Value of, "Only to Protect Against NNDs," Limitation

[prestidigitator]

Examples:

Life Support: Immortality; Only to Protect Against NNDs (-?);

Life Support: Immunity to all poisons; Only to Protect Against NNDs (-?);

Mental Defense: 1; Only to Protect Against NNDs (-?);
+Damage Resistance: 1 rMD; Only to Protect Against NNDs (-?);

Maybe a -1?

...or do you think it is far to meta-gamish to allow for any SFX? I was thinking along the lines of a spell/potion/whatever that could, for example, change a character to be treated as being immortal even if (s)he actually ages and dies like anyone else. This would work against attacks with NND: immortal if allowed in the campaign. The immunity example might be a less debatable case of NND; if limited properly it could work against certain types of NND poisons while leaving other effects with, "poison," SFX alone.

[pinecone]

-1 does sound like in the ball park...though for the magic potion I'd be more amused by LS: Immortal, fuel charge 6 hours so for a short while you don't age...that might form a template for all the others as well...

[Kristopher]

I wouldn't allow it. The reason that someone with LS: Immortality is immune to aging effects is because he doesn't age -- he's immortal (ie, ageless).

[Trebuchet]

In general I wouldn't allow such a construction because it's blatant metagaming. A character may be immune to certain NNDs because he has certain Powers; he doesn't have those Powers so as to be immune to certain NNDs. A player would need an extremely good rationale to justify such a build for his character; and offhand I can't think of a valid justification.

[Frenchman]

I agree with Trebuchet. The use of this would call the special effects of both the power and the defense into account. If the potion protects you from unnatural aging (to use your example) then yes, I would allow it to protect you from spell that ages you towards infirmity (a drain of physical characteristics). But a spell that causes you to lose all hope by showing you the inevitable future you face (death of old age) would have Immortality as its defense because immortals never die of old age, not because they don't age.

For other powers, such as mental defense, since you only need to buy one point of mental defense, a limitation is worthless (in the most literal sense) anyhow. Life supports I would never allow (on principles similar to those outlined above) without a very good special effect and in-character reason, and the understanding that it would not always work, depending on how it's defined.

I might allow other powers, such as teleportation or desolification, as long as there was a good special effect and they were bought at the campaign minimum (we generally don't allow movement powers with less than 5" in them) and I would give them a -2 limitation since it makes the power almost totally useless.
If one of your players has asked for this, I would be very careful in scrutinizing his character and his reasons behind it.

[SaintHax]

There's no way in the world I'd allow any limitation on the "Immunity to Poisons", as the only thing it does game wise is protect you from NND's. I wouldn't all the others either b/c of the following (but more flexible) reasons:

The Mental Defense is so small the player will be paying 2 points anyway. The limitations can decrease it past 1, so why bother.

The age, b/c really, it does nothing in the game outside of NND attacks. It's sorta like the money perk that has a few limited role playing devices only. Really, who cares game balance wise if you age or not. The others players won't be aging significantly b/c the campaign will end before it happens 99.99% of the time.


+

[Hugh Neilson]

I agree with Trebuchet. The use of this would call the special effects of both the power and the defense into account. If the potion protects you from unnatural aging (to use your example) then yes, I would allow it to protect you from spell that ages you towards infirmity (a drain of physical characteristics). But a spell that causes you to lose all hope by showing you the inevitable future you face (death of old age) would have Immortality as its defense because immortals never die of old age, not because they don't age.

I agree with the logic, but I find the example an interesting one.

Going one step further, the second spell should affect:

- someone who is immortal, but doesn't know it (a recently "altered human" whose powers confer immortality may not know he is ageless)
- perhaps someone who knows intellectually, but has not accepted emotionally, that he is immortal (the same character who has been told, from scientific analysis of his powers, that he is immortal, but hasn't come to grips with it)

But it perhaps should not affect:

- any being who operates on instinct (no sense of "mortality by age")
- the very young (who know intellectually they are mortal, but don't emotionally accept it - the typical risk-taking young adult)

The former attack the power "Immortality" as the correct defense, physically. The latter has used it as shorthand for a posychological mindset.

This is a great example of how much SFX matter, and the need for GM interpretation. It's also a great example of how NND's specifically need to be ruled far more by SFX than mechanics.

[yamamura]

though for the magic potion I'd be more amused by LS: Immortal, fuel charge 6 hours so for a short while you don't age...that might form a template for all the others as well...

The potion way I would think is the only way to go. Otherwise I agree with what Trebuchet and others are saying.

[Roy_The_Ruthles]

I play a character who is immortal (because of the fact he's supposed to be a vat grown "pseudo-christian" angel. I've taken the 5 pt imortality to mean i can screw with time how ever i want (speed it up so he grows 7 years in 1, or slow it down so he never ages).

Now, I can say that being imortal and knowing it definitly changes how the character acts. It makes them plan for the long term (banking money in safe investments), buy lots of armor (gotta live through each day, and a stray bullet can really shatter your imortality), and other such minor choices.

I would not let someone buy defenses only vs NNDs, because i want NNDs to only effect some things and so they should either buy the full point value or not at all

[OddHat]

I'd say no. That's way too munchkin.

[Zed-F]

A potion that makes you immune to aging attacks should probably not be built as LS: Immortality. It should be built as Suppress Aging Magic xd6, Self Only, 1 Continuing charge of 1 hour, OAF Fragile, etc. Maybe with trigger.

So, the answer is no.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'd allow the potion. LS: Immortality with a duration seems like a classic Potion of Youth that needs to be renewed on some regular basis. I wouldn't allow it as a fuel charge, however.

[Zed-F]

There is a difference between a potion that really does grant immortality, and one that grants immunity to aging attacks. Some aging attacks might still work on immortal characters, depending on how the attack is defined (though perhaps at reduced effect.) It could be a drain rather than an NND, for instance.

A potion that really grants immortality would indeed be LS: Immortality with some lims... but not including 'Only To Protect Against NNDs.' A Potion of Youth wouldn't necessarily grant immunity to attacks that age unless the attack was bought specifically not to work against LS:Immortality.

[Dr. Anomaly]

A potion that really grants immortality would indeed be LS: Immortality with some lims... but not including 'Only To Protect Against NNDs.' A Potion of Youth wouldn't necessarily grant immunity to attacks that age unless the attack was bought specifically not to work against LS:Immortality.

True enough. For my games I've created potions/items of longevity (golden apples of Idunn, anyone?) and I usually make them as "Does Not Age, 1 Continue Charge Lasting xxxxx" where 'xxxxx' is the amount of time I find appropriate under the circumstances. When the time is up...or when something happens to cancel or "interrupt" the magic...they resume aging as normal and will need to obtain another "dose" to put the brakes on that.

Someone under the effects of such an item wouldn't be affected by an NND that had Immortality as the defense, but I wouldn't allow taking it "Only to protect against NNDs".

[Mentor]

Add me to the "Far too Metagamish" vote. Any reference in a power description to actual mechanics (NNDs, Multipower Attacks, etc.) rather than environmental (animal toxins, radiation, etc.) is blatant metagaming and needs heavy duty justification, IMHO.