Definition of 'disadvantage'

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by whswhs

(a) If a trait has a negative cost, but is included in a racial template, it doesn't count. Only the net negative cost of a racial template counts. This is an exception to "anything with a negative cost is a disadvantage."

The same goes for Meta-Traits.

I don't know if it's the case for Lenses. I'd guess it isn't.

[Zeta Blaze]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

The same goes for Meta-Traits.

I don't know if it's the case for Lenses. I'd guess it isn't.

I believe that weather Lens counts or not depends on if the lens is affecting a Mrta-Trait or Racial template it is part of that trait/template and affects its cost but not your disadvantage limit directly. Like take say a light sensitivity on a dark lens for the elf template dosen't count.

[Leynok]

It's common in my group for Attributes to not count as Disadvantages, and often when they do count, we're allowed up to -X in Attributes not counting against the limit, so long as we spend at least X in Attributes.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Leynok

It's common in my group for Attributes to not count as Disadvantages, and often when they do count, we're allowed up to -X in Attributes not counting against the limit, so long as we spend at least X in Attributes.

I think in 3rd Edition, only attributes lowered by 2 or more (or by more than 2?) were counted against the disadvantage limit.

[ericthered]

Its worth pointing out that disadvantage limits are an optional rule, and that exact limits are only really specified in campaign frameworks. Its up to the GM to decide, even more so than normal.

And the difference between 50 points of disads counting quirks vs 45 points of disads and 5 quirks is quite small.

[Terwin]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

It is stupid and nonsensical, but RAW lists super smart but average perception as a disadvantage. But that's easily house ruled away.

Are you familiar with the IQ! construct?(+1IQ,-1Per, -1 Will : 10 points/level)
or worse the HT! construct(+1HT, -0.25 Speed, FP-1 : 2 points/level)

These are arguments for counting attributes towards the disad limit.

[Sam Baughn]

Originally Posted by JackOfClubs

I understand it may lead to minmaxing, but aren't that represents realistic specialization? Big guys tend to be dumber, smart guys often weaker, you know.

A bit off-topic, but I'm fairly sure that isn't realistic at all. If anything, I would expect tall and strong people to have better mental abilities (wealth and better nutrition are linked to both height and intelligence, people with more mental discipline tend to exercise more).

[shawnhcorey]

In the third edition, quirks were counted separately from other disadvantages. Many GMs kept doing this in the 4th edition.

[Peter Knutsen]

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

A bit off-topic, but I'm fairly sure that isn't realistic at all. If anything, I would expect tall and strong people to have better mental abilities (wealth and better nutrition are linked to both height and intelligence, people with more mental discipline tend to exercise more).

Indeed. There is no realism behind the assumption of zero-sum genetics. Or even zero-sum biology.

That's also why I have massive problems with RPG character creation systems where all the created characters come out equally powerful (that is, systems there there isn't or can't be a variable amount of character creation currency).

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Perfect Organism

A bit off-topic, but I'm fairly sure that isn't realistic at all. If anything, I would expect tall and strong people to have better mental abilities (wealth and better nutrition are linked to both height and intelligence, people with more mental discipline tend to exercise more).

*nod* The world is not fair, and people are not built on point budgets.