Cost of Attacks vs. Susceptibilities

[bigdamnhero]

This is based on a longer discussion in this thread. I hesitated to ask it here because I recognize it gets heavily into GM Subjectivity Territory. But I think it would be helpful to get a sense of what RAW assumes as a baseline.

 

Say a character ("the target") has a Susceptibility to a very common substance that is normally harmless, like water.

 

Another character ("the attacker") learning of this Susceptibility, wants to start carrying a squirt gun. Or even something more basic like a thermos of water.

 

Assuming a superheroic game where everyone pays points for everything, does RAW generally assume:

 

A. The attacker must pay points for the water, based on how much damage it can do to the target, with a Limitation for "Only against targets with appropriate Susceptibility"

 

or B. The attacker does not need to pay points for the water because it normally has no significant in-game effect. The "points" have been paid for by the target in taking the Complication.

 

or C. something else?

 

Thanks.

[Steve Long]

I'm leaving that entirely to the GM.   However, I will point out that as a matter of rules logic, I don't think your answer A can be correct; the damage from a Susceptibility comes from the Susceptibility, not some form of Limited attack that other characters buy.

 

Speaking only for myself, I have a hard time imagining that I would charge characters points for something as utterly common as a squirt gun or bottle of water. The fact that in this case the water has a negative effect against one character (based on that character's choice) doesn't somehow "weaponize" water, requiring everyone to now pay Character Points every time they grab a bottle of Dasani at the local convenience store.