Need a rating for an Inhuman Recovery/Toughness catch

[princeearwig]

Hi all, having a bit of trouble deciding on the degree of the following catch for Recovery/Toughness powers.

ok the power is granted to the character directly from his Goddess, a shamanistic deity with a love for live and all the sensations and emotions that it entails.
The Catch is that any and all "natural" weapons bypass the powers. So guns, knives, lasers etc. all affected by the powers.
Fists, Teeth, freaky living bone swords inhabited by demons etc. go straight through.

Essentially anything that is not "alive" is anathema to Her will.

Any suggestions for the values this should qualify for?

[Blackblade]

If it applies to unarmed attacks, then it's at the very least a +2 catch.  I'd probably give it a +3, unless the knowledge that unarmed/natural weaponry could damage him was a closely-guarded secret. 

[InFerrumVeritas]

I'd go with a +3. 

Here's my reasoning: +2 means that it's something everyone can get a hold of.  Everyone can drop a weapon.  +1 means that with access to a wizard's library, the catch can be discovered.  The "knowledge" bonus from a catch is something I'm often very tight with, but in the case of a catch that can be so easily bypassed, I think it's fair.

My question is, how does wood/bone interact with it?  Would it have to be currently alive?  Could I kick his ass with a greenwood sapling then?

[princeearwig]

yep, pull up a small tree and beat him soundly (at least until you kill the plant).
Try to use a seasoned walnut walking stick and your out of luck.

It's actually for a game I am in where the ref is using DF to emualte the old WEG TORG license.
The character is, for those of you that know, an Edeinos devotee of Lanala.

[wyvern]

+3, as noted by others, is probably a good baseline, assuming +2 availability & +1 researchability - however, were I GMing, I'd consider going up to +4.  Here's why.

RAW, you get a +2 from having your toughness powers only protect against X, and a +0 for the default of protecting against everything except X.
When X is, say, fire, this is easy to adjudicate: +2 for your powers only protect against fire, vs, +0 for your powers protect against everything except fire.

But consider: which sounds like the better description here:
Your toughness powers only protect against non-living attacks.
Your toughness powers protect against everything except living attacks.

They both sound pretty reasonable, really.  So I'd be tempted to award an extra +1 for, in essence, having a really broad catch.  It's not quite broad enough to get the +2 for only protecting against a limited range of things... but it's far broader than a normal +0 type catch, which could still be something very narrow like fire or cold or iron.

[sinker]

Additionally if you're a follower of a well known deity, and everyone knows that this deity doesn't protect her followers from natural objects then you might get more for it being common knowledge.

[Tedronai]

While I support wyvern's suggestion, I do feel the need to point out that it is very much not supported by the rules, which are quite exclusive as to what can/should contribute to the value of a Catch, notably pointing out that multiple Catches, such as those of the Black Court, do not stack by the RAW, taking only the greatest value among them.

[Blackblade]

Also, since the initial question was for a catch for Inhuman Recover/Toughness, +3 would be the maximum allowed.

[wyvern]

Also, since the initial question was for a catch for Inhuman Recover/Toughness, +3 would be the maximum allowed.

Well, the maximum you'd get full value from.  You can have a catch that'd be worth more than that, but you'd only get +3 worth of rebate.

Good call, though - this does kinda end the discussion; the catch is worth at least +3, and it doesn't matter how much (if any) over that it might go if there were more toughness powers in play.

[computerking]

While we're on the subject...
If a Wizard spent the time, resources, study, contacts, etc.. to perform a permanent self-transformation granting himself toughness powers (and was prepared to spend the refresh for it) How much of a rebate would "Standard Wizard Spell Nullifiers" give as a catch?
I would be inclined to allow it to start at +0 (Protection vs everything but) and add +2 for things reasonably accessible(Running Water, Circles, Threholds), but I'm not sure if it should get the +1 for being Researchable.

Also, with the power being a result of spellcraft, would it be Counterspell-able? Or does the sheer number of shifts required throw that out the window?

[ways and means]

If your going to have toughness, speed or strength powers as a result of magic and it is not temporary (magic attack, manoeuvres or block) then I imagine the powers would have been achieved by changing the body (magical mutation) and couldn't be counter spelled as the changes are now the new status quo, though if someone wanted to with a full ritual they could change you back.

[Tedronai]

though if someone wanted to with a full ritual they could change you back.

...just as they could magically transform any comparable target so as to remove their innate toughness powers.
However, a Catch of 'standard wizard spell nullifiers' would seem to strongly imply that a spell would be in effect to sustain these powers (else how would effects that nullify spells work to satisfy the catch?), and thus that the powers were not a result of a permanent transformation.

[UmbraLux]

While we're on the subject...
If a Wizard spent the time, resources, study, contacts, etc.. to perform a permanent self-transformation granting himself toughness powers (and was prepared to spend the refresh for it) How much of a rebate would "Standard Wizard Spell Nullifiers" give as a catch?
I would be inclined to allow it to start at +0 (Protection vs everything but) and add +2 for things reasonably accessible(Running Water, Circles, Threholds), but I'm not sure if it should get the +1 for being Researchable.

I wouldn't give it more than a +2 and I'd consider making it a +1 in some situations.  Running water and thresholds aren't easily weaponizable for most people (other casters will do fine, others not so much) so they'd only get a +1 for availability.  I would give it the +1 for research unless the wizard went out of his way to hide/disguise the ability.

Also, with the power being a result of spellcraft, would it be Counterspell-able? Or does the sheer number of shifts required throw that out the window?

I'd suggest allowing a "counterspell maneuver" to be invoked / compelled for a subsequent attack to meet the catch.  But that's mostly because "counterspelling" seems to fit the catch.  I wouldn't allow magic to remove an unwilling victim's powers short of full transformation.

[GryMor]

I wouldn't give it more than a +2 and I'd consider making it a +1 in some situations.  Running water and thresholds aren't easily weaponizable for most people (other casters will do fine, others not so much) so they'd only get a +1 for availability.  I would give it the +1 for research unless the wizard went out of his way to hide/disguise the ability.
I'd suggest allowing a "counterspell maneuver" to be invoked / compelled for a subsequent attack to meet the catch.  But that's mostly because "counterspelling" seems to fit the catch.  I wouldn't allow magic to remove an unwilling victim's powers short of full transformation.

+2 For accessibility seems fine if things that normally disrupt magic suppress the functioning of the power, allowing any attack to work while under their effects. A simple 'hose you down and club you to death' isn't that hard to come by.

[princeearwig]

Additionally if you're a follower of a well known deity, and everyone knows that this deity doesn't protect her followers from natural objects then you might get more for it being common knowledge.

Well outside of the area they have invaded the Deity is essentially unknown
But the situation won'r persist. It is a war setting and the enemy intelligence will soon hit the desks of the powers that be.