Something between Terminally Ill and Self Destruct?

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Gurps doesn't do aging, true. It does Stat loss which isn't even very similar to real aging. Old people get diabetes, glaucoma, arthritis, etc. not IQ or HT loss. A man over 100 years old ran a marathon. But he's still obviously hella' old.

Aging is about how one's risk of death doubles about every 8 years regardless of average life expectancy. From age 10 on. One's risk decreases from birth to about age 10.

I'm thinking that Unageing might actually become worth its points if any affliction that is similar to the effects of ageing would count as affected by the immunity. So no Attribute Penalty affliction, no affliction of alzheimer-like stuff etc. But this is an extremely counterintuitive solution, and potentially very very ugly.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

For an actually effective aging attack I'd really go with an Affliction with an aging special effect that lowers characteristics.

Whether or not leech is an actually effective aging attack or stupidly overpriced and ineffective is a different question.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Gurps doesn't do aging, true. It does Stat loss which isn't even very similar to real aging. Old people get diabetes, glaucoma, arthritis, etc. not IQ or HT loss. A man over 100 years old ran a marathon. But he's still obviously hella' old.

Aging is about how one's risk of death doubles about every 8 years regardless of average life expectancy. From age 10 on. One's risk decreases from birth to about age 10.

At the GM’s option, you may lose advantages or gain disadvantages of equivalent point value instead of losing an attribute point. For example, your Appearance could decline, or you could gain Hard of Hearing.

GM: "You critically failed your aging HT roll for IQ. Take some combination of -40 points worth of IQ, intelligence related disadvantages, or negated intelligence related advantages."

Player: "Ok, I drop my character's Eidetic Memory [5] and take Absent Mindedness [-15], Confused (9 or less) [-15] and Hidebound [-5]. My character is developing Alzheimer’s."

[Not]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

Gurps doesn't do aging, true. It does Stat loss which isn't even very similar to real aging. Old people get diabetes, glaucoma, arthritis, etc. not IQ or HT loss. A man over 100 years old ran a marathon. But he's still obviously hella' old.

Aging is about how one's risk of death doubles about every 8 years regardless of average life expectancy. From age 10 on. One's risk decreases from birth to about age 10.

Defined that way, acquiring Extremely hazardous duty is equivalent to suffering an aging attack.

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

Whether or not leech is an actually effective aging attack or stupidly overpriced and ineffective is a different question.

It isn't supposed to be an effective attack. It's supposed to be an effective way to advertise how evil you are in the process of ensuring youth for as long as it takes until someone finally kills you for being so evil. But as I said, for real attacks I'd go with afflictions.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It isn't supposed to be an effective attack.

Says who?

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It's supposed to be an effective way to advertise how evil you are in the process of ensuring youth for as long as it takes until someone finally kills you for being so evil.

Leech (Steal Youth +300%) [100], compare that with Unaging [15] + 85 points of nastiness would probably be more effective.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by NineDaysDead

Says who?

Leech (Steal Youth +300%) [100], compare that with Unaging [15] + 85 points of nastiness would probably be more effective.

Throw in Ranged, Malediction, and Area Effect. Now you're stealing youth from everybody in the room, which certainly qualifies as evil.

[NineDaysDead]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

Throw in Ranged, Malediction, and Area Effect. Now you're stealing youth from everybody in the room, which certainly qualifies as evil.

Compare:

1.
Leech (Steal Youth +300%) [100]

Vs

Affliction (Area Effect 2 yards, +50%; Attribute Penalty: ST -1, DX -1, IQ -1, HT -1 +30%; Cumulative +400%; Disadvantage: Appearance -20 points, +20% Extended Duration: Permanent +150%; Malediction +100%) [85]+ Unaging [15].

If you get successfully hit by Leech 12 times you will lose a year of life; No real effects unless you are 49+.

If you get successfully hit by Affliction 12 times you will lose 12 levels in every Attribute and be Horrific;



2.

Leech (Area Effect 4 Yards +100%; Malediction +100%; Ranged +40%; Steal Youth +300%) [160]

vs

Affliction (Area Effect 4 yards, +100%; Attribute Penalty: ST -1, DX -1, IQ -1, HT -1 +30%; Cosmic: No Rule of 16, +50%; Cumulative +400%; Disadvantage: Appearance -20 points, +20% Extended Duration: Permanent +150%; Malediction +100%) [95] + Will +10 [50] Unaging [15].

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Not

Defined that way, acquiring Extremely hazardous duty is equivalent to suffering an aging attack.

I see where you got that, but that's not what I meant. Aging is how your risk of dying in any given year from all sources doubles every 8 years come hell or high water. Regardless of environmental risks.
Life expectancy in war zones is horribly low, but regardless, 40 year olds have double the chance of dying than 32 year olds in a given year.
I hope I'm clearer this time.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by David Johnston2

It isn't supposed to be an effective attack. It's supposed to be an effective way to advertise how evil you are in the process of ensuring youth for as long as it takes until someone finally kills you for being so evil. But as I said, for real attacks I'd go with afflictions.

In movies and TV it's far simpler to show evil by killing/harming a cute pet.
Much cheaper in points too.

Evil is why and how you do something, not necessarily what you do.
I can imagine plenty of ways in which "stealing time" would seem perfectly just.