Being poisonous (not venomous)

[Dalillama]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

I think it's more than $20 useful. But sadly, I too, don't have that much in my pocket to use.

I don't have any real interest in playing or running zombie-focused games, and I can handle the occasional incidental necromancer and the like well enough without it. Hence, the main value for me would be those two particular rules, which aren't worth $20 to me. If I had a larger gaming budget I'd probably grab a copy for completeness, but as it stands no.

[ericthered]

True, it only comes up if you are in a setting where either you have a good chance of being eaten, or a couple of other edge cases. But if thats the case why do you care about it in the first place?

If your blood, vomit, or something else that can be removed with only moderate discomfort, or you don't feel too bad about taking a chunk out of your belly in a tight spot, then you've got another perk (accessory: poison vial).

If you are poisonous enough to make a dragon think twice about biting you, you've got a very specialized aura.

For those talking about a reputation among predators: I'm not sure it can apply in the normal fashion: reputation gives a bonus to reaction rolls. The 'size of group' and 'chance to recognize' rings true though. It might be some sort of negated social stigma(food).

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericthered

For those talking about a reputation among predators: I'm not sure it can apply in the normal fashion: reputation gives a bonus to reaction rolls.

And "I think I won't eat that" is a better reaction than "I think I'll eat that".

[ericthered]

Originally Posted by Anthony

And "I think I won't eat that" is a better reaction than "I think I'll eat that".

But it just feels wrong to have the monster roll reactions to the characters on the basis of 'which one is better to eat'? Tradition has the monster going after the good looking young people, which do better on the reaction rolls. Where as poison has a very different effect.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by ericthered

But it just feels wrong to have the monster roll reactions to the characters on the basis of 'which one is better to eat'? Tradition has the monster going after the good looking young people, which do better on the reaction rolls.

In general monsters are only affected by reaction modifiers that apply to 'potential combat', and a lot of them have unfazeable and will ignore most reaction modifiers anyway.

[Canology]

I'd say it was a Perk. Have the monsters/predators make a Per check to notice you smell unpalatable. Getting bit once by a monster might leave you alive with a scar, rather than being completely eaten.

[Refplace]

I am also in the perk camp in some settings, feature in most others.
Its worth a perk if common predators decide to eat and thus attack other members of your party first.

[Anthony]

And on the other hand we have the quirk "tasty: a creature who bites you wants more, and will seek you out in preference to other creatures. This includes mosquitoes, fleas, and ticks."

Possibly also a second perk/quirk: smells foul/tasty. Monsters can tell without even biting you what you'll taste like.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Anthony

Well, it's got some non-zero value if they take a bite out of you, spit it out, and don't try again. .

Being poisonous doesn't necessarily mean "tastes bad".

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Anthony

And on the other hand we have the quirk "tasty: a creature who bites you wants more, and will seek you out in preference to other creatures. This includes mosquitoes, fleas, and ticks."

Possibly also a second perk/quirk: smells foul/tasty. Monsters can tell without even biting you what you'll taste like.

I apparently smell like aphids from how often ladybugs bite me. I've even been bitten by bee. Seriously, they have strong jaws for being herbivores.
I never have to worry about mosquitos though.

Unusual biochemistry: mistaken scent? ;)