Creating an Allergy, Need help bending the rules. Options

[Cabral]

Okay, so I hade a neat idea for a purist mage and I thought it would be fun if s/he was very sensitive to Twisted/Toxic magic.

So, while "in the presence of such magic", the character would suffer a Mild reaction.

What I was thinking was that "in the presence" memant:
- In areas with background count aspected towards toxic/twisted magic.
- Targeted by spell cast by, or spirit summoned by , a twisted/toxic mage.
- In the proximity of toxic/twisted spells/spirits/wards or even the twisted/toxic mage himeself. Perhaps to a range of (Magic x 10) meters.

So my initial thoughts are a 5 BP negative quality (Uncommon/Mild), however, I'm not sure since it actually gives a mild benefit (ie, if searching for twisted/toxic mages).

Don't say it's up to the GM as I'm currently the GM; I just want a fleshed flaw to present as an option to players of the campaign I'll never run. :)

[Aaron]

I can see it. If I was the GM, I can see myself being persuaded by that description.

[Teulisch]

hmm. well, i can think of one very evil thing to do to a player that has this... hit them with a brand of soycaf that gives them the reaction as well. then if they look into it, simply have a very high background count near where its being packaged. nothing major, just a wild goose hunt so that they will think twice about using alergy as a detection power.

also, its not going to always be obvious... an alergy like that, how are you going to describe it? if the affect hits a little bit after exposue, rather than being instant on contact... and lingers for a while after exposue... that right there can make it a serious pain. just because they have to be that much more alert. whenever possible, compare to realworld alergys for symptoms.

[JRDobbs]

There's nothing wrong with flaws being "useful" as I see it. Just keep in mind that twisted/toxic mages are very powerful on their own turf. Deliberately gimping your ability to deal with a threat seems like a fair exchange for having a slight advantage in detecting the threat.

[Charon]

[Cabral]

[eidolon]

My only problem (if I were GM in question) would be that you aren't following the rules in place for allergy creation. An uncommon mild allergy should not be worth 5 points, it should be worth 2.

I see that you're trying to reflect how dangerous the allergy is, and I respect that, but you should re-read the mechanics of allergies before you set a points value.

On an even more personal-gm-style note, I can't see actually allowing that as an allergy in my game. By the character's nature (a purist mage), she would have a severe aversion to toxic magic, to be certain. Wouldn't a purist be motivated to fight and destroy toxic magicians? If so, wouldn't giving the character a flaw related to this be slightly out of whack, if not completely gimping the character? Is the character not "out to get" toxics, but rather frightened of them and cautious to avoid them? In the latter case, I can see a negative reaction that warranted a flaw. However, rather than try and use the allergy rules, I'd just make a new flaw. Aversion: Toxic Magic, maybe?

Aversion: Toxic Magic, - #
When in the presence of Toxic Magic or Magicians, the character suffers a negative # to all TNs. When on the receiving end of Toxic Magic, the character saves as though their relevant attribute were # lower.

Something like that. Now, as to value, it would depend on the game. If I were working with you all the way from chargen on, and therefore could easily plan on working the flaw into the game occasionally, I might allow it and assign a slightly higher value to it. If it were a character being inserted into an ongoing game, I would assign it a lower value, since any time I worked it into the story would just be an aside.

So that's my thoughts on it.

**edit:

More information about the character would help. The hows/why's/what's of this aversion, a more complete description of what you mean by "purist", etc.

[FanGirl]

[Jaid]

[James McMurray]

[JonathanC]

Speaking of allergies, would someone with an allergy to meat (for example, someone raised on a vegan diet who gets sick if they eat meat because their system didn't adapt for it as a kid) have a common allergy (meat is everywhere), or an uncommon allergy (it's not like someone is going to drop you in a vat of meat anytime soon, and even if they did, you wouldn't have to eat it)?

[Slump]

I wouldn't allow a meat allergy (that you get build points for), because even though it's everywhere, it's not a contact or inhaled (although, if you're snorting meat, I hope you're not allergic) allergy, it's an ingested allergy. The only time that sort of allergy would come into play is if they were tricked into eating meat, or had meat shoved down their throats. I don't forsee either situation coming up during a run, unless the DM is gunning for the person who took the allergy.

That's the same reason why I wouldn't allow Allergy, Severe (Moon Rocks).

[FanGirl]

I'd say that anything that you'd normally have to make a concerted effort to come into contact with is Uncommon. Because meat is something that you have to buy, prepare, and ingest, I'd say that it's Uncommon - especially since many people in the Sixth World simply cannot afford animal products on a regular basis.

[Cabral]

On the otherhand, an alergy to Soy would be hideous ... :)

[JonathanC]

[NinjaGnat]