IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Natural Immunity
Hyde
post Jul 16 2007, 07:49 PM
Post #1


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 26-May 06
Member No.: 8,607



My sammy player tells me that the Natural immunity quality gets rid of the secondary effects only (like stun damage from crash), and that you still get the bonus...
He's wrong , I hope? :eek:
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Dashifen
post Jul 16 2007, 08:04 PM
Post #2


Technomancer
********

Group: Retired Admins
Posts: 4,638
Joined: 2-October 02
From: Champaign, IL
Member No.: 3,374



It does specifically state in the description of the quality on p. 79 that:

QUOTE
The player and gamemaster must agree on the disease, drug, or poison to which the character is immune... The character can take one dose of the agent ever (12 - Body) hours with no ill effects.

(emphasis mine)

Since it does specifically say "no ill effects" rather than "no effects," I suppose your player could be considered correct. But, since you and he/she have to agree on the drug/poison/disease to which the character is immune, just don't agree to allow an immunity to drugs/poisons/diseases that you're uncomfortable with. Or, ignore the word "ill" and bring the quality back into alignment with what most people would think of as an immunity (this is what I do).

I'm guessing he/she wants to take combat drugs without all of those pesky negative problems, huh?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Jul 16 2007, 08:07 PM
Post #3


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



QUOTE (Dashifen)
The player and gamemaster must agree

By a strict reading of the text, your player is exactly correct. Depending on the case you might even want to allow it, but if you don't like the direction he's going just fall back on a strict reading of my quote.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
James McMurray
post Jul 16 2007, 08:13 PM
Post #4


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,430
Joined: 10-January 05
From: Fort Worth, Texas
Member No.: 6,957



You're immune to a disease or toxin. There's two ways to read that IMO:

1) Pick a disease or a toxin. These are defined seperately from drugs, so trying to avoid the downsides of drugs won't work.

2) Drugs count as man-made toxins, but your immune to their effects, both positive and negative.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Hyde
post Jul 16 2007, 08:20 PM
Post #5


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 40
Joined: 26-May 06
Member No.: 8,607



QUOTE (Dashifen)
I'm guessing he/she wants to take combat drugs without all of those pesky negative problems, huh?

Of course, without negative effects it's just a bit too powerful (especially for a troll vith 9/10 Body :S )
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kzt
post Jul 16 2007, 08:54 PM
Post #6


Great Dragon
*********

Group: Members
Posts: 5,537
Joined: 27-August 06
From: Albuquerque NM
Member No.: 9,234



I'd suggest lead. Lead poisoning sucks. And damn near every cop on the street wants to administer some. . . .
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hyzmarca
post Jul 16 2007, 09:18 PM
Post #7


Midnight Toker
**********

Group: Members
Posts: 7,686
Joined: 4-July 04
From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop
Member No.: 6,456



I wouldn't allow immunity to the ill effects of drugs without immunity to their benefits, since the crash effects are mostly consequences of these benefits rather than the direct action of the drug. Also, there are balance issues

Immunity to Toxins, I do believe, is for one thing and one thing only.

QUOTE

All right. Where is the poison? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both drink, and find out who is right... and who is dead.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Jul 16 2007, 09:29 PM
Post #8


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



I will say, I would consider letting someone take immunity to get positive drug effects without negative effects depending on the drug, character concept, player, etc. I wouldn't rule it out automatically, although I can't really think of a good example of a combination I would allow, either. :-)

Oh, and big love to hyzmarca, excellent quote. :-)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
knasser
post Jul 16 2007, 09:34 PM
Post #9


Shadow Cartographer
*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,737
Joined: 2-June 06
From: Secret Tunnels under the UK (South West)
Member No.: 8,636



QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
I will say, I would consider letting someone take immunity to get positive drug effects without negative effects depending on the drug, character concept, player, etc. I wouldn't rule it out automatically, although I can't really think of a good example of a combination I would allow, either. :-)

Oh, and big love to hyzmarca, excellent quote. :-)


Hey...:(
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Jul 17 2007, 05:39 PM
Post #10


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



QUOTE (knasser)
QUOTE (Moon-Hawk @ Jul 16 2007, 09:29 PM)
I will say, I would consider letting someone take immunity to get positive drug effects without negative effects depending on the drug, character concept, player, etc.  I wouldn't rule it out automatically, although I can't really think of a good example of a combination I would allow, either.  :-)

Oh, and big love to hyzmarca, excellent quote.  :-)


Hey...:(

You know I love you too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nerf'd
post Jul 17 2007, 05:46 PM
Post #11


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 28-June 07
Member No.: 12,075



Also, if he argues for building up a tolerance...well, you have an immediate opportunity to make him roleplay out his brand new addiction.

I'd actually say let him do it, but tell him that he needs to maintain a certain usage level to get the benefit...and then hit him with a severe addiction (with all the negative modifiers) if he misses a dose.

...because no one ever thinks they're addicted, do they?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Cheops
post Jul 17 2007, 05:49 PM
Post #12


Shooting Target
****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,512
Joined: 26-February 02
Member No.: 392



In fact increased tolerance is one of the first signs of addiction. There's a reason why crack addicts usually end up on the street. It starts off small but it takes more and more crack to actually "feel" something from it so you have to start buying more and more to satisfy the craving.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Jul 17 2007, 05:55 PM
Post #13


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



QUOTE (Nerf'd)
...because no one ever thinks they're addicted, do they?

I'm pretty sure you're being hyperbolic here (Can I use that word like that? Can I adverb hyperbole?) But I've talked to people who really do believe this. So just for the record, some people know darn well they're addicted. But I will agree that there are people at every stage of addiction who claim that they're not (or more often they claim that they are addicted, but that they can quit any time they really want to)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Nerf'd
post Jul 17 2007, 05:58 PM
Post #14


Target
*

Group: Members
Posts: 45
Joined: 28-June 07
Member No.: 12,075



QUOTE (Moon-Hawk)
QUOTE (Nerf'd @ Jul 17 2007, 12:46 PM)
...because no one ever thinks they're addicted, do they?

I'm pretty sure you're being hyperbolic here (Can I use that word like that? Can I adverb hyperbole?) But I've talked to people who really do believe this. So just for the record, some people know darn well they're addicted. But I will agree that there are people at every stage of addiction who claim that they're not (or more often they claim that they are addicted, but that they can quit any time they really want to)

Yes, I was speaking in hyperbole - but I meant more that a character who tried to take a natural immunity to a specific drug crash would never believe that he was addicted.

His personality (and the player's) would never allow that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Moon-Hawk
post Jul 17 2007, 06:09 PM
Post #15


Genuine Artificial Intelligence
********

Group: Members
Posts: 4,019
Joined: 12-June 03
Member No.: 4,715



Check. Thought so. Like I said, just wanted to clear that up since I've actually met people who really believed that was true about all addiction.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 25th April 2024 - 11:22 AM

Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.