Quick Question: How would you stat the Catch for Toughness on, say, a wererhino?

[Ghsdkgb]

Those things (or werebuffalos or werebears), by all rights, should have some natural armor rating and extra stress, as detailed in Inhuman Toughness. Problem is, that needs to be assigned to a Catch, and those animals don't really have Catches. You just need a big enough bullet. So, the Catch should offer a +0 refund, but what would you put there?

[Mr. Death]

I'd say make the catch Weapon:3 or higher attacks. Which should offer something of a discount, since it doesn't take much in the way of research to figure out that a big thing needs a big bullet, and they're not that difficult to come by.

[ways and means]

Radiation, Poison or fire would probably work.

[Silverblaze]

Wood, flint, or obsidian.  Those are the oldest tools that killed them.

[Mr. Death]

That doesn't mean they're the best things for killing them, or satisfy the catch. Billy and the Alphas have killed vampires and fae, but that doesn't mean their catches include fangs and claws.

[Sanctaphrax]

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,28019.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php?topic=29517.10

[Ghsdkgb]

I knew Sanctaphrax would have a few links available ;-)

[Tedronai]

radiation, poison, etc, or the classic '+0, unknown'

[UmbraLux]

Those things (or werebuffalos or werebears), by all rights, should have some natural armor rating and extra stress, as detailed in Inhuman Toughness. Problem is, that needs to be assigned to a Catch, and those animals don't really have Catches. You just need a big enough bullet. So, the Catch should offer a +0 refund, but what would you put there?

The catch (to me) is 'anything non-physical' - energy, magic, radiation, etc. 

Not sure I agree on the +0 refund, but that's probably a different discussion. 

As a side note, I think the idea of "massive damage" (or some arbitrary minimum weapon rating) as a catch is cheesy at best.  Wouldn't use it and would strongly recommend players don't.  Particularly not for anything remotely natural.  I can kind of see it for an amoeba-like amorphous mass - small holes reform quicker while big holes take a bit more.  But for animals, a hole in a lung is going to cause it to collapse...whether it was made with a .22 or a .50.

[Mr. Death]

The catch (to me) is 'anything non-physical' - energy, magic, radiation, etc. 

Not sure I agree on the +0 refund, but that's probably a different discussion. 

As a side note, I think the idea of "massive damage" (or some arbitrary minimum weapon rating) as a catch is cheesy at best.  Wouldn't use it and would strongly recommend players don't.  Particularly not for anything remotely natural.  I can kind of see it for an amoeba-like amorphous mass - small holes reform quicker while big holes take a bit more.  But for animals, a hole in a lung is going to cause it to collapse...whether it was made with a .22 or a .50.

My point was that a .22 wouldn't necessarily penetrate a Rhino's hide deep enough to put a hole in the lung in the first place, while a .50 caliber round might.

[UmbraLux]

Sure.  That's because it's tough - and even armor 1 is going to make a .22 less likely to injure it.  It's the same deal as flak armor in the game - armor 1 or 2 is all that's needed to represent it.  A bigger weapon or even a very accurate shot with a light weapon will still hurt or even kill but, skills/rolls being equal, the armor will negate the damage.  Even if the weapon doesn't meet the catch.

I simply don't see the logic behind having armor against one piece of lead but not another. 

[Silverblaze]

That doesn't mean they're the best things for killing them, or satisfy the catch. Billy and the Alphas have killed vampires and fae, but that doesn't mean their catches include fangs and claws.

That was just how Ravenloft D&D decided on catches for wereforms more or less.  They had gorilla,s badgers, and so on.  I assumed the catches were symbolic due to what the first hunters used on them.

Werejackals died to bronze. 

and so on.

I also agree that massive damage catches aren't mystical enough in nature to have a symbolic link to the creature.

Massive damage is the catch to everything (even if it doesn't bypass the catch). Catch of creature X's Mythic toughness is poison dart frog poison secretions.  You collapse a building on said creature with a massive explosion.  The creature X is still quite likely dead - or very very hurt.  Doesn't mean you had it's Catch.

[Sanctaphrax]

The argument for massive damage Catches is simple. In order to properly simulate an elephant's resistance to pistol fire you need to give it something like 8-10 stress boxes and armour 1-2. But an anti-tank bazooka should kill an elephant in one hit, which doesn't work when an elephant has 8-10 stress boxes and armour 1-2. So you make the bazooka a Catch.

[Silverblaze]

The argument for massive damage Catches is simple. In order to properly simulate an elephant's resistance to pistol fire you need to give it something like 8-10 stress boxes and armour 1-2. But an anti-tank bazooka should kill an elephant in one hit, which doesn't work when an elephant has 8-10 stress boxes and armour 1-2. So you make the bazooka a Catch.

Ok, I disagree, but that never seems to matter, no matter how well I can explain myself or my position/opinion.  Instead I'll just go with a question.

Do you really feel that it is thematically appropriate for supernatural creatures to have a Catch based on massive damage? 

[Sanctaphrax]

What do you mean by it never seems to matter?

And yes. At least, for some supernaturals. Mostly extremely large ones.