Something between Terminally Ill and Self Destruct?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

For those curious about splitting the two, I'll just note this:

Though that's probably overpriced. Unaging itself is probably only worth 5 points. Immunity to natural aging rolls is probably not worth very much by itself (probably make Longevity a leveled perk, and have the second level give immunity).

Note that the other canonical immortality without immunity to aging attacks is as a zero point feature in Dungeon Fantasy and Monster Hunters.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Though that's probably overpriced. Unaging itself is probably only worth 5 points. Immunity to natural aging rolls is probably not worth very much by itself (probably make Longevity a leveled perk, and have the second level give immunity).

Note that the other canonical immortality without immunity to aging attacks is as a zero point feature in Dungeon Fantasy and Monster Hunters.

Yeah, I don't like the canonical numbers either. I'd put Unaging at around [5] too, even with the immunity to aging attacks (a rather narrow subset of all weird hazards).

[LemmingLord]

I call any age advantages or disadvantages a 0 pt feature and move on.

What happens in the unlikely event your adventurer dies of old age? You make a new character. This is what happens to most players if they have been playing the same character for in-game seventeen years.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

I call any age advantages or disadvantages a 0 pt feature and move on.

Immunity to Aging attacks is definitely as much as an advantage as immunity to any other rare kind of lethal attack that exists in the campaign.

[LemmingLord]

What kind of tl6 gameworlds have aging attacks?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

What kind of tl6 gameworlds have aging attacks?

The ones with sorcerers. Or you know, supervillains.

[LemmingLord]

Perk. MAYBE.

Back to the thread topic: no aging disadvantages are disadvantageous and should be worth no points. Terminally ill as written is not disadvantageous and should be worth no points. A disadvantage half way in between those disadvantages are not disadvantageous and should be worth no points.

All you are really saying as a player is announcing when you will be creating a new character.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by LemmingLord

Perk. MAYBE.

Back to the thread topic: no aging disadvantages are disadvantageous and should be worth no points. Terminally ill as written is not disadvantageous and should be worth no points. A disadvantage half way in between those disadvantages are not disadvantageous and should be worth no points.

All you are really saying as a player is announcing when you will be creating a new character.

For your games, you rule. But aging, for some games, is most certainly a danger. Being susceptible to it should give points, and resistance/immunity should cost points.

[LemmingLord]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

For your games, you rule. But aging, for some games, is most certainly a danger. Being susceptible to it should give points, and resistance/immunity should cost points.

If this is one of those games where some sorcerer you are dfinitely going to meet who will definitely use such a rare ability on the party then sure, being susceptible might warrant points; but 20 points isn't warranted unless it is comparable to other 20 point disads in terms in being an issue for the character in terms of how troublesome it is by frequency and intensity. All the 15 point value disads I'm aware of are a major issue every session or a terrible critical issue with less frequency.

I am aware only of one aging attack available on raw, a youth stealing spell that requires the target being helpless. If that is the only aging attack the character will face, being susceptible to it is a special effect. If a character is helpless, she can be dispatched or maimed in any number of ways. That application of one of these methods of attacking the helpless PC might be more deadly or maim her more seems like a very narrow disadvantage.

Consider another magical susceptibility disadvantage: magical susceptibility. The 20 point version would make the character resist every spell she encounters at -10!!

If there is another aging attack on the loose in this campaign, where it can be used in combat, than maybe I'd give -5 for this disad. I know I wouldn't give 5 points to someone who takes extra damage from just flame jet. It might pop up, but it is more likely NOT to show up in a world using the standard spells from magic. Also, if the attack form that doesnt exist by raw as prevalent as a spell like flamejet, im guessing the player is going to avoid those necromancers and take extra precautions, making it an easily avoidable disad.

That is just silly.

[Flyndaran]

Few people are calling unaging worth the full 15 points in nearly any game.
But immunity to a real danger should cost points.
If your games will NEVER EVER have a particular danger, then no one's saying you should allow an immunity to it or make it cost points.
But not everyone plays exactly the same as you.
GRUPS is generic and as such, it should allow all sorts of games with all sorts of strange dangers. Witches casting aging spells, cursed lands stealing "vitality", decades long campaigns where the elves benefit from experience while the mortals change and stumble around a bit lost, etc.