to a +4% enhancement.

This would mean you're still saving some points (albeit only -1%) if taking "requires attribute roll -5%" for Will or Perception as a limitation from Powers 112, or net -6% if it's IQ/DX/HT

One could also posit that if one had RFC unmodified (full +20% cost) on the power for other reasons (maybe it has inherent FP costs) that this could be applied to the FP costs incurred by that limitation as well?

Originally Posted by pgb

For what it's worth, I have figured out why I didn't read the original text (p.B116) properly. It's because I was reading the version of Requires (Attribute) Roll that's in Power-Ups 8: Limitations (p.17). That says something different!

That version doesn't rely on p.B116 for the details (though it does, indirectly, link to it). Instead, it says explicitly that, for a defensive ability, which is what I had in mind* "If your roll fails, all future attempts to activate the ability (until you succeed) cost a flat 1 FP". For an ability that isn't defensive, there's no mention of an FP cost; so in both cases, it contradicts what's in Powers.

The context of "your roll" here I think is meant to refer to the "you roll against X" in the 1st paragraph, not the "roll each time the defense would mitigate" of the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph.

This is of course not the clearest based on the paragraph grouping, and I understand why that would be read as defensive-only, but it just seems like bad editing to me.

Originally Posted by pgb

I do know that there's a separate Active Defense limitation. But that doesn't resolve the contradiction.

I think that limitation is meant to work the same way in respect to FP costs.

Active Defense stuff won't work against surprise attacks, yet in theory RAR would... but that brings into question how that would be possible if spending the FP on rerolls is a voluntary choice: if it's voluntary to spend that FP then how would you know to spend the FP if you don't see the attack coming?

I think it works better if we add Reflexive as an enhancement because then your ability turns itself on and spends FP to activate itself whether you want to or not.

[transmetahuman]

Leaving out what's identical between versions, the Requires (Skill Roll) and Quick Contest stuff:

The version in Powers: "For a defensive ability*, roll each time the defense would mitigate an attack or a hazard – or once per minute, for constant exposure".

The version in PU 8: Limitations: "For a defensive ability, roll each time the defense would mitigate an attack or a hazard – or once per minute, for constant exposure. If your roll fails, all future attempts to activate it (until you succeed) cost a flat 1 FP but are at no additional penalty. However, if you drop to 3 FP or less from this, your ability shuts down until all FP are regained"

That's a pretty major difference! At least it is if you're wanting to use it on a defensive trait. I thought maybe it was a mistaken holdover from Psionic Powers, given that's how their failures work (against the same or identical targets, at least), but the listing for Requires (Attribute) Roll in Psi Powers doesn't say anything about spending fatigue at all.

* I'm going to assume that the defensive trait(s) would be passive, and either always on or switchable, but it doesn't actually matter for this specific issue.