dugfromthearth

ah true true. That is something I had not considered. I can't actually think of many ways around it, but armor piercing, penetrating or the knife itself having NND does body would do it. so as a truly generic "this works on any knife no matter how simple or fancy" it makes sense. I can accept that.

defenses I too never understood power defense. I don't use it. Anything that goes against power defense I make into an NND. A basic problem with mental defense is that GM's require some explanation for why you have it. Mental powers are incredibly effective. This is only offset by having cheap mental defense. But then characters are not allowed to buy it. Which makes mental powers overpowered. It would be like not allowing characters to buy up ED - everyone would use energy attacks. While I like the idea of inherent mental defense, it does run the risk of affecting NND's. Same with inherent flash defense (which I wouldn't use). If the defense against some NND's is mental or flash defense and everyone has them, that causes an obvious problem.

it really isn't a question as such It seems to me that the poison is poorly designed. Having a poorly designed example seems to me to be bad. I don't know of any other feedback for Fred so it seemed to me to be the place to post it. I'm sorry if I put it in the wrong place. It is essentially feedback on the actual book Fred, not the rules themselves, although it is partly about the rules and how to use them. I do understand that the -1/4 limitation applies to the dagger or other weapon that delivers the poison. My point is that you could buy the poison as +4d6 killing with extra time and other limitations that added to the damage done by the dagger. Since the dagger has to already have done body for the poison to take effect, there is no need for the poison to be an NND. The poison ignores defenses because the damage done has already exceeded the defenses. This would be vastly cheaper. I have seen poison darts done before as an NND where the defense against it is having resistant defense - making it a +1/2 NND. To me it makes more sense for the curare to be a +1/2 NND, not a +1 NND with a -1/4 limitation. As an added note, should "does body" be a +1 advantage even if the NND is only a +1/2 advantage? Or should it double the value of the NND? So in conclusion I would do poison one of two ways: +1/2 NND defense is having resistant PD with the does body added, or as HKA which adds to the damage done by the weapon with the limitations of delayed onset, and maybe then a -1/4 limitation that it only takes effect if the dagger did damage.

not sure if this has been brought up before, it isn't so much a rule thing as a problem with the example. I think it is curare. The poison is bought with the +2 advantage NND does Body. Which is the advantage of doing body without having to get through the enemy's defenses. But then it has the -1/4 limitation - attack must have done body already. So the power has a +2 advantage to ignore defenses and a -1/4 limitation that the character must already have penetrated the defenses - rendering the entire +2 advantage pointless.

sorry since it is just a 5th edition rule I thought it would go here. Should it be on the general rules board?

I cannot understand why change environment cannot be used for positive effects. Drain and Aid cost the same amount. So in terms of point cost positive and negative effects are considered balanced. Is there an explanation for this? Is there any reason why I shouldn't just ignore the rule and allow it to have positive effects?