ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Taran on August 03, 2011, 08:23:07 PM
-
OW lists a few monsters that don't have catches. Zombies, specifically.
What do you figure? Holy? Or do they even have a catch?
-
Some things, like zombies, may not have a catch on their toughness powers. This can be seen as the same as having a catch value of +0, something so obscure and hard to obtain that it might as well not exists. However, everything has some sort of weakness. In the case of zombies, it's their lack of free will - shut down the wizard controlling them or his drummer and the zombies will either stop moving or act randomly.
-
Nonspecific Catches can be taken as an opportunity for players to help establish them. Not as a simple Declaration, mind you, but as a Declaration after a series of GM-assigned challenges which culminate in them "discovering" (either through tons of research, or through trial-and-error) a Catch which the table agrees makes sense.
For instance, a gaming group could establish that Zombies lose the benefits of their Toughness powers when the oddly dischordant tones of the original Music of Erich Zann (to which H.P. Lovecraft alludes in his short story of that name) is played. This could be the result of several quests to research necromancy, past zombie hunters, liberate notes from an occult music collector, contract with a musician to recreate the sheet music containing the unearthly tones, and then actually record and weaponize the music in a way that the Wizards won't easily hex (hand-cranked wax tablet phonograph!).
-
I generally figure that the ultimate +0 Catch is things that qualify for any and all Catches.
Or, you know, leave it up to the players to figure something out, and then pretend that it was my idea all along. That works, too.
-
I think especially in the case of zombies, or all undead for that matter, the "can't recover from consequences" trapping from "living dead" is enough of a "catch" to justify a real catch of zero. You can hit them with what you got, run away, rinse, repeat, and kill them gradually over a few conflicts.
Or you can get creative. An empowered circle might be enough to cut off the power that holds the zombie together.
-
I'm cool with this being license for a normal Declaration.
-
Excuse me but its impossible to not have a catch.
From the Catch list you need to take ALL * points, and since you want +0, you get toughness/recovery for everything EXCEPT something.
Zombies usually are vulnerable to fire.
-
The Catch, as described in the book, requires players to take one, that doesn't mean that NPCs need to have a Catch. Or, as others have said, you can have such an obscure Catch that it is +0 and practically counts as no Catch. (Weapons made from metal, forged in the heat of an active volcano, by the hands of a virgin and bathed in sunlight for ten years.)
And, yes, zombie could be vulnerable to fire, but so are lots of beasties and it is not their Catch. I guess you could see it in the light that the zombie just keeps on going, whether it has bullet holes, or a nice crispy skin or what not.
-
The Catch, as described in the book, requires players to take one, that doesn't mean that NPCs need to have a Catch.
Are you sure about this one? I would think that such game mechanisms should alwys apply to everyone. This certainly includes exceptions, but these should be just that.
That said, in the case of Zombies I see no problem leaving them as they are. The weaknesses described - lack of free will (and combat tactics...), the inability to recover from consequences - should be enough to compensate for the catch.
-
I have a bear shapeshifter in my group... in bear form he has Inhuman Toughness... and it didn't make sense that there'd be a specific source of damage that's extra-damaging verses bears, hence, he shouldn't have a catch.
Nevertheless, as the book does require one (even when it makes NO sense), so we did some thinking- wereforms that are particularly big have to use Ectoplasm to bulk up- so if anyone manages to draw a circle around him, or bring running water to bear (no pun intended), the ecto will evaporate, allowing anything to bypass his toughness, and causing more than a little discomfort.
Not much of anyone's going to guess to put a bear that's attacking them in a river or a circle, so definitely unknown, and rare. Also, not easy to pull off. We ruled it a +0, and left it at that. It's a little bit of a cop-out, but only a little.
For zombies... fire, running water... *shrug* Similarly cop-outs, but it works for me.
-
The way that I read the intent of Catches is that every creature with toughness/recovery powers has to have a weakness or a way to get around that toughness/recovery power.
This isn't RAW, but something I've done on occasion is that if the creature (and I wouldn't allow this for PCs) has some other weakness (like zombies falling inert if the drumming stops or even having Human Form where the toughness/recovery don't apply until they change), I'll sometimes let that effectively count as their Catch and I'll give them a +0 Catch so they aren't getting any further discount (e.g. a zombie could have the Weakness of "Only while they can hear the drum (+0)").
Also, I've only ever done this with the "Inhuman" levels of Toughness and Recovery (where the toughness/recovery is a nice boost but doesn't make them invulnerable or nearly imposible to kill without either doing massive damage or finding their Catch). For the more powerful versions, like Mythic or Physical Immunity, I'd make sure there's a more standard Catch for the players to find out and exploit.
And finally, I've really only done that when I can't think of a good Catch and the creature isn't really important enough to get hung up worrying about it. I think that having a good Catch is almost always more interesting.
-John B.
-
I dimly remember right after the game came out reading one of the developers talking about the cost of the Catch being a reflection of how often the Catch will come up in the game. Anyone who takes a +3 Catch should expect the Catch to be well-known and easy to get and to come up all the time (like maybe even as every session), while someone with a +0 Catch should probably only have the Catch come up very rarely (possibly never). In the same discussion, I vaguely remember the sentiment being expressed that taking a +0 Catch and saying "I dunno what it is, but it's really obscure and I don't really think it will ever come up" was fine, with the caveat that if a character in the game ever decided to actively research the Catch and figure out what it was, then you're have to make something up.
-John B.
-
I'm sorry but Mythic Toughness with no catch sounds like the works of a BAD GM.
It is just so unfair that it deserve my disgust.
And this is precisely why there HAS to be a catch. I don't understand why npcs and pcs work by different game rules. Its the same world that all of the characters exist. I find that npcs have at least 1 more point of powers to spend + refresh padding due to the sheer number of pcs is enough to not add invulnerability on top of it via mythic toughness or regen.
What is the point to have a library or a Lore check if there is no prize at the end of the rainbow?
-
I'm sorry but Mythic Toughness with no catch sounds like the works of a BAD GM.
It is just so unfair that it deserve my disgust.
This is just bad etiquette, reign your replies in a bit, no need to get catty in an otherwise friendly discussion like this.
And this is precisely why there HAS to be a catch. I don't understand why npcs and pcs work by different game rules. Its the same world that all of the characters exist. I find that npcs have at least 1 more point of powers to spend + refresh padding due to the sheer number of pcs is enough to not add invulnerability on top of it via mythic toughness or regen.
What is the point to have a library or a Lore check if there is no prize at the end of the rainbow?
You are assuming that everything can be found. It is the same as the discussion about detecting lies. Your players can roll all the Empathy they want, but if there is no lie to detect, there is no pot of gold. Same goes for Lore. If you would research Nicodemus, not even the bestest library could help you out, as he made it a point to burn every place which had info on him every other century or so. Harry came to guess his Catch through close interaction, deduction and luck.
Some NPCs just deserve the bad-assedness of having no real Catch, I mean, just look at the Loup-Garou. Yes, he has a Catch, but you need to prepare against it, if you stumble upon one, you are in deep, deep shit and all you can do is try and escape alive. Some things are just that nasty or powerful. What Catch would you give the White God, if he manifested upon Earth? Unholy items? Unlikely, more like it. (True) Outsider magic perhaps? Still won't come up that often. Or perhaps he can only be harmed by his own Archangels, which means only Lucifer has a shot and still isn't going to happen anytime soon, if at all, so it's a +0 Catch, which could effectively be called non-existent.
Also, I only uttered the possibility that NPCs needn't always follow PC creation rules, didn't say it should be so.
-
I'm sorry but Mythic Toughness with no catch sounds like the works of a BAD GM.
It is just so unfair that it deserve my disgust.
And this is precisely why there HAS to be a catch. I don't understand why npcs and pcs work by different game rules. Its the same world that all of the characters exist. I find that npcs have at least 1 more point of powers to spend + refresh padding due to the sheer number of pcs is enough to not add invulnerability on top of it via mythic toughness or regen.
What is the point to have a library or a Lore check if there is no prize at the end of the rainbow?
Not necessarily a bad GM, there- it could be a good GM trying to tell his players to FIND ANOTHER WAY ALREADY.
This is Dresden, not old-school DnD dungeon-crawling. Social and Mental stress tracks exist for a reason, and Dresden frequently comes up against fights he can't reasonably handle if he comes right at them. Setting up a creature with Mythic Toughness like that is a good way to force the players to get creative, figure out another way and have fun doing it.
I don't recommend doing it often, but if a slugging match is a bad idea... you're a bad GM if you don't make that clear to your players at some point, and making them way-over-the-top-tough with no catch is one real good way to do that.
Isn't that kinda the whole point of the Loup Garou scene in the police station? Harry found a way by binding him, but until then...
Rabbit trail done- for the original question- I recommend Catches for most if not all NPCs and PCs alike... but you should follow the visual. Like I said- if your players run up against a zoo-omancer (say that 5 times fast), and get attacked by a bear- a real one- I wouldn't give it a catch at all, unless it's a magic bear (and the players should be able to tell that by a glance at it's stomach).
-
I'm sorry but Mythic Toughness with no catch sounds like the works of a BAD GM.
It is just so unfair that it deserve my disgust.
...
What is the point to have a library or a Lore check if there is no prize at the end of the rainbow?
Mythic Toughness with no catch sounds like something that isn't going to be defeated physically - at least by the PCs. Of course that leaves social takeouts and other ways of dealing with it. Dresden has faced several "I can't hurt this thing with magic" situation and he finds a way around that.
As for "Lore check = I know the catch", I'd say that only works on the most commonly know catches. The rarer the catch item the more research that's needed.
Richard
-
I've played in a group that faced a Mythic Toughness opponent (an avatar of an ancient dark god) with a catch (the holy powers of his 'good' brother) that we essentially had no way of obtaining in time. We 'won', but only because a large group of PC's and NPC allies fought strategically against hit as a holding action while my Wizard pulled off a huge ritual to put it back in its cage.
-
My PCs have taken out a badie with Mythic Toughness before without using the Catch. It's certainly possible.
-
I generally go with "Unknown" rather than nothing for a +0 catch.
I'm generally cool with Declarations and research to establish an identity for an unknown catch, as long as it doesn't make things too easy.
But it really isn't necessary. The players of Enduring The Apocalypse went up against something with catchless Legendary Toughness (Mythic Toughness +) and killed it without too much trouble. It can be done.
The only toughness power that really needs a catch is PI. And that's only because PI is badly costed.
-
Lore check + Thaumaturgy or Library check to find out. That is what Harry always did. Consult Bob, or summon the crab demon and ask him.
Social attacks usually involve Intimidation and its a cheap way to defeat a god's avatar, lol.
Mental attacks tread close onto lawbreaking as you can't be sure whether the enemy has a soul or not. Does Frankenstein have a soul or not? Does Hulk have a soul or not, looks and feels like a monster, yet he has free will and loves puppies.
With no catch, or an impossible one, you are robbing the players of the fun of solving a puzzle and making the game, well, DnD. We won that our stats where higher than his stats. This is what you said happened.
-
Social attacks can be persuasion based, too, even seductive. I had some chest deep players up against a golem (of Prague style) who they really didn't stand much chance of hurting easily (long drag of a combat if they'd tried)... Had a difficult catch to fulfill too. They talked it down- convinced it that after it's maker's death, it went in violation of it's programming/laws and needed repaired. It sat down and complied.
And mental attacks don't need to be law violations, or even magic. I guarantee you that telling a woman she's just like her mother qualifies as a mental attack.
That's beside the point though. Your god's avatar probably has limits on his power like, well, every other established Demi-god in the books. Maybe the players don't have to beat it, just hold it off for a certain amount of time, or bind it with a ritual or ... Etc, etc.
+0 "unknown or possibly nonexistent" catches are in the RAW, too- take a look at Ancient Mai's Stone Dog constructs, for example. (can't remember page number right now, I'll look it up later).
I'd say that means catches are strongly STRONGLY recommended, but not required.
-
Stone creatures are vulnerable to vibrations, lets say air magic and probably spirit. And ofc earth magic.
If I make a catch it should somehow fit the high concept of the creature. A gargoyle vulnerable to bacon makes no sense.
However a fire burping salamander will be vulnerable to water.
Just try to imagine a creature without a catch. Lets consider mythic recovery as being T-1000.
He could not be defeated because he just shrugged off damage and reconfigured. Unbeatable.
Yet his catch was fire, as he melted down to a pool of metal. Ice was not a catch so he could regen from being frozen.
Now for a Thoughness example, Superman. Without Kriptonite, he is unbeatable, prone to be a warlord or some sort of dictatorship due to being mad with power. Its precisely WHY kriptonite was invented, to nerf him, give a challenge, a chance for his enemies to do some harm, provide a balance. Its why Achilles had a heel, or the guy from the Nibelung Ring had a leaf on his back.
Extending lack of a catch to physical immunity. You would have a creature immune to physical harm, with some stunts/skills to be virtually immune to mental/social attacks, and there you go, he will hit you until you fall and stay down, even if it takes hours.
Its not only highly recommended, its to protect game economy and believability of a working universe. If all smart and/or powerful creatures would exploit the no catch system, there would be no resolve of conflicts.
-
Okay, so tell me what Hercules' Catch would be? Or Wolverine's?
Just saying 'this is stone, stone doesn't like vibrations' isn't cutting it. Especially if you are talking about supernaturally powered, magical constructs. They could have been enchanted so they are protected against vibrations, or they could just use a type of stone which isn't bothered by that at all, seeing as how there are hundreds of types of stone.
The T-1000 doesn't need a Catch for fire or cold. The extreme cold would freeze him, just as it would freeze the T-100, but the T-1000 just had a better way of recovering from that. Fire, also could melt him down, if applied for a long enough time, but as you saw in the movie, the steel bath didn't kill him outright, it just so much damage over such a long period of time, that it killed him. His Made of Metal aspect simply got compelled to say he couldn't escape from the bath. We're not talking about physics, but about game mechanics. Why isn't his Catch fire? Imagine you'd torch him with a flamethrower that was hot enough, for long enough and he'd melt. Yet, if you'd stop the flames, he'd simply regenerate. The only thing to fully destroy it would be to return his form to its base atoms: disintegration, which eventually happened as he melted and thus his molecules mixed with the steel bath.
I don't really see what problem there could be with a monster that doesn't have a Catch, why would such a monster be unbelievable? Something with Supernatural Toughness can still get terrible burned by fire, whether or not it is the Catch, they can still get Consequences relating to those attacks. If they have recovery powers, they just recover faster, for which they pay Refresh. Do you believe that Wizard's Constitution would need a Catch too? Normal humans can't recover from burns like Harry does, even if it takes time, so following your logic that humans are vulnerable to fire, Wizard's Constitution wouldn't work against that...
-
Hercules does not have toughness or regeneration, just lots and lots of strength. His Might is maxed, has stunts to use Might instead of fists or weapons and add mythic strength plus a hulking size to boot.
Wolverine I would say is plot level strong, but just on the safe side, I would say energy drain is his catch, even if this means its +0. Rogue draining him leaves his ability down for the moment.
My point is there has to be SOMETHING, even if its virtually impossible to get.
My DM said that a particular group of Valhalla vikings had a catch to be the weapons they where killed with. A thousand years ago...
My char is a wizard with inhuman toughness due to him evolving a natural resistance to magic. With evocation and thaumaturgy, you often have to suffer backlash, and his high concept is that he evolved a natural resistance to (his own volatile) magic. And I chose him to be vulnerable to acid, as it made sense to me. Since acid is easy to get, even if nobody carries acid with him, it gave a +1 discount which worked nicely for me.
I could not say my character's catch, for a +0 discount, is vulnerable to a microwaved piece of the Sun's core, since its just silly, for you to say, that he doesn't have a catch at all.
Just think if the fey wouldn't have the Iron as catch. The medieval humans would have lost and the planet would have been full of fey and human slaves. Its the metal armor and swords that kept this world ours.
-
... I'd personally give Hercules Inhuman Toughness- he could take a hit, not just dish it. Plus, being able to punch through marble pillars without breaking your arm... kind of a clue that you're tougher than normal.
Wolverine is plot-level-strong, but you have a problem with the avatar of friggin god being catch-free (or catch unknown)?
What's the effective difference between Catch +0: "Inaccessible" and Catch +0: "Unknown, if any" that gives you such heartache? You seem ok with the former (given your examples about the Einharjar Vikings)... but not ok with the latter, even though Our World has several examples of it.
(Wardhounds: OW32; Dragons: OW36; Uber-Ghouls is tenuous OW57; Outsiders OW73-74; Temple Dog on OW77-78 has Inhuman Recovery, but no Catch even on the sheet- not even a +0; Black Dogs on OW79 says they should have Toughness at some level, but lists "no special weaknesses" underneath that; Foo Dogs, Loa, and Valkyries all state "Unknown" on OW80-81... Need I go on? I'm only a quarter of the way through the book, and there's plenty more).
When we say no catch, we mean Catch +0: "Unknown, if any."
I'd say a Wizard having Toughness vs his own backlash is... a violently bad idea. And acid... it might be kinda easy to get, but I might call that too narrow, especially given that the only way someone has to find out it's your catch is by trial and error.
There are plenty of catches in the books (DF and RPG both) that work out to a total +0 value. Unknown catches default to +0 on the basis of worst-case scenario... and some of the stuff in OW doesn't have a catch listed. It might've been a typo if they'd done it once... but it happens often enough to make me think that they realized there's going to be exceptions.
FYI- we're not questioning the Fae, or saying that powerful creatures with no catch should be aggressive and common. Point of fact, we're saying that the Fae have a catch because it's in their mythos- not because it's in the rules that they have to have one. In Dresden... function follows form. 98% of most mythical monsters have some sort of established catch in their mythos, but a few don't... and there are non-mythical things all over the place that don't. If you don't like that just cause... then... oh well.
Tell me, what catch would you put on a bear? How about a rhino? If I were to attack a rhino with a rifle (Weapon:3, Guns skill 3 with a +0 roll vs defense 0), what attack could you bring to bear at that same weapon rating, accuracy and roll would mysteriously kill it when my shot couldn't?
-
Why does there have to be a catch?
Catchless PI is a puzzle in itself. A good grappler or evoker can take out such a character. You just have to permanently immobilize the target somehow.
For all other Toughness powers, the standard combination of power, skill, strategy, luck and Fate Points will suffice.
Just because a fight isn't a "find the catch" challenge doesn't make it boring. By that line of logic, all fights against things without Toughness are boring.
PS: "We won because our stats were higher" will happen anyway. It's unavoidable. Even with the Catch, you don't win without sufficient numbers.
PPS: Characters don't get to choose their catch. Mavra would like to switch her Catch to "strawberries", I'm sure, but she can't.
PPPS: I don't think you should be able to resist backlash with Toughness.
PPPPS: A bear could be vulnerable to heavy weapons, or to certain types of magic that ignore the benefits of size.
-
I'd give a bear or rhino super high levels of Endurance, not Toughness.
-
I was hoping you guys wouldn't poke holes in that... cause honestly, I'd just give them hulking size... but /anyway/... point being, there are some things that catches don't make sense for, and they shouldn't have them. If you can't come up with a good catch, don't force it... just live with it. Use +0: Unknown, if you're that set on obeying the rules perfectly (when even the developers don't).
-
He is not resistant to backlash, it was just a story idea to be tough to his own violent magic. +2 slots to physical stress does work well for backlash, especially when they try to facerape the caster - me.
Since its not magical toughness, but an evolution, sulfuric acid should melt flesh and bones no matter the density.
I am a PC and Mavra is NPC, she doesn't get to choose anything xD
-
2 extra stress boxes that work well for backlash... counts as "resistant to backlash."
Barely-on-topic as it is:
And actually, evolution can produce a pretty remarkable resistance to acid if it wants, either as a matter of density or simple chemical makeup. Acid's a valid catch- don't get me wrong... got no problem with it. Just think it might be a little impossible to research... I'd just choose something either a little more broad or at least a little easier to deduce about your character.
-
2 extra stress boxes that work well for backlash... counts as "resistant to backlash."
I thought he said +2 Physical stress boxes. Backlash is Mental stress, right?
-
Backlash is caster's choice between mental and physical stress.
-
2 extra stress boxes that work well for backlash... counts as "resistant to backlash."
Barely-on-topic as it is:
And actually, evolution can produce a pretty remarkable resistance to acid if it wants, either as a matter of density or simple chemical makeup. Acid's a valid catch- don't get me wrong... got no problem with it. Just think it might be a little impossible to research... I'd just choose something either a little more broad or at least a little easier to deduce about your character.
'requires personal knowledge': +0
-
Hercules: poison. Worked fine to kill him the first time.
Wolverine: metal skeleton -...magnetism anyone? Electricity? Both have almost killed him.
Superman: Kryptonite
Bears, elephants, horses: very much opposed to electricity- makes a great catch.
Zombies: bullet to the head? - much like tearing out a red courts stomach... has anyone got a good system for that btw?
Fire should be a +3 or 4 catch not zero...fire is pretty easy to come by.
Everything has a catch btw: swords of the cross seem to do that fine.
-
Zombies: bullet to the head? - much like tearing out a red courts stomach... has anyone got a good system for that btw?
I still don't think there's a consensus about that, although I seem to remember "hitting by 3 shifts or more would be sufficient" - whether you get that high roll through aim maneuvers or declarations or luck doesn't matter. I can't rustle up any evidence for this, though.
-
For RCV's I'd allow my players to do a maneuver, "exposed stomach" and allow someone to tag it for an attack that would bypass their toughness. If you wanted to make the "brain" a zombies catch, I'd allow a similar maneuver.
Anyways, I think my question is sufficiently answered. So, it's not that a creature doesn't have a catch, it's just that the catch is +0, and if the players can come up with a creative idea for a catch, they can bypass the toughness.
But it seems the concensus is that a catch for zombies isn't that necessary since zombies have other weaknesses.
The same question came up when one of my players who's character is a RC infected. He wanted to take inhuman recovery and we had a bit of a debate over what would make a good Catch. We settled on Holy Stuff since that is the same as a RC Vamp. Not sure if it's accurate, but it works. The only issue is that the PC's rarely fight AGAINST Holy. Although my opinion is Holy in the eye of the beholder. I'd allow Unholy to work also. But I digress. Thanks for the advice.
-
He is not resistant to backlash, it was just a story idea to be tough to his own violent magic. +2 slots to physical stress does work well for backlash, especially when they try to facerape the caster - me.
The wizard in my group has a mental toughness and recovery power. The Catch is his own backlash - well, more specifically, any mental damage caused by his own magic.
Edit: I just realized this is the perfect example of a +0 catch. He has a catch, but no-one else on the planet has access to it.
-
good point, stunts and items that satisfy a catch have been payed. if there are things without a catch, the player/npc has made a waste of points, thus you imbalance the system.
-
Hercules: poison. Worked fine to kill him the first time.
Wolverine: metal skeleton -...magnetism anyone? Electricity? Both have almost killed him.
Superman: Kryptonite
Bears, elephants, horses: very much opposed to electricity- makes a great catch.
Of everything you've listed here, only Kryptonite fills the role of a true Catch.
Hercules could've died because of prolonged exposure to the poison, would have taken longer than with a mortal, but just as effective. He was half-human, why not throw fire and electricity and acid and... et cetera in the mix.
Wolverine's adamantium skeleton makes him extremely susceptible to magnetic powers, but it does not harm him per se and even when it did (Magneto tearing of his adamantium), he survived and healed up nice. The problem with Wolverine is that once you stop doing something to him, he heals. I believe it was in Prof. X's secret files, that he surmised that the only sure way to kill Logan was to take of his head... So, at any rate, his metal skeleton would be an aspect... Hates magnetism, but also allows him to throw a better punch.
Just because isomething hurts something well, doesn't mean it should be a Catch. Some humans are immune to some poisons or diseases, but others are killed by the same ones. Electricity and fire do wonders of killing people, but not because they are so weak against that particular type of damage, but because the damage is MASSIVE. A powerful poison isn't so effective because it bypasses some defensive, but because it keeps wreaking havoc over a longer period of time, so eventually it'll take you down. This is all slanted towards game mechanics, not biology or something.
Superman's kryptonite isn't even the best of Catches, depending on what you see. In the TV-series I've seen, he's weak around the stuff, but recovers pretty quickly afterwards, while a Catch says you can't recover from what hurt it put on you (Stress and/or Consequences).
As for zombie-head-shots? Better use a shotgun or JHP ammo, because if you put a bullet in there, why is it going to care? You need to do massive trauma and most ammunition isn't designed for that. Even without a head, I doubt it would keel over immediately, nowhere does it say that it needs to use it's ears to hear the heart beat, as it perceives the beat to be its own.