Catches...

[computerking]

I'm not sure which side of the fence I want to be on. I can see good points on both sides. But to play Devil's Advocate, I will see what I can come up with..

An Elephant without a toughness power might not die from small  caliber bullet wounds, but it won't wander away unscathed, either. Unless you hit a tusk, you'll do some damage, perhaps even lasting damage. Giving it toughness with a catch of (Massive damage) or (Heavy weapons) doesn't render the elephant invulnerable, just harder to kill.

I think the worry is in balance, and in the possibility of putting too much protection on the elephant, so that it is useless to come at it with a .22 rifle, even if it lets you walk up to it and put the barrel against its eye. The only thing keeping the balance is what the GM would allow.

Of course, perhaps adding a few stress levels and aome armor might do the trick, too. Without the need of a catch.

[ARedthorn]

Let me ask this: is there any reason that an elephant can't have natural armor not from a Toughness power (ie, a 1 refresh power Tough Hide that grants Armor:1 or 2 refresh for Armor:2, etc.)... and/or Endurance higher than +5?

Given the above, you can simulate much of the benefit of a toughness power without needing to worry about actual toughness or it's catches... and it might be more appropriate than Toughness to do so.
Instead of an elephant with Armor:1, 8 Stress boxes (4 + Hulking Size + Inhuman Toughness) and 1 extra mild P, you have one with Armor:2, 6 Stress boxes (4 + Hulking Size), and 2 extra mild P (Same refresh cost, but higher skill).
In a single event (attack), having an extra mild consequence is of equal value to having a couple extra stress boxes... but over multiple events, less useful. The key here becomes the extra armor the second one applies...

As for Massive Damage weapons, you can simply rule that such attacks ignore armor ("I don't care if you're wearing a bullet-proof vest, you just got hit by a Mack Truck!")

Your .22 glances completely off the new build (accuracy pending, it does less Weapon damage than the Armor rating), but anything qualifying as Armor Piercing or Massive Damage ignores that armor and will most likely go straight into consequences (as I recall, hunters with elephant guns didn't expect to take an elephant down in one hit every time), or even death (accuracy pending).


Just trying to throw alternate options out there... best case scenario, one of them makes everyone happy. Worst case scenario, they can provide a benchmark for measuring what's already been put forward.

That said- I'm not unhappy with the idea of Armor Piercing as a Catch (for Toughness powers that are rooted in thick hides or armor and whatnot). It makes sense, solves the problem of weapon scaling... It's a good solution, I think... not perfect, but close as we're likely to get in the RAW.

[sinker]

I'm fine with giving animals at least Inhuman Toughness with a nonspecific Catch of +0, then allowing the players the option to Declare that Catch as being satisfied by an Aspect like:
Go For the Eyes
Blind Spot
Vulnerable Spot
Elephant Gun
Armor-Piercing
etc.

+1

[Sanctaphrax]

Shoving a gun up against an eye would probably either give you a huge bonus to hit or bypass normal attack resolution entirely.

devonapple's approach would work, but it strikes me as a bit of a kludge. Also I think such a catch would be worth something, but that's not important.

ARedthorn's idea is also decent, but I'd rather not invent custom powers or houserules to deal with something so easily done with standard Toughness.

[devonapple]

I forget: is there a Mortal Stunt that gives Armor?

[admiralducksauce]

I forget: is there a Mortal Stunt that gives Armor?

There's... Teflon Persona, which is Armor:1 for social attacks, but I don't know if you were looking for precedent for a different stress track or something preexisting in the rules for physical stress or what.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yep. Several. Canon has Teflon Persona (YS page 154), Tower Of Faith (YS page 150) and Tough Stuff (YS page 152).

There's more if you're willing to go beyond canon, of course.

[devonapple]

If you buy Tough Stuff (1 Armor against blunt trauma) and then make another stunt like Bulletproof (1 Armor against piercing trauma) you're spending as much as Inhuman Toughness, but getting less of an effect, and no Catch necessary. Add in No Pain, No Gain, and you have a moderately tough critter for 3 Refresh. Less efficient, pointwise, but you sidestep any argument about a Catch requirement. Plus, animals can cost as much Refresh as you need them to cost, because they are ultimately not going to be the game's primary antagonists.

Edit: Or maybe we create a 1-Refresh power "No Catch"?

[UmbraLux]

1. Why does the elephant just being flesh matter?

Arrows and light bullets still penetrate, rocks hurt, knives and axes cut. 

3. Mortals can indeed do implausible things, for a number of reasons. Mainly FP, which are essentially plot power. But that's no reason to throw plausibility out the window. The examples I gave do not rely upon FP or anything weird. They represent what would happen under normal circumstances.

It seems to me we're simply differing on which end of the "implausibility spectrum" to favor. 

4. If you don't give an elephant Toughness, it will be more fragile than many mortal combat characters. Sounds like a joke, but it isn't.

More fragile than pure mortals with the same number of refresh?  I think I suggested an elephant would have 6 physical stress and 3 mild consequences at minimum.  It could have more if you don't cap its Endurance at human levels. 

5. I may have explained the point about the catch being death poorly. My point was this: a character with Mythic Toughness likely faces weapon 8+ attacks regularly. If one of those attacks happens to satisfy his Catch, that's probably going to mess him up bad. For example, a Changeling with Mythic Toughness can take hits from a Mythically Strong demon with a weapon 3 stone hammer without too much trouble. But if that hammer happens to be iron, a glancing blow inflicts a severe consequence.

Probably a difference in game styles, but I haven't had anything close to Weapon:8 in game play yet.  The brick in the party has shrugged off pistol fire and necromantic attacks...the curse stuck though.   

6. A good enough attack roll will let you kill something with Supernatural Toughness in one hit without the Catch. That's what the importance of aiming is in this system.

Yep, no argument there!  Of course aiming, skill, and controlling the situation let you hurt just about anything with just about any weapon.

Alright. Now that that's covered, let me ask y'all something.

Why not give large animals Toughness? And why not give them a Catch? I seriously don't understand the problem here.

PS: I'll ignore the bit in YS saying that a Catch is mandatory because it's kinda dumb.

In addition to the reasons listed in my initial post, it's a matter of philosophy.  I prefer a minimalist approach.  KISS.  I also see a tendency in (most if not all) role playing games to escalate damage and power levels far too quickly.  It does sell splat books...but that's one reason I don't play D&D anymore.   

In general though, it's the specific catch I object to more than the toughness power (at least at Inhuman levels).  The idea that ~0.43 ounces of metal will hurt an animal if it's from an RPG exploding but not if it's from a gun is counter-intuitive to me.  A <insert weapon value> catch means a poor shot with the right weapon value is better than a good shot with something smaller...even when the resulting shifts are equal.  Yet we know humans have hunted large animals with primitive weapons for a long time. 

For simplicity's sake, I'd go with either no catch or no toughness powers.  Devonapple's and ARedthorn's suggestions work as well.  Actually, even the catch of "Massive Damage" is workable...it's just counter-intuitive and not something I'd use.

[ARedthorn]

devon:
The major concern though is finding a situational way around the extra damage resistance... because there are ways that seem binary rather than gradual (ie, suddenly do significantly more damage against such a target because they're designed to, rather than scaling up to battle-field weaponry grade).

Bypassing a catch altogether doesn't solve this unless you involve a work-around representative of the extra damage.

For example, one could just give them situational armor (only applies against weapons of a certain kind or strength- as appropriate to the critter type... for elephants, anything not AP)... but it's semantics whether that's any different than using Toughness + a Catch, since the effect is essentially the same either way.

Like I said- sticking to the RAW, I don't see another way to handle this easily, than Toughness w/ an AP Catch.

At which point, we're back to debating whether or not AP or Massive Damage is a fair catch.


Umbra:
Fair on all points save one: There is a precise, critical reason why ~0.43 ounces of metal will hurt an animal more from one source than another... the delivery of that metal. More powerful guns manage extra penetration by 2 effects: speed, and shape/balance of the round. Faster, smaller but denser bullets will be more likely to breach a target, and from there do damage. When it comes to humans, and even animals, it gets a bit pointless (exactly how dead can something get? 'extra dead?')... but in this case, a poor shot with the right weapon IS more productive than a good shot with something else...
If the right weapon, for example, is throwing a ~0.43 ounce cone of 4000 degree burning magnesium, for example... vs a 9mm... I'd vote for the shaped charge.

And in the case of explosives, there's some mass effect going on- a .50 cal and a grenade might both be Weapon:5... the grenade's edge is in getting a free zone effect.
In the case of a human, it's a moot point- there's only so much surface area the grenade can affect, and you'll only get hit by so much shrapnel... an elephant on the other hand might well get hit with ALL of the shrapnel, meaning that at the very least, it's extra size is no longer an advantage (sure, it means more meat to take the hit, but it means more hits on the meat in equal proportion).
Make sense?