Cost of Totally Susceptible / Reverse Immunity

[JCurwen3]

You can have advantages to be immune to things - you automatically succeed and don't need to bother making resistance rolls for those categories of things.

What about Susceptible? What's a fair disadvantage compensation value for automatically failing your resistance roll? So, for instance, always failing resistance rolls vs Ingested Poison (classified as Occasional for the purposes of Susceptible).

For Resistant, if you do a linear extrapolation, the Immunity level is equivalent to Resistant +23 (Resistant to a Very Common +3 is 10, 5 points more gets you +8, so going by that another 15 points gets to Immune or +23 for a total 30 points). This logic might be thoroughly flawed though...

I guess in a nutshell, at what level of Susceptible is it fair to say "you just fail"? -23, -10, what?

[Mgellis]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

You can have advantages to be immune to things - you automatically succeed and don't need to bother making resistance rolls for those categories of things.

What about Susceptible? What's a fair disadvantage compensation value for automatically failing your resistance roll? So, for instance, always failing resistance rolls vs Ingested Poison (classified as Occasional for the purposes of Susceptible).

For Resistant, if you do a linear extrapolation, the Immunity level is equivalent to Resistant +23 (Resistant to a Very Common +3 is 10, 5 points more gets you +8, so going by that another 15 points gets to Immune or +23 for a total 30 points). This logic might be thoroughly flawed though...

I guess in a nutshell, at what level of Susceptible is it fair to say "you just fail"? -23, -10, what?

For a leveled disadvantage like Susceptible, I would say use 10 levels to represent "always fails." -10 is the default "It's impossible!" modifier, so this seems fair. In theory, someone could succeed, but there are ways around it. Aside from just saying, "No, you fail anyway," one option is to assume that when the character does resist, it means the material itself was not really what it was supposed to be--the poison was mixed badly, etc.

I hope this helps.

Mark

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by Mgellis

For a leveled disadvantage like Susceptible, I would say use 10 levels to represent "always fails." -10 is the default "It's impossible!" modifier, so this seems fair. In theory, someone could succeed, but there are ways around it. Aside from just saying, "No, you fail anyway," one option is to assume that when the character does resist, it means the material itself was not really what it was supposed to be--the poison was mixed badly, etc.

Thanks. The -10 "impossible" had crossed my mind.

Just to be clear, the player in question doesn't want a resistance roll - he wants the character concept to include automatic failure to this particular category of things. Imagine a bubble boy concept... except that complete lack of any sort of immunity to disease would be a death sentence and might as well be Terminal Illness with a particularly limiting Mitigator.... so actually, don't imagine a bubble boy, it's not a bubble boy.

Just wanted to avoid confusion if I have gave the impression that I wanted to bone all players at an arbitrary level of Susceptible.

[David Johnston2]

Quite a lot of resistance roll things determine severity by margin of success so I'm not sure that would work.

[Humabout]

You could always determine margin of success as though the character had rolled a 3 (or some other arbitrary number).

[kirbwarrior]

Originally Posted by Humabout

You could always determine margin of success as though the character had rolled a 3 (or some other arbitrary number).

That's similar to the option for Affliction for Fixed Rate, but you could also make it so it gets the most sever roll possible to hit home how bad the the disad is.