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]

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

 

-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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

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]

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

 

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

 

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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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

[Zed-F]

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

 

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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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]

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

 

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.

[prestidigitator]

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

 

Hmm. All probably true. I wasn't particularly looking for cost breaks, and no player has asked for it. I was mostly musing over how to build certain items and spells for my setting, and the concept of magic faking out other magic. Whether this is possible depends on the, "metaphysical rules," of the setting, of course. But perhaps it is true that this should simply be the SFX of Adjustment Powers such as Dispell and Suppress.

 

EDIT: But what bugs me is that buying something like Life Support - Immortality is bound to be orders of magnitude cheaper than buying an effective Dispel or whatever. I'm not really worried about the cost; just the logic behind the costs.

[OddHat]

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

 

Hmm. All probably true. I wasn't particularly looking for cost breaks, and no player has asked for it. I was mostly musing over how to build certain items and spells for my setting, and the concept of magic faking out other magic. Whether this is possible depends on the, "metaphysical rules," of the setting, of course. But perhaps it is true that this should simply be the SFX of Adjustment Powers such as Dispell and Suppress.

 

EDIT: But what bugs me is that buying something like Life Support - Immortality is bound to be orders of magnitude cheaper than buying an effective Dispel or whatever. I'm not really worried about the cost; just the logic behind the costs.

 

Look at it from the other direction, and in a non-metagaming way:

 

The Chronal Mages are feared for their terrible Spell of Centuries, which ages the target a hundred years in a single day (4d6RKA NND Does Body). The only known defense is to eat of the Peaches of Supreme Longevity, which have the beneficial effect of extending life and health (Life Support:Imortality, 1 charge lasting one month). Only the wealthiest merchants can aford these rare fruits, though it is well known that the family of the Emperor has cultivated a single Longevity Tree at the heart of the palace gardens for more than two centuries.

[Derek Hiemforth]

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

 

I can't really imagine a SFX I'd allow it for. It seems too metagamish for me.

[Zed-F]

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

 

EDIT: But what bugs me is that buying something like Life Support - Immortality is bound to be orders of magnitude cheaper than buying an effective Dispel or whatever. I'm not really worried about the cost; just the logic behind the costs.

 

See Oddhat's post, then if it still bugs you, add:

 

"One Chronal Mage, knowing of this weakness of his most powerful spell, and wishing to eliminate a rival known to have consumed a Peach of Supreme Longevity, devises an alternate version of the spell. Rather than aging the target 100 years in a single day through altering the target's temporal position along his lifespan, it takes each cell in the targets body and forces it through several days worth of metabolic activity, all in an instant. Since many cells only have a lifespan of several days to begin with, the effects are similarly catastrophic to that of the Spell of Centuries. Even if the target is unaging and his cells can self-replicate indefinitely with no cumulative wear, it takes some time for his body to recover from such abuse."

 

AKA, 4d6 Drain BODY & Stun simultaneously. LS: Immortality need not apply.

[mikesama]

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

 

Sounds like rules abuse to me except for possibly the first one, being imune to outside aging effects could be an interesting power but the others are just blatant methods of getting more points out of the character.

[PhilFleischmann]

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

 

The reason why it's metagaming is because "NND" doesn't really mean anything by itself. NND's can have lots of different SFX and mechanisms, and no special limited defense or LS could possibly account for all of them while at the same time not actually provide the base defense or Life support.

 

OTOH, I would allow something like: Mental DEF, Only to protect against mind-affecting drugs. That would be an example of a reasonably well-defined limited defense that wouldn't apply to Magic-based NNDs, et al.

 

If Immortality is too expensive for what you want, you might allow Immunity: The Spell of Centuries, for 1 point (or more depending on how common it is). I figure Immunity to a single spell is similar to Immunity to a single poison or disease.

[Guest Black Lotus]

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

 

OOOOHHHH... I finally get it.

 

Yeah, writing up a Power that protects "only against NNDs" is like writing up a Power that protects "only against Energy Blasts" or "only against HKAs". The basic building block Powers shouldn't be targeted in that way, methinks.

 

I definitely wouldn't allow it.

[McCoy]

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

 

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.

GM'ed a player character whose stichk was "adaptability," anything she got hurt by, she had to buy the approperate defense. "Had to" being enforced by taking that as a physical limitation. Anything that caused BODY took the points first, then the attack that caused the most STUN. So she ended up with full life support; Flash defense sight, sound and smell; 3 PD 3 ED hardened invisible always on force field; LOTS of nonfocused Armor, other odd defenses here and there. But got no price break for any of them.

[zornwil]

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

 

McCoy, some don't like that sort of thing, but I like disads that tie people down to very (as in extremely, as you cite) specific power sets or CP expenditures.

 

As to the original question, I have a possibility it could hold on, but I wouldn't suggest it to someone who's just blatantly metagaming, which this is if there's no explanation. Anyway, one could create this with a Variable Special Effects advantage (not a defense against NND specifically, btw) which allows the character to change defenses, but he'd still have to know or guess at what to do. Once hit with an NND, he'd figure out how to defeat it, probably. But I would still insist on some good SFX for this, and, personally, I'd ask for some balancing limit, either the character having relatively little STUN or in some other way assuring this isn't simply a munchkiny thing, that it has a reasonable balance in the game.

[Hawksmoor]

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

 

McCoy, some don't like that sort of thing, but I like disads that tie people down to very (as in extremely, as you cite) specific power sets or CP expenditures.

 

As to the original question, I have a possibility it could hold on, but I wouldn't suggest it to someone who's just blatantly metagaming, which this is if there's no explanation. Anyway, one could create this with a Variable Special Effects advantage (not a defense against NND specifically, btw) which allows the character to change defenses, but he'd still have to know or guess at what to do. Once hit with an NND, he'd figure out how to defeat it, probably. But I would still insist on some good SFX for this, and, personally, I'd ask for some balancing limit, either the character having relatively little STUN or in some other way assuring this isn't simply a munchkiny thing, that it has a reasonable balance in the game.

 

Hmmmm....

 

Borg thinking here.

 

VPP - Adaptive Defenses Pool Advantage Varible SFX any SFX +1/2, Defensive Powers only -1, Powers only change to defeat attacks experienced previously (-1/2), No Roll, No Phase (+2)

 

This has been discussed previously but it does make sense as a mechanical solution for infinitely adaptable characters.

 

Hawksmoor