My most recent character is, yes, a Vampire. This particular HMHVV Infected variant is pretty resistant and largely resilient against most forms of damage, but that isn't the same as invulnerable. In our most recent game session a combination of bad drain resistance rolls and Stun Ball counterspelling checks stacked up the magical hurt and put me out for the count with stun damage (and some overflow), after which a helpful teammate slapped a stun patch on me. So, do I get up?

Vampires have, among other things, Immunity to Toxins. My initial instinct was that this meant that no pharmaceutical, medicinal, poisonous or recreational substances affected them (power and magic rating x2 willing) but when the chips were down and survival was a question, I was willing to listen to a more forgiving interpretation. Vampires and other Infected in SR4 are living, biological organisms with a discernible anatomy, just not necessarily that of other metahumans. There are specific rules for augmentation as far as bioware, cyberware and genetech are concerned, as well as for what foods can and can't be injested, but nothing I can find about positive drugs except sketchy satellite accounts regarding surgery. Is this an oversight or is it something that's obvious to others? We eventually lawyered up and someone produced a medical dictionary that defined toxins as noxious or poisonous substances. Basically, negative things that caused hurt or damage to the body. Does Immunity (Toxins) only interfere with harmful exposures then? If so, where is the line drawn? Many drugs do cause some form of damage or addiction after the fact, after all. Is it maybe really simple and the only things affected by the immunity are the game substances listed under the Toxins heading? Am I unnecessarily complicating things? Vampires have plenty of weaknesses so I'm not opposed to the idea of one of their strengths not also being a liability, but I'd rather do things right.

I'm not looking to make the biggest combat monster possible here. Even if my character could use all the latest, cutting edge combat drugs, he wouldn't. I just want to understand the letter of the rules, or even the intent.

Apologies if this topic has already come up a few times or is in the wrong spot now. As you can see, I'm new here and this is my first post. I searched to the best of my limited ability with some of those keywords but couldn't really find an answer to my questions. Any redirection to an appropriate topic thread wouldn't go amiss. Thanks in advance.

Interesting question. For some additional perspective, check out Arsenal p. 73 "But I wanna get high!"

It explains that the game assumes you're willingly affected by drugs, but that a toxin resistance test may be rolled if you want to resist the drug.

So, does this mean vampires can skip drug resistance tests and thus bypass their immunity? It depends on what you want to believe, I guess. But there's wiggle room in the rules.

I'd be hesitant at the notion of allowing a character to decide whether his body accepts or fights a foreign substance. If I consciously tried to get drunk on just two bottles of beer the result would be a contrived farce, but there have been times when I've been quite wasted on little more than that (my player having rolled badly, presumably). I need to re-read the Arsenal section before I make up my own mind re: game mechanics.

WRT stim patches, however, there's no issue as there's no roll. Whether you call it a toxin or not (a biochemist probably would, a paramedic probably wouldn't) the different mechanics imply that the immune system doesn't come into play and even vampires automatically gain the benefit even if they don't want to.

Tagging this thread. Currently enjoying a Nosferatu Magician myself. The party just found out, they dont care! (even used my Infection power to create some political turmoil during one of the denver missions)

AH this is a common problem in RPGs that try to define "toxins" and "poison" and has rules effect for creatures other than human.

The fact is, there is really no difference between toxins and non-toxins other than their effect on humans. Also there are varying degrees of toxicity of substances - everything from alcohol, common prescription-free medicine, even foods have toxicity levels. Once a human partakes of too much of a substance you have an overdose - which is generally the case when using illicit drugs, getting drunk, or dying from being bit by a venomous snake.

To make matters worse, different species has different levels of tolerance. Feed a dog some chocolate and you might as well feed him arsenic or worse. Cats have some totally different "poisons."

Also, it is common to differentiate toxins and poisons depending on their general level of consuption and how much is toxic. Anything that has a chemical effect on the human body could be said to be toxic, but we generally use the word poison on substances that are almost always harmful even in small quantities. Thus you could say that alcohol isn't toxic even if it could kill you easily.

Now for vampires in SR I would say their immunity to toxins simply makes them immune to the adverse effects of drugs or substances that damages the body. Then again, since it is a disease or a supernatural curse feel free to make them immune to every effect of those drugs, harmful or not. Not being able to get wasted or high is a small price to pay for immortality! Vampires are immortal, right?

Not really. The word 'poison' isn't a technical term – it's chiefly indicative of the intention/action rather than the category of substance.

For example, when you drink alcohol (socially) you would not be described as 'poisoning yourself', but having your drink spiked would be classed as 'being poisoned'.

You'd call cyanide a poison because it has been known to be used to poison people and quite effectively so. Cigarettes, on the other hand, aren't referred to as a poison or poisonous because they don't fit the purpose. Both, however, are toxic in their own right.

For another example, when an animal is said to be poisonous what is meant is that it contains toxins that will affect you if you eat it (or rub it all over your face, etc.). The animal is not said to be toxic, but it's blood (or saliva or ear wax, etc.) would.

Apologies for the semantics – call it another one of my fluff specialisations!

I usually do shut down recreational drug use on anyone immune to toxins. That applies to generally beneficial drugs as well. It is a relatively simple chemical/magical interaction. If someone played a creature that physically processed, say, alcohol differently and did not get intoxicated, there is no way for them to voluntarily become intoxicated just cause they aren't happy they can't drink.

The section on p. 73 of Arsenal leaves it a bit vague, but it does note characters being naturally or magically resistant needing to take this into account.

Thanks for the responses, guys. You make some interesting points. I was worried I'd missed something obvious.


The above quote is along the lines of what made me wonder about this issue in the first place. I remember hearing once that the difference between a medicine and a poison was dosage. Even deadly substances can be beneficial with the right application. The problem with this direction of thinking is that it quickly comes to the conclusion that everything is eventually toxic. This seems to be an exaggeration and I can't help but think it would be wise to leave some sort of basis for comparison, even if it's just substances that metahumans find harmful in small doses.

So does a magical immune system take the time to differentiate between harmful and not, or just block all comers? The paragraph in Arsenal actually says "The Shadowrun rules treat drugs differently from toxins and other chemicals" right before it goes on with "Characters who are naturally or magically resistant to toxins must also be taken into account." These lines seem to leave latitude for interpretation either way.

@Godwyn: I take it you used alcohol as an example because of the specific mention of the negative effects of it on Vampires made in SR4? That's worth mentioning because up to that point I would have considered alcohol itself a potential toxin. In fact, I had a character in SR3 who implanted an alcohol toxin filter so he could drink people under the table in social interactions without clouding his own judgment. Is this an oversight, an exception to the rules, or just clarification on an especially adverse reaction since Vampires are "hemovores and cannot hold down any other food" and have their own physiology with its inherent strengths and weaknesses.

@Aerospider: No worries about being fussy about the details. If I wasn't so pedantic, I wouldn't have wondered about this in the first place. It's interesting that you think that stim patches work regardless, though.

Conclusion: Immunity to Toxins is poor phrasing, as it is technically limited to biological poisons. Regardless, it does affect any such chemical that is harmful or lethal [as per Toxic], regardless of beneficial applications or dosage.

Also note that as per Arsenal, any character with protective systems against drugs & toxins must make a Toxin Resistance Test when affected by drugs or toxins, regardless of if it is willing or beneficial. Unless otherwise specified, drugs are considered to have Power 6. Alcohol can be assumed to have Power 2, as per the Prophylaxis spell.

I've always found it interesting that Vamps are Immune to toxins, considering that in their description they can't hold down food, and alcohol in particular makes them nauseas. Maybe it's only ingested materials, excluding blood of course. I figured that Vamps had an advanced system of toxin resistance that would expel anything that wasn't blood, which would include poisons, toxins, medicine, drugs, anything. So I would say a definitive no on Vamps getting any of the benefits or penalties of anything that requires use of the blood stream to take effect.

However, there was a novel I read, that I wish I could remember the name of right now, where there was an alcoholic vampire. Since she was unable to ingest alcohol, she got her fix by preying on drunks headed home from the bars.

Too bad the SR immunity to toxins gets in the way, though I would consider an exception for such a situation. Too many good opportunities with it.

I've always assumed that the vampire's immunities are just part of the same hyped up immune system and healing factor that gives them regeneration. If their body can shrug off gunshot wounds in a few seconds it isn't really surprising that they can immediately shrug off the affects of any foreign chemicals in the body. I'd rule they were flat out unaffected by anything that doesn't have a power rating. Drugs with a power rating that got past their immunity would be shrugged off as fast as the body could "regenerate" from it. So no, that stim patch wouldn't work for long, if at all.

Think of the vampire as having a sort of super immune system that tries to instantly repair any changes to the body, regardless of weather you want it to or not. After all, you can't exactly tell your body not to get better, now can you? I don't think it unreasonable to treat a vamp's immunities they same way - ie totally uncontrolled. I run regeneration the same way - I don't let the vampire NOT heal so he can better pass as a normal human. The wounds close up weather they want them to or not.



That's how it works in Vampire the Masquerade IIRC.

Which while cool is somewhat sketchy when you look into this with actual numbers.

The maximum recorded alcohol that did not kill the subject was approximatively 1.2% alcohol, half what you get in a weak beer.

Completely draining a human body at this (extreme ! Most people would be dead or at least comatose largely before reaching such a level) alcohol level would introduce in the vampire's system about as much alcohol as he would get from a double shot glass (2.5 US fl oz) of vodka...

They pay in points for the bonuses they get as PCs. Taking even more away from them isnt going to create additional balance. If you wanted to get nit-picky about it, the only thing you should hit them with is drugs that specifically have a power rating to be resisted under the rules for toxins.

I would actually let vampires have all the effects.

They get high, they get low.

The ONLY thing they don’t do is take PHYSICAL DAMAGE (since they regenerate).

They will on the other hand get addicted.

And can loose essence.

Can you see it? A junkie vampire who has to use essence drain to counter the negative aspects of his deep addiction and he can STILL continue to abuse himself with drugs.

1: Take drugs
2: Loose Essence
3: Find Victim
4: Regain Essence

Never thought about it this way. awesome!

Except for the fact that it wouldn't work. If you ruled that vamps could get addicted and lose essence to addiction, it would subtract from their max essence like any normal person, same as with 'ware. Also, because essence loss would subtract from their natural maximum rating, it would effectively drop their maximum essence rating twice as quickly as a normal person's. For example, a Vamp who had lost 1 point of essence for something besides their Essence Loss ability would drop from a natural essence maximum of 6 to 5, meaning the max amount of essence they could have would drop from 12 to 10. Essence loss to the infected is only slightly less bad as it is for mundanes, and they can't just drain more to get it back up.

Easily fixed.

House Rule:
Vampires can only loose current Essence from drug abuse, not their maximum essence rating.

So, Vampires would now be able to be addicts but have slightly less drawback from it - i.e they can only die if they loose essence and no way to regain it.

Part of me wants to applaud this line since the quality is indeed costly and it hurts a bit to have a positive power act like a negative in some cases, but I can get over it if that's how it works. At the very least it adds flavor to the game.

There seems to be something like a consensus forming. That Immunity to Toxins is always active, like regeneration, and indiscriminate about what bodily intrusions in encounters. A problem I have had in SR4 though is one of assumptions. I keep expecting gear, powers and ware to have the same restrictions or downsides they did in earlier additions (Platelet Factories requiring dosing yourself with anticoagulants, smartlinks being more effective with implants than without, ect.), only to find out months later that this is not the case. So while I myself always believed that the immunity functioned as described above, I would no longer be surprised to discover otherwise.

I also can't help but wonder once again if we aren't just meant to go by the lists of Toxins the game has conveniently laid out for us as to what Immunity (Toxins) affects, like we would refer to the lists of pathogens for that similar immunity. Are those just examples? Is there no chance it's that simple?

I wouldn't just go by the list of pathogens either for an immunity. There's a few potentially beneficial things in augmentation, like nanites and symbiotes as well as FAB, that I would say a character with Immuntiy to Pathogens wouldn't receive benefits, or penalties, from. Looking at the way 'ware works for infected, how it's expelled unless special medical techniques are used to suppress Regeneration, it only makes sense that any other thing deemed unnatural to the body would be expelled in the same way. Maybe with immuno-suppressors it would work? I just can't think of how Immunity to Toxins would work if it wasn't representative of a superior immune system.

Except neither Nanites or Symbiotes are considered Pathogens. Nanocybernetics are implants. Symbiotes are implants. Nanites are something else separate from Toxins or Pathogens..

But they function the same way. Symbiotes are complete parasites and can in fact turn into real parasites if something goes wrong. Nanites function exactly like viruses, they infiltrate cells and the workings of the body and cause it to work in an unnatural way. It doesn't matter that these things provide perceived benefits, they're still basically parasites and viruses as far as your immune system is concerned, and you can bet that the magic enhanced immune system Vamps enjoy that violently expels cyberware from the body upon transformation would do the exact same to a freacking slug living in your bowels or to some fancy pieces of metal hanging out in your blood stream.

That's the crux of the matter, Mus. Do supernatural defenses only affect... bad things. Are medicines "toxins". Are nanintes "pathogens." Some things seem clear, like Vampires can't be the older editions version of a "willing" target or recipient of certain effects. Others are... less so.

As to those two mods being implants, well. Because of regeneration, there are guidelines for cyberware and bioware implanting, and a flat ban on genetech alteration. I guess it all depends on if they fall under the other two defenses or that one.

Personally, I'd rule that vampires' combination of regeneration and toxin/pathogen immunity ties at least somewhat into their immunity to age, as well. When they're infected and 'change', the body is locked into an ideal healthy form, with injuries regenerating and foreign bodies being physically expelled.

When further injuries or 'invaders' are introduced, the disease's awakened defenses spring into action and repair the damage or reject the 'imbalance'. This means no cyberware or bioware unless it's of such an incredible grade that it can pretty much trick the body and the disease into thinking it's a natural part of the body. Geneware, being an attempt to alter the natural blueprint of the body, is outright rejected, since you can't disguise that as having been there all along.

Personally, I'd say that Nanotech and symbiotic organisms would be rejected as well, unless they were specifically designed to get pass the HMHVV defenses. Which would be pretty much plot fiat on the part of the GM, either positively or negatively.

As for the original question of the thread, I'd say that no, a vampire can't 'choose' to get the benefits of some drugs and ignore the negatives of others. There is no 'negative' or 'positive' in how a drug affects them, it simply 'does'. It's an intrusion on the vampire's now-resistant-to-outside-influence bodily systems. As such, I'd think that it'd be attacked and repelled whether the effects are good or bad. This means that neurostun may not knock the vampire out, but neither will general anasthetic or painkillers if the vampire needs medical care to deal with magically or allergenically inflicted wounds that regeneration won't deal with. You won't get a benefit from overdrive or ripper, but you won't melt or have your lungs pop out thanks to NBC attacks, either. Two-edged swords are a bitch that way. Just my opinion, of course.

This looks very cut and dried to me from a game perspective.

Bad stuff doesn't hurt me due to my immunity.
Good stuff does now that it's usefull to me!

Grabs the munchkin bat to beat some sense into someone.

I'd say if you have the immunity, yes it's double-edged... you don't get the bad stuff, and you don't get the good stuff either. That's just being a twink of the worst sort. Really if it's that bad, burn edge, that's what it's there for!


Using alcohol as an excuse doesn't work for me... because it's a specific exception listed in the vampire description... not a door to allowing some (non-listed) items to work and others not.

..and that it should be enforced in case of implants, powers or high body.

I don't know about she, but there's a male vampire in one of the Callahan Chronicles stories by Spider Robinson who had a similar MO.

This is basically how we've played it, with all foreign intrusions being expelled indiscriminately. It works for us, but it seemed important to clarify things since it's good to know what your defenses actually act against.


If I worded it right, then the original question was actually "What do these automatic defenses affect?" I suppose I'm just bothered by the definitions of the words used, even those same definitions that have been thrown around earlier to support the other side of the argument. Since "toxin" seems to be synonymous with "poison", and "pathogen" is described as the causative agent of disease, I have trouble reconciling myself to the world view that everything is poisonous and/or sickening.

I thought I was playing devil's advocate here so I don't much appreciate terms like "munchkin" and "twink" being thrown around. As I'm the only one questioning things from this side at this point though (and because I think you guys are right anyway), I will let it go.

At least my character can puff on one the Laés cigarettes he passes around on certain occasions to allay suspicions like I'd planned. This whole train of thought got me to wondering if I wouldn't be kicking my own ass.