The Catch ... how would I ...

[Druidgamer]

I am tossing around an idea of a non-fae Nevernever denizen only harmed by 'natural' weapons/attacks (or not harmed by 'manufactured' attacks/weapons).  How would the 'protects vs.' part of The Catch count?  I figure the 'awareness' part would be +2 since natural is pretty darn common and the 'knowledge' part is pretty much debated/decided at our table.  I thought there was a What goes bump/who's who write up that had something similar but i have been unable to find it.

[Haru]

Well, the +2 is probably right. The research part basically boils down to do you want everyone to know (Black court vamps vs. Broker, +2), do you want it to require some effort and only a few know (+1) or do you want it to be obscure to the point of almost nobody knowing (+0).

Though I'm not sure I'd like immunity on a player character in the first place, but that's up to your table.

I would, however, definitely need to know why your critter is immune to manufactured weapons like that. There needs to be a sound logic behind it. Usually, it's exactly the other way around, the supernatural got pretty tough against standard stuff, but mankind got an edge by manufacturing weapons, basically forging their will and ingenuity into them, posing a serious threat to the supernatural. A critter that can circumvent that would be seriously powerful. Wanted by all kinds of supernaturals to be their enforcer. Hell, if I were Mab or Titania, I would see that I got one of those as my Knight. Or how about an unbeatable Denarian?

[wyvern]

Were I GMing, I'd give that a +0* for the "protects vs." part of the catch, just due to the broadness of what it does protect against; the +2 here is meant for very narrow defenses like "only protects against fire".  You'd definitely get the +2 for it being a catch that anyone can get access to.  And knowledge is as Haru put it. Which makes the total catch value +2 to +4.

There are, however, a lot of grey areas you'll want to shake out before this goes live in play.  Things like:
Is magic 'natural' or 'manufactured'?  Does it depend on exactly how the magical attack is themed?  Would a spell to have an animated tree clobber you act differently than one that animates a brick wall?
How about conjured fire?  Or a flamethrower?  Or the continuing damage from your clothes or environment 'naturally' being on fire after someone points that flamethrower at you?
Does this protect against falling damage?  Does it matter what you land on?
Are you vulnerable to creative use of "non-weapons"?  I.E. if you're shielded against a guy with a sword, what happens if someone just grabs a rock and hits you with it?  A tree branch?  A chair leg?  A broken bottle?  A car?

_____
* Footnote: Though, were I playing, and the GM decided to give it a +1 for being a sortof inbetween case, I wouldn't complain.  In this case the catch would be worth +3 to +5 depending on who'd know about it.

[wyvern]

I'd also add a note on research - it's very easy to justify almost any level of this that you want.

For example, consider the Gruffs.  They're faeries.  Faeries are vulnerable to iron; everyone knows that.  Clear +2 researchability, right?  Well... actually, no, they're a clear example of a +1 researchability, because it takes significant research (Harry had to go consult with Bob) to realize that they're faeries.  (And without that key insight, knowing that faeries are vulnerable to iron doesn't help you figure out what to use against these strange goat-people.)

It wouldn't be hard to propose some unusual type of fae that got a +0 researchability just because its mere existence was only known to a handful of specific people.

Alternatively, it's not hard to just say "Well, someone figured out my catch and published it on the paranet; thus, it's a +2 researchability regardless of what it might otherwise have been." - and then you've got a good seed for a first adventure, detailing how that particular problem came about.

[Haru]

Were I GMing, I'd give that a +0* for the "protects vs." part of the catch, just due to the broadness of what it does protect against;

Good point.

[Taran]

I don't know.  You may want to limit it to a few specific things.  There are a few First Nations legends of creatures that can only be hurt by bone weapons.  This is a perfect example of a 'natural weapon' since it's not specifically 'manufactured'.

That said, if the bone was worked and crafted is it now 'manufactured'?

What's the difference between a stick and a staff?

Maybe narrow it down to 'hand-crafted' weapons.  So, massed produced weapons wouldn't hurt as much: guns, knives, baseball bats etc..  Maybe some cheap swords.

I'm pretty sure most (real) swords are hand-crafted, but I could be wrong. 

So, while I like your idea because it has backing in Lore, I think you should make it a bit more specific.

You could just say 'non-metal and/or synthetic weapons'.  That covers swords, guns, knives, some bats.  I added 'synthetic' to cover newer materials like carbon fibre - (for modern arrows).

But wood, bone, leather(whips), stone weapons would still hurt.  And, although that's pretty broad, not many of these weapons are used anymore because they are primitive.

So maybe you could just say 'primitive' weapons.  But that might still be ambiguous.

[Druidgamer]

Sorry, should have included some background.  The thought behind the critter is a "vengeful nature spirit" along the lines of the original golem or Native American spirits that completely ignore modern/manufactured things (reading a lot of Shadowrun lately & idea spawned from "immunity to normal weapons").  I guess I was asking how broad/narrow the catagory had to be (I.e. silver vs. inherited silver).

   As far as magic goes, I personally have always thought of magic = energy & at our table, they have always been a bit strict on "physical" damage requiring physicality (as opposed to my read that DFRPG counts physical damage vs. mental damage vs. social damage ... but no way I'm starting THAT argument again 😖).

[Taran]

So, Fists and Claws only?

Everyone has those, so I'd give a +2 on availability, at least.

I'm not sure about the bonus on 'protects vs'.  Most mortals are going to use weapons against you.  Although, you're going to run into your catch often - basically, any supernatural Monsters will attack you with claws.  I might give a +1.  you are likely to run into something with your catch once per session...although, I suppose it depends what kind of game you're playing.  So you should use that as a guide.  In a zombie apocalypse game, it's going to come up way more often than a game with lots of guns and gangs.

Researchability should be based on your creature type.  How rare is it?  If it's a North American First Nations, obscure spirit, I think it'll be hard to research.  And there is hardly anything of that sort in modern media.   If it's a spirit based on some of the Classic Myths, like Greek or Roman, it'll be easier.

[Druidgamer]

Okay, new question along similar vein.  Item of Power (walking cane +2) granting Mythic Recovery -6 with the Catch of "only heals injuries incurred while in possession of the cane"   What (if any) discount would that get

Clarification: any injuries sustained while NOT in possession of the Item only heal "the old fashion way" or with modern medical miracles.  In effect, any damage taken when some thug has stolen my cane is permanent.

[Taran]

I'm not sure you can consider this a catch.  Losing the cane is why you get an iop discount and is covered by compels and being disarmed etc....

It's like having a staff that grants evocation.  You just don't get access to the power if you don't have the item.   Or like having armour that grants you toughness when you wear it.

Therefore, I'd say, there would be no discount. 

So your item would be worth -4 refresh (after the iop discount).

If you chose a catch on top of that - like +3 cold iron- you could have mythic recovery for 1 refresh.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think the idea is normally, the IoP discount alone would let them recover from injuries taken while not carrying the staff as long as they had the staff while healing.

Doesn't really fit the Catch guidelines, but I'd eyeball it as a +1 Catch on top of the standard IoP discount.

[Druidgamer]

Okay.  I honestly didn't know if that would have had any bearing on Recovery costs other than the standard "it is an external item so can be taken away" discount of Item of Power.  I know Recovery powers have been debated over in Shapechanger discussions where you have/don't have access to the power and what would/would not be healed so I had to ask to see what consensus was.  For the record, the character is only going to have Inhuman Recovery while in possession of the cane with a +0 Catch but at our table 'possibilities' must be ironed out beforehand or arguments eat up valuable game time, thus why I asked using maximum costs.  As always, thanks for prompt and reasonable explanations 😊