Doesn't Bleed- Rules Exemption (Bleeding)?

[Langy]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

Sorry I again have to dissagree.

Stopping blood flow cause harm 1 of two ways, Prevents natural toxins from being removed. But the limitation already saying it don't cover the aspect.

The other is getting oxygen to parts. but that's not covered by this advatnage at all, but "Doesn't breath".

No, blood chokes are definitely prevented by not having blood to choke. They are not covered by Doesn't Breath.

[sir_pudding]

Yeah would a character with unmodified No Blood but not Doesn't Breathe be vulnerable to blood chokes?

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Langy

No, blood chokes are definitely prevented by not having blood to choke. They are not covered by Doesn't Breath.

That's as wrong as saying becuase you have no blood your immunity to heart attacks because you don't need to pump to keep the flow. in GURPS that is a separate advantage.

Be it blood choke or wind pipe chokes, they are both covered by Doesn't breath

[Langy]

Blood chokes are in no fashion covered by Doesn't Breath; they're covered by IT: No Blood.

Remember, blood and bleeding in GURPS doesn't just represent actual human blood. It doesn't have to have anything to do with oxygen; it's just a vital fluid that, if cut off from the body, injures it. IT: No Blood definitely covers Blood Chokes, and Doesn't Breath definitely does not, since a Blood Choke could have nothing at all to do with oxygen or breathing or anything like that.

[Flyndaran]

The brain needs glucose and water as well as oxygen, so it would have to be doesn't breathe and doesn't eat/drink anyway.

[Not another shrubbery]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

My point was that even at 5 points it's too low, maybe I'd go as far as way too low, and for that you also get the immunities to the consequences of having blood in addition to exemption from actual bleeding.

For certain settings, like one geared toward gritty realism, maybe. As a rule intended for playability in a generic system, it seems OK to me. If your experience is showing you otherwise, the best you can do is experiment with different values.

[JCurwen3]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

That's as wrong as saying becuase you have no blood your immunity to heart attacks because you don't need to pump to keep the flow. in GURPS that is a separate advantage.

Be it blood choke or wind pipe chokes, they are both covered by Doesn't breath

IT:No Blood expliticly covers attacks that off blood. That would include blood chokes, and also anything that would cut off blood flow to limbs so as to get the die and need to be amputated.

Originally Posted by Langy

Blood chokes are in no fashion covered by Doesn't Breath; they're covered by IT: No Blood.

Remember, blood and bleeding in GURPS doesn't just represent actual human blood. It doesn't have to have anything to do with oxygen; it's just a vital fluid that, if cut off from the body, injures it. IT: No Blood definitely covers Blood Chokes, and Doesn't Breath definitely does not, since a Blood Choke could have nothing at all to do with oxygen or breathing or anything like that.

This is a very good point. Technically the thing could be an alien or strange magical creature. It needn't be blood. Hence, you might not "bleed" (lose HP as per "Bleeding" optional rules), but you might be for some reason affected by blood-borne agents... and yet you might not be affected by attacks that cut off blood flow, even if in humans a major consequence of that is the build-up of endogenous toxins. They're three different separate things... just like heart attacks, for which IT:No Blood also does not confer immunity as was noted..

[tfaal]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

That's as wrong as saying becuase you have no blood your immunity to heart attacks because you don't need to pump to keep the flow. in GURPS that is a separate advantage.

Be it blood choke or wind pipe chokes, they are both covered by Doesn't breath

No Blood specifically covers blood chokes.

B61:

"No Blood: You do not rely upon a vital bodily fluid (like blood) for survival. You do not bleed (see Bleeding, p. 420), are unaffected by blood-borne toxins, and are immune to attacks that rely on cutting off blood to part of your body. 5 points."

[JCurwen3]

I feel I have to point out that I can't find anything that makes Rules Exemption (Bleeding) illegal. Bleeding is an optional rule; Rules Exemption is a perk that exempts you from a specific optional rule that otherwise applies. If it woudn't apply here, I'd want to know why.

Not that I think that this is reasonable, mind you. After all, being exempt from an optional rule that promotes (possibly gritty) realism or otherwise limits characters can be far more beneficial than many advantages; same goes for Extra Option perk - if you're the only one that can use cinematic options like Flesh Wounds and the like, that's worth a lot. Both are "just" perks, when really accomplishing similar effects with advantages would be justifiably more costly...

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by JCurwen3

Not that I think that this is reasonable, mind you. After all, being exempt from an optional rule that promotes (possibly gritty) realism or otherwise limits characters can be far more beneficial than many advantages; same goes for Extra Option perk - if you're the only one that can use cinematic options like Flesh Wounds and the like, that's worth a lot. Both are "just" perks, when really accomplishing similar effects with advantages would be justifiably more costly...

Perks can do this. Look at the Infinite Ammo perks (which are technically Extra Options). I think it's intentional.