Ally with Terror
 

One of my players wants an Ally with Terror. For obvious reasons he'd like to be immune to it (also, I don't want to have him do a Fright Check every hour while the Ally is around). I'm thinking a Perk (immune to one Nightmare's Terror) and making it available to other PCs once they've survived a few fright checks.

The other option would be Fearlessness (10 levels is close enough to immune for me) with "only the ally Nightmare" -80% for [4].

Neither is terribly expensive (it's a DF game) but I'm curious if and how others have ruled on it. Thanks.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

Eventually the modifiers for repeated exposure and preparation reach +10 anyway.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

Unfazeable (one person only, -80%) [3]?

Re: Ally with Terror
 

I'd charge a perk for this. This seems like one of those times when you need to slap on limitations that exceed -80% (as suggested in Psionic Powers). Compare the "Immunity to Specific Hazard" perk from Magical Styles (p. 25), it too is a perk and covers one very specific magical hazard.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

I disagree here. The perk in question is about a specific and apparently immobile magical hazard. Even though "immobile" might be debatable, it's also clear that it's about a rarely encountered hazard. It doesn't seem to be about a hazard you will be dragging around with you and encountering at every corner. It's meant to be a sometimes benefit, not always benefit.

Looking at it another way, if that would work, then every PC should take the Perk "Immunity to <<PC mage>>'s <<PC mage's favorite area effect spell>>", that way the spellcaster can blast away with impunity and not worry about his PC allies. I really don't think the Perk was meant for that. And I'd place Terror in the same category as this.

Myself, I'd take the Fearlessness approach, with an Accessibility limitation. Even there, Accessibility clearly states it's about the frequency of encountering the limitation that determines the price, and give variable costs for "Only at Sea" depending on whether it's a land-based or ocean-based campaign. So I'd use the same logic here. Then again, the best you can get with Accessibility is -40%, and that doesn't seem too unreasonable.

So, in my games, I'd call it Fearlessness ("Only against ally's nightmare", -40%) [1.6 x level], and let him buy it in levels. Once he reaches an effective resistance of 16, then purchase the No Nuisance Roll (Ally's Terror resistance) perk for another 1 CP to remove the need of actually rolling.

As another alternative, if it's compatible with the special effect / explanation of the ally's Terror ability, have you considered just having the Ally purchase the Selective Effect +20% enhancement for his Terror, that way it can choose not to affect the PC(s). This would increase the cost of the Ally, which gives a corresponding increase in cost for the PC to purchase the Ally, so maybe just charge that.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

You can't take immunity to non-resisted spells, and any resisted area spells can just exclude hexes the other PCs are in, so it's hardly abusive.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

Immunity to Specific Hazard is a perfect fit.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

I'd recommend changing that around and making the Terror have Selective Effect - otherwise, the Ally will keep terrorizing the other characters in the adventuring band, even if his character is immune.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

+1 here. I'll note that even with selective effect that doesn't mean that the other PC's don't find the Terror Effect... unsettling... they just aren't at risk of going bats**t crazy when exposed to it.

Re: Ally with Terror
 

Which is just another way of saying that all resisted area spells have the Selective Effect +20% enhancement, thus the effect lies with the caster, not the subject. So I stick to my alternative suggestion of adding Selective Effect, which I see has also been echoed by Langly and Ericbsmith.

As to not abusive, I state that this is an interpretation of that one specific effect appearing to be not abusive. If instead of Terror a PC had Toxic Attack 50d (Area Effect 16 yards +200%; Aura +80%; Resistible HT-4, -10%) [740], would you think that it's fine for other PC to spend 1 points on a Perk to be immune to it? Or would you think it better that the player with the Toxic Attack should be adding Selective Effect +20% for an additional 40 points to make it balanced?

If I wouldn't allow the Perk for the Toxic Attack, then I shouldn't allow it for Terror either.

But granted, if as the GM you're happy with the idea that a Perk makes you immune to the Toxic Attack described above, then by all means allow it for Terror as well.

This really comes down to the judgement of the individual GM as to what he thinks "balanced" is for his campaign. I'm just explaining my reasoning as to why I personally wouldn't allow it.