Immunity to specific disadvantage

[munin]

Originally Posted by Rev. Pee Kitty

Perk. Compare some of the 5-point immunities, such as "Immunity to All Age-Based Attacks." Such things are clearly broader than "Immunity to Attacks That Inflict Low Pain Threshold." ...

I'll accept it being a perk on authority, but I wouldn't say Immunity to All Age-Based Attacks is "clearly broader" than Immunity to LPT. LPT can be inflicted by a number of natural sources (radiation, drugs, even hangovers), whereas age-based attacks are limited to supernatural means or ultra-tech methods like a proteus nano-virus. So adventurers could encounter an infliction of LPT in any setting, whereas age-based attacks are much more limited.

There are also a number of disadvantages involving resistance rolls I would feel very uncomfortable about allowing characters to be immune to for just a perk. Can you take Immunity to Attacks That Inflict Blindness [1] so as to be immune to anything where you need to roll to resist blindness? Having immunity to attacks which inflict Infectious Attack basically grants immunity to all Infectious Attacks -- one specific Infectious Attack (e.g., the one specific zombie plague in a zombie setting) would be worth only a perk, but all of them? (vampires, lycanthropes, multiple kinds of zombies, etc.)

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

If things like poison ivy/oak count as a poison, then real people can have immunity to it like my family.

In terms of GURPS rules I think it makes sense to count such as poisons, but I think (and you may know more about this than I do) the jury is still out on whether people are actually immune or just need more exposure to develop a response (although that may be defined as losing your Immunity).

But also in terms of GURPS rules, people who haven't suffered any ill effects from poison ivy may simply be Resistant to it rather than immune (after all, effective HT 10 + Resistant +3 gives an 84% chance for no effects, though rolls against poison ivy may be at a penalty), so if one was trying to use the lack of response as evidence of a trait you would need many exposures to really rule out Resistant in favor of Immunity (or especially to differentiate Resistant +8 from Immunity).

Please don't conduct these tests! : )

[jeff_wilson]

Originally Posted by munin

I'll accept it being a perk on authority, but I wouldn't say Immunity to LPT is "clearly broader" than Immunity to All Age-Based Attacks.

I think you've got that backwards.

[munin]

Originally Posted by jeff_wilson

I think you've got that backwards.

Whoops, you're right. Fixed!

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by munin

I'll accept it being a perk on authority, but I wouldn't say Immunity to All Age-Based Attacks is "clearly broader" than Immunity to LPT. LPT can be inflicted by a number of natural sources (radiation, drugs, even hangovers), whereas age-based attacks are limited to supernatural means or ultra-tech methods like a proteus nano-virus. So adventurers could encounter an infliction of LPT in any setting, whereas age-based attacks are much more limited.

I think that part of it is that an Affliction of Low Pain Threshold pretty much can only vary by source, whereas "Age-Based attacks" can vary by that and by sfx. LPT is a simple condition, while an age-based attack might make you younger, older, or other such variations.

A side concern is that an age-based attack might (depending on how it is made) actually debilitate the target in some way, while LPT is only a facilitator towards that end.

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

Would immunity to age based attacks make you immune to having your Unaging Advantage neutralized or negated via affliction?

Would ITABA also make it impossible to be Afflicted with the disadvantage of Short Lifespan ?

Nope and nope, as neither target directly ages you. What you ARE protected against is a handful of spells and Leech with the Steal Youth modifier.