Resistant: gain a resistance rolls where none apply normally?

[kirbwarrior]

Here's the weird issue; can you be immune to things that never allow a resistance roll? I've never read where Immunity beats unmodified Toxic Attacks, and any poison that doesn't allow a resist roll should be more accurately 'acid' or some such. Of course, these may just be bugs and I'm looking to closely at things.

EDIT: Rereading Resistant, you can be immune to Blood Agents that don't allow a resistance roll. Which sounds like an implied fact of Blood Agent, not that Resistant allows immunity versus something without rolls. If you can be immune to something but instead took (say +3), then I'd have you roll HT+Resist# whenever it would happen to you. Thus, +8 versus all poisons would let you roll HT+8 to resist ones where there is no roll (which does feel weird because then it is harder to poison you with a poison that requires no roll versus a poison of -8).

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

EDIT: Rereading Resistant, you can be immune to Blood Agents that don't allow a resistance roll. Which sounds like an implied fact of Blood Agent, not that Resistant allows immunity versus something without rolls. If you can be immune to something but instead took (say +3), then I'd have you roll HT+Resist# whenever it would happen to you. Thus, +8 versus all poisons would let you roll HT+8 to resist ones where there is no roll (which does feel weird because then it is harder to poison you with a poison that requires no roll versus a poison of -8).

I'd say poisons that normally give no resistance roll at all should have -10 vs somebody with Resistant. That's enough to say that even people with 12 HT are rolling vs a 2.

And defeating Toxic Attacks is generally covered by Immunity to Metabolic Hazards, as all Toxic Attacks are either poisons or diseases, aka, metabolic hazards.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

Resistant allows immunity versus something without rolls.

I already brought up many examples of things that work without a roll, but against which Resistant (Immunity) protects fully.

Originally Posted by kirbwarrior

If you can be immune to something but instead took (say +3), then I'd have you roll HT+Resist# whenever it would happen to you. Thus, +8 versus all poisons would let you roll HT+8 to resist ones where there is no roll (which does feel weird because then it is harder to poison you with a poison that requires no roll versus a poison of -8).

That is indeed an interesting consideration. I guess for purposes of gaining a roll, 'no roll' should indeed be seen as comparable to -8 when converted to a roll (because 10-8=2, and 2 is the level at which other rolls tend to become impossible; also, I don't think I saw any hazards that give a worse than -8 resistance roll, though I could be wrong).

[Not another shrubbery]

I don't like paradoxical rules, so I won't allow Immunity (as the superlative form) to be bought for something that doesn't allow for resistance.

[malloyd]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

Greetings, all!

What would be the fair modifier for Resistant that upgrades it in the following way:
Against hazards that can be overcome by possessing Immunity, but lack a resistance roll otherwise, you gain the right to make a resistance roll. A success is treated as immunity, while a failure results in the usual effect.
E.g. you have Resistant to Poison, and get to eat cyanide for some reason. Normally, cyanide allows no resistance roll, but possession of Immunity protects completely. Instead, you roll a resistance, and if you succeed it, nothing happens.

So basically you have Immunity with the Requires HT roll limitation? Why not just price it that way? It means you get two HT rolls to resist stuff that does allow a resistance roll, but if you wanted to simplify that by calling it one roll at a bonus equal to what the same number of points would have bought you as Resistant, I'd call it a fair trade.