ok, here is a question that i'm sure has been asked. The merit natural immuntiy for 3 points allows you to take immunity to a single man made toxin. If i take this for a drug do i still get the good effect but not the bad since this reads "without ill effects". SEcondly if i don't get those effects and i take it a second time in a day so that i get them does the phrase "but begins to recover after body/2 days" mean that i can recover from things i could otherwise not recover from - for instance from addictions or more pointedly body loss from to much drug use (which is normally perminant)? Just looking into how using this merit with a drug that gives beneficial effects so that i can use it over a longer time period would work. Thanks for the impute
-Neon, clubbing and Decking for 7 years and still on top

That's one of the ones that were mucked up, and they fixed it with errata. Natural Immunity's rate is (30-Body)/2 Hours instead fo Body/2 Days.

The part about the good effects and the bad effects is up to the GM, but the nature of the edge implies that it should have no effect whatsoever. You're supposed to be immune to its effects, period. It would be nice if it were only an immunity to the bad parts, though.

ok then,

so the question still remains, can i recover such things as from addiction or body damage from overdose through this merit, even if i don't get the effects on the frist use, according to the merit i will get them on the second within the allotted time period.
-Neon, Clubbing and Decking for 7 years and still on top

If you have this edge, you have no addiction or body damage to recover from. It's a natural immunity you've always had. If gained through some other measure, you'd simply be unable to get your fix and would basically have to use the rules for breaking an addiction and missing your fixes because you really have no choice in the matter. Though if it's a major fix, you might be tempted to take enough doses to get past your immunity...

It's one of those areas that's up to the GM to decide what's best for the story and the nature of the situation.

Sorry to re-hash such an old topic, but it appears to be the only place it's come up in the Forums. One of our guys also saw that the wording for the 3 point Edge says "without ill effects" and took the 3 point Natural Immunity to Kamikaze. Thus, the benefits of the drug without the ill effects.

Unlike A ClockWork Lime, I don't see that you're suppose to be "immune to its effects, period". Any chance someone else could comment on this? Anyone see a problem with it? Our GM ruled that the 'ill effects' could be ignored, but the addiction couldn't. So basically, he's becoming more and more addicited to a rather expensive drug, and could suffer the 'ill effects' of not having the drug, should his source dry out. Although addictive, it's no more harmful to the guy than cigarettes giving the chance for potential health problems later in life, but nothing immediate.

Thoughts?

I think that is pretty much how I would rule on it in my game.

I wouldn't rule it that way, as it, well, doesn't make any sense. It's not like, in most cases, the positive effect comes from some different mechanism than the negative effects.

~J

Why not? I know many people Immune to the Negative effects of caffeine. They don't have to piss gallons after drinking a liter of coffee, don't get shakes from drinking a liter of expresso even. Yet it obviously keeps them awake. On the opposite angle, I'm pretty positive that nobody on earth is immune to Cyanide, but a Shadowrunner could be. Maybe it has something to do with the flow of mana...? So again, why not?

I really don't think caffeine "shakes" and the need to piss would even register on the scale SR uses for illness and injury.

In any case, while it's certainly possible to cherry-pick some anecdotal evidence of people being immune to negative effects of certain chemicals, it doesn't change the fact that the great majority of chemicals which have positive and negative effects are an all-or-nothing deal... and when they do have "bonus" effects on certain people, those almost always turn out to be negative, anyway.

Finally, it's just a matter of common sense - why anyone would think that an ability which lets a SR character use a combat drug of choice with impunity is balanced and a good idea, is beyond me.

While I do think it's balanced, and how it not being balanced can be seen is beyond me, the reason I raised the question and asked the GM to reconsider is how that ruling would affect something like VITAS (getting only the positive effects, and not the negatives). It IS balanced with Kamikaze, especially with the sort of GM we have, but Ic ould see how this ruling can become abusable.

I don't remember any positive effects for VITAS. Maybe you're thinking of HMHVV? Of course, the three-point edge doesn't actually allow diseases.

~J

True and true.... Thanks for catching the mixup on diseases there.

If a player tried to pull this with me, I'd just tell him that getting deathly ill can be considered a "positive effect" because it generates sympathy and helps you to reflect on your mortality and develop a greater appreciation for life. Ergo, there are no real negative effects so let's just ditch the trait. In other words, I'd tell him he's munching and get the hell out of my basement.

But that's just my opinion, I wouldn't try to tell any of my fellow dumpshockers that they have to do it my way. Just my players...

Natural Immunity ignores ill effects. So it depends on what the GM defines as ill-effects. Personally, I'd say the guy gets the good stuff and ignores all the bad, including the addiction.

Seems I mis-understood my GM's decision. I thought he meant all the negatives of addiction (including the relatively short lifespan). He says it's "just" the addiction. No Body loss, no Essence/ConditionMonitor losses, no Death. Just an addiction on a level 2 tolerance drug that requires he double his intake everytime he fails the tolerance roll. No "ill effects" at all from the drug, only from lack of it. Anyhows, I've decided I agree with his take on it.

And Dog, our GM is the exact opposite. He encourages people to be 'munchkin' as you call it. He finds that characters have a longer lifespan if people spend hours getting all the numbers 'just right'. And considering his level of expertise puts me to shame at times, he has no problems dealing with min-maxxed (a better term for character creation, munchkinism being a form of playing, not creating) characters.