Are quirks officially counted as disadvantages?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Ack

Page 162, under 'Quirks'.

I think that's intended to mean that a Quirk isn't necessarily disadvantageous to the character hence the example of Greed vs. "Prefers to be paid in gold." It is not intended address disadvantage limits, or contradict pages 11 and 120. Having a Will 12 isn't a disadvantage either in that sense but it still counts against your limit if your IQ is 15.

[Ack]

Yeah, I have issues with that too.

4E allows you to tune your character's attributes exactly the way you want them, such as having an ivory-tower genius with raw intellect reaching into the stratosphere, but being no more perceptive or strong-willed than your average man on the street (or less so, for classic absent-minded professors) ... but then they make it hard for you to do so, if there is a disadvantage cap.

In my games, I define "IQ as IQ" (I call it "smarts") to be separate from "total IQ" in much the same way as HP, Lifting ST and Striking ST are all part of ST, but can be increased separately. So the only way it actually becomes a disadvantage is if any of those stats go below average values.

But I digress.

So is it the official GURPS line that Quirks are indeed subject to any disadvantage cap, or no?

[Kromm]

Yes. As has been said, the sole test for "Does this count vs. limits on disads?" is "Does it have a negative point cost?" Nothing else matters a whit.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Ack

I'm having a bit of a difference of opinion with my GM; I'm bringing a character into a very low-end game (40 points, -20 in disads) and when I asked him if Quirks were allowed, he said yes. But then he said they counted against the disadvantage limit. When I questioned this, he said that in the RAW, they were disadvantages and thus subject to the cap.

Anyone? Please?

By the current rules, he is correct. People have a tendency to be confused by the fact that in the 3rd edition, the disad limit and the quirk limit were two different things.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Yes. As has been said, the sole test for "Does this count vs. limits on disads?" is "Does it have a negative point cost?" Nothing else matters a whit.

What about p. B11? "Disadvantages
that are part of your racial makeup
(your “racial template”; see p. 260) are
also exempt."

[Celjabba]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

What about p. B11? "Disadvantages
that are part of your racial makeup
(your “racial template”; see p. 260) are
also exempt."

I think that racial packages (and other meta-traits) are assumed to be single trait.
Whatever is inside does not count for various limitation, as it is invisible in a container.

celjabba

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Celjabba

I think that racial packages (and other meta-traits) are assumed to be single trait.
Whatever is inside does not count for various limitation, as it is invisible in a container.

But then "is it in a container?" becomes a second test.

[Kromm]

You're supposed to view racial packages as black boxes; decomposing them isn't necessary or relevant for character creation, only for race creation, which isn't the player's job. What matters is the total cost, not the cost of the bits. This is as true of racial packages as it is of, say, the points "saved" for limitations on advantages. Sure, Onset, 1 minute, -10% saves you 1 point on Crushing Attack 2d, but Crushing Attack 2d (Onset, 1 minute, -10%) [9] is a 9-point trait, not a 10-point trait and a -1-point trait.

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by Kromm

You're supposed to view racial packages as black boxes; decomposing them isn't necessary or relevant for character creation, only for race creation, which isn't the player's job.

Doesn't this leave a problem of duplicating encapsulated disads or traits with personal ones?

[Gurpser]

I wouldn't think duplication would be a problem, the Racial traits would stack if applicable and be disallowed if not, of course a GM might allow Racial disadvantages to be bought off too.