The Catch Rewrite

[Becq]

They did. They listed her Powers, and The Catch was not one of them.

And yet I've just now found the Zombie entry on OW95 which specifically notes that Zombies have a "zero-value Catch".

Which, by the way, is a much better argument to use against me when I say that everything should be assumed to have a Catch. 

[Sanctaphrax]

I did use that argument.

Or at least, I thought I did.

In any case.  I see no use for a rewrite of the catch. Especially if the one advocating the rewrite is thinking of doing away with catches.

Does the fact that it's idiotic for a faerie to take 2 points worth of Toughness not bother you?

How about the fact that being vulnerable to human toenails wrapped in tissue paper and placed inside a pool noodle is, by RAW, worth between +2 and +4?

PS: Who wants to get rid of Catches?

[Silverblaze]

I did use that argument.

Or at least, I thought I did.

Does the fact that it's idiotic for a faerie to take 2 points worth of Toughness not bother you?

How about the fact that being vulnerable to human toenails wrapped in tissue paper and placed inside a pool noodle is, by RAW, worth between +2 and +4?

PS: Who wants to get rid of Catches?

question 1: Yeah it is rediculous.

question 2: Doesn't bother me a bit.  No GM should allow it.

question 3: I assume you want rid of catches since you are ok with characters/npc's/monsters not having one.  I sincerely don't care if catches exist.  I prefer they do, but whatever.

I honestly don't think the catch system needs a rewrite.  I think this falls to individual tables to fix.  The game seems to move right along just fine with this problem in place.  I thibnk it is better to worry about things that can bring hte game to a screeching halt than to worry about something that seems to work fine for most groups with small tweaks at each table.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't understand.

You'll change or ignore the Catch rules for your table, but you don't see the point of revising the rules?

Anyway, I'm not interested in getting rid of Catches in general. They work fantastically for most of the Dresdenverse, and for many things outside of it too.

[Silverblaze]

I don't understand.

You'll change or ignore the Catch rules for your table, but you don't see the point of revising the rules?

Anyway, I'm not interested in getting rid of Catches in general. They work fantastically for most of the Dresdenverse, and for many things outside of it too.

Yes.  Not every rule that needs house ruled needs a universal standard on this forum.  It is pure ego toassume everyone who sees a house rule on here cares or uses it.  I'm not saying I won't help redesign the catch.  I just don't see a point in it.  Much like many likely see my immunity rewrite or your opinion of social immunity.

I'm willing to work towards the goal since someone may find it useful.  That person however, will not be me.

[UmbraLux]

I tend to agree with Silverblaze.  One of the system's strengths is how easy it is to customize for your group.  I wouldn't want to change that...particularly if it means detailing everything to d20 type levels.

[Becq]

I just thought of an extremely streamlined, minimalist patch to Catches for those who like the existing system but are unhappy with things like there being no point in Faeries taking Inhuman Toughness:

1) Calculate the Catch value the same way its done in the book.
2) Each 'level' of toughness/recovery gains the benefit of a +1 rebate until the Catch value is 'used up'.
3) No change to Physical Immunity (ie, you get the full Catch/Stacked Catch as normal).

Basically, instead of limiting the Catch rebate to total_cost-1, the rebate is limited to total_cost/2.  Or, alternatively, each 'level' costs -1 until the Catch value is reached, then -2 after that.  Note: for those who like a Catch value calculated based on likelihood to impact the character, it would be easy to slip that change into step 1.

For example, say you had a character with a +4 Catch.  If the character had:
Inhuman Toughness, the cost would be (-2+1=-1)
Supernatural Toughness, the cost would be (-4+2=-2)
Supernatural Toughness and Inhuman Recovery, the cost would be (-6+3=-3)
Anything above this would grant the full +4 rebate.

Simple, minimal change, and gives Faeries a modest reason to settle for Inhuman Toughness over Supernatural.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Silverblaze: To clarify: you don't actually see no point in rewriting the Catch. You just see no point in putting it up for all to see. Am I correct?

@UmbraLux: For what it's worth, I think the Catch's problems come from being too defined.

My natural tendency is to detail more, but this is an exception.

@Becq: Not a bad idea, but so long as you're rewriting you might as well go all the way.

[Silverblaze]

@Silverblaze: To clarify: you don't actually see no point in rewriting the Catch. You just see no point in putting it up for all to see. Am I correct?

@UmbraLux: For what it's worth, I think the Catch's problems come from being too defined.

My natural tendency is to detail more, but this is an exception.

@Becq: Not a bad idea, but so long as you're rewriting you might as well go all the way.

No.  I actually see no point in statting it.  However, someone may find it useful so I'll help rewrite it if you still want to do it. (I often help do things I disagree with and try my best to help, it just means I won't take advantage of the finished product myself.)  I just don't want it presented as a better way, rather I'd liek to see it posted as an alternative that may be better.

In other words each table still gets to pick how they want to do it, but they have a fully statted option available.

[Sanctaphrax]

So you don't want to use it as written, but you don't want to rewrite it either.

What do you want?

[Silverblaze]

So you don't want to use it as written, but you don't want to rewrite it either.

What do you want?

I use it as written.  I just don't think everyone needs a catch all the time either.  Consider my view on catches rather flexible.

[Tedronai]

As-written is not flexible.  Flexibility is not as-written.

[Silverblaze]

As-written is not flexible.  Flexibility is not as-written.

Okay. 

[Sanctaphrax]

I use it as written.

What?

But you said

I just don't think everyone needs a catch all the time either.  Consider my view on catches rather flexible.

which is clearly not using them as written.

You also called the RAW ridiculous and said that no GM would use it in reply #77.

I am genuinely confused here.

[Silverblaze]

Go go gadget wall of text!

In games I play in or run I'd prefer this to be how the catch works.

99% of the time you have a catch as per the rules.

In cases where the catch is stupid but required.  Pixies are hurt by cold iron, but have no toughness.  In theory all pixies (all fae) could have supernatural toughness for -1 refresh.
I expect my fellow players or if I am GMing my players to accept that they chose to play a fae related entity.  Iron hurts them.  If the character should not have toughness (doesn;'t fit the concept), it should not have toughness (or a higher grade of toughness than is sensible). As a player I have no way of reinforcing this other than snark and obvious dissapointment. 

In rare cases maybe something doesn't have a catch - or the catch should be worth zero.  I assume flash freezing a zombie should stop it.  Dropping it in cement should stop it.  breaking the drums should have an effect.

(Romero zombies may have no toughness in the noggin' but that's a nother topic.)

Players should always have a catch unless the GM really trusts the player not to make a murderhobo. (stealing this term because I like it)

I do not like the catch because it presents problems like the ones with Fae etc.  I still use it since it is simple and quick house rules can alter it if need be.

As I said before: "My actual perspective is one of apathy.  I don't care if some toughnesses do not have a catch.  You just need to hit harder."--- - this should not apply to player characters.

Also:

Sancta - "How about the fact that being vulnerable to human toenails wrapped in tissue paper and placed inside a pool noodle is, by RAW, worth between +2 and +4?"
Silver: " Doesn't bother me a bit.  No GM should allow it." --- that makes the toenail scenario a non issue.  That catch is stupid and no GM should allow such things.

I don't understand.

You'll change or ignore the Catch rules for your table, but you don't see the point of revising the rules?

Anyway, I'm not interested in getting rid of Catches in general. They work fantastically for most of the Dresdenverse, and for many things outside of it too.

Yes.   Not every rule that needs house ruled needs a universal standard on this forum.  It is pure ego to assume everyone who sees a house rule on here cares or uses it.  I'm not saying I won't help redesign the catch.  I just don't see a point in it.   Much like many likely see my immunity rewrite or your opinion of social immunity.

I'm willing to work towards the goal since someone may find it useful.  That person however, will not be me.

Sancta: "@Silverblaze: To clarify: you don't actually see no point in rewriting the Catch. You just see no point in putting it up for all to see. Am I correct?"

No.  I actually see no point in statting it.  However, someone may find it useful so I'll help rewrite it if you still want to do it. (I often help do things I disagree with and try my best to help, it just means I won't take advantage of the finished product myself.)  I just don't want it presented as a better way, rather I'd liek to see it posted as an alternative that may be better.

In other words each table still gets to pick how they want to do it, but they have a fully statted option available.

So you don't want to use it as written, but you don't want to rewrite it either.

What do you want?

I use it as written.  I just don't think everyone needs a catch all the time either.  Consider my view on catches rather flexible.

I want catches to have been written with more foresight inititally.  I want a lot of other things that aren't applicable to this post.  I want to get this point across.

Catches are not perfect.  They do not always work.  If the GM wants to throw them out I will hazard against it. I will abide that rule.  I think all player characters need a catch or a way to bypass toughness/recovery.  I generally use the RAW.  In rare cases a very trustworthy player may convince me to suspend the catch for a PC.

99% of the time only NPC's or critters should have a lack of catch or a truly +0 rated catch.  Hence just do more damage.  I do not feel a full rewrite is needed for the reasons I listed and quoted above.  I'll even quote UmbraLux at the end of this post.  However, just becuase I do not feel the need for a rewrite does not mean I cannot put that aside and be helpful.  I already said that, like I quoted.    

The big reason I do not think everything needs rewritten on this site: not everyone uses the site nor cares about our opinions (even though many of us think our opinions are fact).

The big reason I will help: If even one person finds it useful to see a rewrite, it was worth it.  I do not expect anyone to use it.

UmbraLux says it well also:

I tend to agree with Silverblaze.  One of the system's strengths is how easy it is to customize for your group.  I wouldn't want to change that...particularly if it means detailing everything to d20 type levels.