Certain abilities (e.g. the Cutter’s “Ghost Fighter”) say that characters “gain potency”. Others (e.g. the Cutter’s “Bodyguard”) say that characters “get +1 effect”. Now, by my reading of p24-25, those are much the same except:
* Increased potency doesn’t guarantee +1 effect — it just feeds into the GM’s judgement of what the effect level should be.
* Increased potency could still leave the character with zero effect; +1 effect means they’re guaranteed at least limited effect (although I’d expect most groups would apply an is-this-plausible-at-all check to that).
Is that the intended difference? Is that how the rest of you are interpreting it?
Related question — am I’m right in thinking that there’s no effect level below zero (so, rules-as-written, a +1 effect ability guarantees at least limited effect whenever it applies)?
If someone lacks potency against a specific target, their effect level is set precisely at 0. A +1 effect that doesn’t grant a level of potency against that threat still leaves you at 0. Look at the example: single individual with sledge hammer vs. big stone tower. A fine hammer, a clever use of study to spot structural weaknesses, a flashback to acquire the architectural plans, an experimental alchemical strength booster, and/or any other simple improvement to whacking at the thing is still going to make the effort entirely meaningless no matter how you roll. The effect remains 0. Don’t look at the zero as a base 10 mathematical value you can operate on with +/-1 effects. Mentally cross it out and write in “nope”. Add any number of +1s to nope, and you still get nope.
Potency factors into GMs’ decision making on deciding effect(page 24).
+1 effect comes into the play AFTER the GM decided the effect(page 25).
Thomas Stewart “Zero effect” by all means is not equal to “impossible” – you CAN push yourself or do teamwork to improve that(page 197), unless you explicitly say you can’t do it(page 199).
/sub
That’s my reading too. +1 Effect is “better” than increased potency.
I disagree with Thomas Stewart about the lack of potency giving you a guaranteed “zero effect”: I think that potency is just another factor to consider and that “zero effect” should be reserved for extreme disadvantages in factors.
In the tower example, the tower has advantage in quality, scale and potency over the PC, that’s why the action has “zero effect.”
It’s also worth consider that there are many ways to achieve a “potency” factor (while “quality” and “scale” are more defined): you can take more time, a bigger risk, use arcane, bring more force or exploit a weakness. So, even if “effect+1” may be mechanically better, “increased potency” usually attach a very important fictional aspect to your action.
From that point of view, sometimes “increased potency” is better than “effect+1”, because it can be a dominant factor which could let you ignore “scale” and “quality” as factors.
MisterTia86 I don’t have the book in front of me, but IIRC dominant factors could be negative e.g. lack of potency could mean that despite good scale and quality you were still zero. If so, gaining “some potency” could reasonably push you up to Standard or better effect, right?
If so, “gain potency” would be more powerful than “+1 effect” in such cases.
Rob Alexander yep, each has different strength.
You are most likely to get zero effect for your face-punch to the Lord Sinclair the ghost unless you have Cutters’ Ghost Fighter ability.
Rob Alexander Exactly. That can happen for every factor, particularly with potency: that’s why “gain potency” is usually connected with a narrative statement (as in the forementioned Ghost Fighter ability).