Can a House satisfy a catch

[ralexs1991]

Ok so my question is if say a husband built a home for his wife and they were in true Love would that house satisfy a WCV's catch or would it just translate into a higher threshold value or maybe both.

[Doc Chaos]

Threshold. He doesn't love the house, he loves the woman

[Amelia Crane]

If it makes a more interesting story, sure it can.  Symbols of love can certainly satisfy a WCV's catch.

Two notes depending on whether the WCV in question is the player or the enemy.  First, it's not all that necessary to satisfy the catch against WCV enemies.  The only toughness they have is inhuman recovery, so its only an extra minor consequence.  Just shoot them again.  It's easier than finding a house of love and throwing it at the vampire or something.

Second, in my opinion, the player getting +0 for his catch means he can reasonably expect it never to be used against him in play.  If he has an aspect that asks for it (like Thomas's aspect of love for Justine), that's acceptable, but then, he's getting fate points for bringing that on himself.  If you're just gonna go tossing random true love objects and people at him, then you ought to give him a rebate on his catch.

[sinker]

Things that were given to Harry/Thomas by those who loved them did hurt Thomas, so it's reasonable to think that a house built and given to someone as a symbol of his love for her would hurt a WCV. Amelia's point is still a good one though.

[HobbitGuy1420]

I disagree about *never* being used against them.  If that were the case,. the PCs would never get to use an enemy's +0 Catch against them, either.  I'd say that the Catch should only *exceptionally rarely* come up against the PC - say, only once or twice, and only in major climactic battles.

[Hoyled]

Id say yes, as long as the house was built by a man truly in love with the person he built it for then it hits the catch, how exactly is up to the GM. Being in the house is easy enough, a player running into the house ripping up a floor board running back to the fight and smacking the WCV is questionable.

Also Ive always thought of the catch refresh like this
+0- This catch should only come into play during major events in the plot that are personally relevant to the character with the power
+1- Rare enough that only a major npc is going to use the catch
+2- Bosses, subbosses, high end goons.
+3- For Fae level catch rebates expect even random thugs to occasionally hit the catch on accident

[jadecourtflunky]

A house most often would not... but perhaps, tokens of pure love, like the wedding ring.

[Peteman]

Ok so my question is if say a husband built a home for his wife and they were in true Love would that house satisfy a WCV's catch or would it just translate into a higher threshold value or maybe both.

Depends: did he build the house out of love for his wife or did they simply need a place to stay? If the former, I would say yes (though remember, he would have to touch the building with bare skin to harm him). If the latter, no.

[deathwombat]

No

[bibliophile20]

First, I agree with the consensus: a house is not going to fulfill a True Love trapping catch; the items that would be able to become trappings of True Love are single purpose items with clear symbolism behind them--a ring, a rose, etc.  As someone pointed out in one of the Weaponized Catch threads, as soon as you redefine the item, it loses some of the meaning behind its power; it's no longer a ring exchanged between lovers, now it's also a ring that was used to harm someone.  The house is like that, on a larger scale; as soon as it starts accumulating a threshold, that threshold is going to be redefining a "House built for love" into "a home", which, while detrimental to other supernaturals, doesn't have the same definition.

There, that's out of the way.  Now, I gotta ask: was I the only one who thought, "Okay, can being Sorted into Slytherin or Gryffindor help fulfill a Catch?"  *musing*  "I don't see why not; the Sword of Gryffindor clearly had a similar requirement..."   

[Sanctaphrax]

I have to admit that I think the idea is pretty silly and rather unfair to a player who thought that his +0 Catch wouldn't come up. I'd allow it anyway, because the idea of vampire houseguests trying not to touch the walls and floor is funny.

Sometimes, Rule Of Funny trumps everything else.

[deathwombat]

Word Sant

[bibliophile20]

I hate to say it, but, unless they were ready to feed, the vamps would have little problem; it's when the Hunger is brought to the fore that Love hurts them, according to Thomas.  Remember that he touched his brother when he was protected on numerous occasions, for everything from helping him to his feet to providing medical treatment.  Now, the vamps wouldn't be comfortable in such a house, but, unless they're like Madeline and have impulse control issues, they probably wouldn't have any issues--unless and until they try to use some powers. 

Now, here's another question: can certain Houses of Worship manage to become trappings of True Faith to the point of fulfilling House Skavis' Catch? 

[Sanctaphrax]

Got to admit, that bit about the relationship between Hunger and vulnerability is news to me. I might be inclined to ignore it when it becomes inconvenient (like when it ruins a dramatic, suspensful, or funny scene).

I don't think that True Faith is the Catch of House Skavis. Isn't it True Hope?

[bibliophile20]

Got to admit, that bit about the relationship between Hunger and vulnerability is news to me. I might be inclined to ignore it when it becomes inconvenient (like when it ruins a dramatic, suspensful, or funny scene).

I don't think that True Faith is the Catch of House Skavis. Isn't it True Hope?

It's mentioned explicitly in the books

(click to show/hide)

, in Turn Coat, in the scene after the incident at Club Zero

; I can't get you chapter and verse right now (one of my players has my copy), but I distinctly remember it as an explanation on why Thomas was never burned by touching his brother. 

And my bad on the True Faith; none of the WCV Houses have True Faith as a vulnerability.