Immunity To Metabolic Hazards And Injury Tolerance (No Blood), Do They Stack?

[scc]

OK, putting together some stuff for cybernetics(hope to have that up soon) and came across these two traits on the machine meta-trait. Now Immunity to Metabolic Hazards isn't actually properly defined, it's mention on B81 but it's full scope is never detailed and Injury Tolerance (No Blood) could well be included because bleeding is pretty much a consequence of having a metabolism.

Any help is much appreciated.

[evileeyore]

Metabolic Hazards would be better titles "Environmental Hazards", because what it protects from is things like FP loss from smoke inhalation, damage poisons, etc. Basically, if you get a HT roll to avoid damage from an environmental source, Metabolic Hazards makes you immune.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Metabolic Hazards would be better titles "Environmental Hazards", because what it protects from is things like FP loss from smoke inhalation, damage poisons, etc. Basically, if you get a HT roll to avoid damage from an environmental source, Metabolic Hazards makes you immune.

It also makes you immune to things that don't give a HT roll so long as they're metabolic hazards, such as cyanide. Meanwhile, a fire is an environmental hazards but ItMH doesn't protect against it. Electricity is an environmental hazard with an HT roll to prevent some worse stuff, but ItMH doesn't make one immune to it either (as evidenced by the concerns of machines against surge attacks in the RAW).

[ericthered]

There is some overlap, but not as much as you might think.



Immune to metabolic hazards does not grant immunity to bleeding. The two are often seen in close contact, but not always, and its good to be able to split up traits.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

It also makes you immune to things that don't give a HT roll so long as they're metabolic hazards, such as cyanide.

Now... see... I'm strongly under the impression that if it doesn't give a resistance roll, you aren't immune. Since "Immunity" is just tooled up "Resistant to".

If there's a different rules opinion on this, I'd like a link.

[Ji ji]

If not by Immunity, by which advantage would you make something immune to cyanide?

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

Now... see... I'm strongly under the impression that if it doesn't give a resistance roll, you aren't immune. Since "Immunity" is just tooled up "Resistant to".

If there's a different rules opinion on this, I'd like a link.

What the clear wording of the rule in the Basic Set (the word totally is even italicized) isn't enough for you? One of Kromm's statements here: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...light=Immunity

To an extent the problem is getting the purpose of the advantage descriptions upside down though. Immunity to Metabolic Hazards doesn't necessarily tell you exactly what it does because you aren't supposed to take it and then figure out what the effects are. You are supposed to have a character concept (e.g. my character is a robot and so doesn't *have* a metabolism, or my character is protected from stuff by the blessing of the God of Bodily Perfection) and take advantages to reflect that. It might not cover exactly the same things for those two concepts, and that's OK. The weird edge cases are what GMs are for.

[Fred Brackin]

Originally Posted by Ji ji

If not by Immunity, by which advantage would you make something immune to cyanide?

If Burning Damage and "Heat" are separate things (even if the damage is being done by a retro-SF "Heat ray") I would be afraid that "cyanide" and Toxic Damage would be different too even if the Toxic damage had its' special effect described as "poison".

Mind, if I were GM I'd be using my common sense to prevent stupid results but if I were a player I wouldn't be sure what the rules were.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by malloyd

What the clear wording of the rule in the Basic Set (the word totally is even italicized) isn't enough for you?

If it were, I wouldn't have asked. Neh?

I've had it argued at me that the 'and' effectively meant 'because', and since being merely Resistant doesn't stop damage*, well then...


* See also the obscuring wording about "Resistant does not protect against effects that Damage Resistance or Protected Sense either stop or provide a HT bonus to resist." Which I've had argued at me means "If it just deals damage, it can't be resisted, even by Immunity, so if it deals damage despite a Resistance roll, the damage can't be stopped by Immunity".

One of Kromm's statements here: http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...light=Immunity

Thank you, that solves that.

You are supposed to have a character concept (e.g. my character is a robot and so doesn't *have* a metabolism, or my character is protected from stuff by the blessing of the God of Bodily Perfection) and take advantages to reflect that.

That's exactly true.

For example in the same DF campaign... we have a Celestial with ItMH, because it was available as a power-up. Someone else has a Golem Ally with ItMH... because of the way DF runs, both advantages are run equally despite one of them being flesh and blood (and half spirit) and the other being a magic robot.

[vitruvian]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

For example in the same DF campaign... we have a Celestial with ItMH, because it was available as a power-up. Someone else has a Golem Ally with ItMH... because of the way DF runs, both advantages are run equally despite one of them being flesh and blood (and half spirit) and the other being a magic robot.

Well, yes, the same points spent for the same advantage gives you the same game effects such as immunity to various hazards. If you want one to be protected from more or fewer hazards than the other, modify the advantage somehow.