Cost of Living Breakdown

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

In my area, about an additional $1000 - $1500 / mo compared to the unfurnished ones.

Wow. That would more than double our rent.

Bill Stoddard

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Points are for PCs, who normally do not get replaced by their owners (or if they do, the PC becomes the replacement).

Doesn't the PC AI pay for the shell with points directly? I don't see a reason to double-dip and make them pay $ for something they already had to shell (heh) out points for.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Doesn't the PC AI pay for the shell with points directly?

Typically yes, though that's somewhat campaign dependent. Not sure how that relates to your earlier point, though.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Typically yes, though that's somewhat campaign dependent. Not sure how that relates to your earlier point, though.

Because it is double dipping to make the character pay both money and points to "have a body". Does a human slave need to pay money to have a body?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Because it is double dipping to make the character pay both money and points to "have a body".

I don't recall any suggestion that that was required. Perhaps I misunderstood some point you were trying to make?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Anthony

I don't recall any suggestion that that was required. Perhaps I misunderstood some point you were trying to make?

I thought that you were saying that the AI can't be Dead Broke because it has to pay for its own shell with money. If it doesn't have to pay money for its own shell why can't it be Dead Broke?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

I thought that you were saying that the AI can't be Dead Broke because it has to pay for its own shell with money.

No, I was saying that something with gear that costs money (rather than points) should have an appropriate level of wealth, even if the gear is provided by a patron rather than personally owned. It's just wealth (provided by patron, -X%).

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Anthony

No, I was saying that something with gear that costs money (rather than points) should have an appropriate level of wealth, even if the gear is provided by a patron rather than personally owned. It's just wealth (provided by patron, -X%).

It's not necessarily Wealth Provided By Familiar^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HPatron -40%. E.g. a soldier doesn't pay for the rifle, MREs, etc. while on duty. Also, Patron can even permanently grant equipment with the Equipment enhancement.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anthony

No, I was saying that something with gear that costs money (rather than points) should have an appropriate level of wealth, even if the gear is provided by a patron rather than personally owned. It's just wealth (provided by patron, -X%).

That's quite clearly wrong under RAW. If you want a Patron that supplies gear you can use at your own discretion, that's Equipment, it's either +50% or +100% to the Patron advantage, and you get "useful equipment that you can use for your own purposes, and that you would otherwise have to buy" (p. B73). That otherwise is telling; it implies that if you get the equipment through the Patron you don't have to buy it.

Of course, that kind of Patron costs points! But that just reduces to "costs points, not money."

Bill St

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by whswhs

That's quite clearly wrong under RAW.

I know. I was discussing what the rules should be, not what they actually are (the entire rules for status, wealth, patrons, and rank are a bloated abomination that should be taken out behind the woodshed and shot).