ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Ghsdkgb on March 28, 2012, 08:31:04 PM
-
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?
-
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.
-
Radiation, Poison or fire would probably work.
-
Wood, flint, or obsidian. Those are the oldest tools that killed them.
-
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.
-
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,28019.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,28019.0.html)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php?topic=29517.10 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php?topic=29517.10)
-
I knew Sanctaphrax would have a few links available ;-)
-
radiation, poison, etc, or the classic '+0, unknown'
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
What do you mean by it never seems to matter?
And yes. At least, for some supernaturals. Mostly extremely large ones.
-
The only real issue I have there is mechanically. If you already have a weapon of high rating, allowing THAT to satisfy the catch just makes you that much more of that one badass who overshadows the whole party. Everyone else is using their claws and daggers while you get to deal 4- or 5-stress hits left and right. And THEN this big tank comes along and everyone else is that much more ineffective against it, while you get to bypass its Catch and kill it that much harder, leaving everyone else in the party to wonder why they ever bother doing anything except throwing out a few maneuvers here and there.
I mean, it's one thing to be the star fighter in a party. It's quite another when you leave everyone else in the dust to the point where they don't even feel useful.
-
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.
Hmmm, I disagree. But, using argument, a flak jacket should also give you Toughness with a 'big weapon' catch.
Ironically, modern military body armor is intended for use against shrapnel more than bullets. ;)
-
Do you really feel that it is thematically appropriate for supernatural creatures to have a Catch based on massive damage?
Well, the Ghouls have it in their write-up among the Catches that massive damage (brain trauma, spine breaking) won't let them heal.
-
And now a brief interlude for some tangentially related silliness:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21888.msg966499.html#msg966499
But seriously I'm with Umbra. Something with a higher weapon rating will get past armor by virtue of being a higher weapon rating. A catch of "weapon rating higher than X" just means you're doubly vulnerable, which seems unnecessary to me.
-
Well, the Ghouls have it in their write-up among the Catches that massive damage (brain trauma, spine breaking) won't let them heal.
I don't have the books available now but does that mention weapon rating at all? I seem to remember it being closer to the popular view of zombies - major CNS disruption.
-
No mention of weapon rating--it just says "dead is dead with a Ghoul" and that massive trauma is enough to kill them beyond what their healing abilities can recover.
-
The flak jacket is a bad comparison. Because a flak jacket actually does protect against a direct hit from an anti-tank bazooka. it just doesn't do so well enough.
But a sufficiently energetic bullet is actually more damaging against something large than against something small.
PS: Keying this to weapon rating is probably a mistake, though I used to do it myself. See, a weapon 4 elephant gun ought to satisfy an elephant's Catch. But a weapon 6 evocation that consists of a storm of needles probably shouldn't.
-
The flak jacket is a bad comparison. Because a flak jacket actually does protect against a direct hit from an anti-tank bazooka. it just doesn't do so well enough.
I agree it's a poor comparison...flak jackets give more protection than hide. Even rhino hide.
But a sufficiently energetic bullet is actually more damaging against something large than against something small.
This isn't computing for me. It sounds like you're saying the target takes more damage because it's larger.
I suppose it might be true if only comparing the absolute size of a wound. Don't think that's a good abstraction for relative health. :-/
-
It's not the hide, it's the sheer mass.
See, a knife might well puncture rhino hide. But a knife wound is a pinprick to something that big.
And yes, bigger things can take more damage than smaller ones sometimes. Like you say, bigger wound. But it also takes more to put down a bigger thing. Which is why I'm not suggesting elephants be more vulnerable to anti-tank weapons than I am. I'm just suggesting that they not be much less so.
The basic argument doesn't need that point though. To summarize what I'm really trying to say:
1. In order to model how hard it is to punch an elephant to death, elephants need Toughness.
2. If elephants have Toughness, then the large weapons that ought to kill elephants easily become unable to kill elephants easily.
3. Therefore, large weapons ignore the Toughness of elephants.
-
By the way, Kung-Fu-Were-Panda
-
I'm not a fan of the 'big attack' catches; they just don't feel right to me. I'd probably go with something along the lines of "all were-creatures have a weakness to silver", though you could certainly customize this as deemed appropriate. You could base weaknesses on World Of Darkness, if you prefer, which would mean that the catch would vary, including silver or gold depending on the were-type's patron.
-
1. In order to model how hard it is to punch an elephant to death, elephants need Toughness.
2. If elephants have Toughness, then the large weapons that ought to kill elephants easily become unable to kill elephants easily.
3. Therefore, large weapons ignore the Toughness of elephants.
Re #1 - I'll agree Toughness is one possible solution. It's certainly not the only one.
Re #2 - Disagree. But weapon "size" doesn't really matter anyway. It's not like you get hit by a 120mm round. Fragments are what do the damage to personnel most often. More to the point, Inhuman Toughness gives you armor 1 and two physical stress. Not exactly enough to keep weapon 3+ damage from hurting them. An elephant might survive a hit which a normal human wouldn't...but that's the point isn't it?
#3 is an invalid conclusion.
-
What I don't like about using "Weapon Level Catch" Toughness powers for normal creatures is the overflow factor.
Using that catch, you can hit a rhino all day with a Weapon:1 item with no result, due to the armor,
you can whittle him down with a Weapon:2 attack, eventually taking it out if it doesn't trample or Gore you first,
but the moment you bring out a Weapon:3 item (the minimum level of the Catch in this example) The Rhino folds like a cheap suit.
Those added stress boxes disappear as if Weapon: 3 turned them into so much ectoplasm. It doesn't seem right.
-
Yeah, I think even Sancta has disavowed the "Weapon value" catch, because it doesn't work thematically. I do like the idea that's left behind though (once you move past weapon values), that a weapon that would take a rhino out, will take a were-rhino out. It sounds completely ridiculous, but the catch is weapons that are the catch. ;)
-
So Catch: Firearms?
-
Not necessarily, as some of the older, low energy firearms wouldn't work, and some of the smaller caliber rounds would be likely to create the equivalent of a little nick.
I would think of it like this: The Catch: Things that are made to bypass tough hide (I.E. armor piercing or high caliber), situations that are intended to bypass tough hide (I.E. "I shoot him in the eye"), and things that deal greater damage to larger targets (I.E. fragmentation grenades).
Or maybe only one or two of those, but I hope you get the idea. It's stuff that is intended to work better Vs big tough targets.
-
Complex catch, but thematically appropriate.
-
For a normal animal I'd go with a catch of energy / magic. Though I'd probably reverse it and say the toughness only affects mechanically caused harm. (i.e. Causing a chunk of something physical to penetrate hide and flesh.)
For a therianthrope, I'd go with whatever fits the shapechanger's back story. Silver is the common theme for those tied to phases of the mood. Gold might work better for something diurnal. Something of or from the earth (rock, wood, etc) may be best for a shamanistic theme.
How does your therianthrope get his powers? Is it linked to any time cycle? Anything at all? What is associated with the creature's history?
-
I honestly hadn't actually thought of a character when I made this topic; it was just something that came up when I was statting hexenbears for a recent session (I ended up just not giving them a Toughness power; they were only black bears; not grizzly or polar :-P).
But tying it into the history and methodology of the powers seems like the way to go.
-
Another Catch I just thought of for a Were-rhino or other supernatural beast: The horns, claws, hooves, etc of another one of my kind (or weapons fashioned from such things). Might be worth at least a +1, unless your kind is very rare.
-
I know it's silly, but I'd stat it up as no catch. The catch is that they don't have the toughness when not in their were-form. Take the power at full cost without a catch rebate and have a +0 unknown catch.
The whole point of a catch is to give a workaround or weakness. The weakness of an Alpha-style shapeshifter is that they're squishier when human.
I know RAW says Toughness powers must apply to a catch, but then you've got Werewolves without one all over the place. Alpha style werewolves don't have a catch like Silver, so why would other were-creatures?
In my games, as long as you don't have access to a toughness power all the time (either against a certain type of weapon, or when shapeshifted, or only during a full moon, only carrying a certain item, or whatever) that's good enough for a catch.
When we had a werebear fighting in our party, I did throw them up against Circe. She made a declaration that her magic was focused on shapeshifting, so it bypassed the toughness powers of shapeshifters. The player got a fate point and was scared for the first time in the entire game. It was fun.
-
When we had a werebear fighting in our party, I did throw them up against Circe. She made a declaration that her magic was focused on shapeshifting, so it bypassed the toughness powers of shapeshifters. The player got a fate point and was scared for the first time in the entire game. It was fun.
That may be how I end up handling +0, non-obvious Catches. I wouldn't quite justify it as "the catch is that they don't have the toughness when not in their were-form", but I would certainly justify it by allowing an opponent to research or make a Declaration to get the means to bypass it.
-
I disavowed the weapon value Catch a long time ago. I now advocate a "big weapons" Catch, which is very similar but not the same.
If the arguments I presented earlier did not sway you, consider this: a creature the size of a city simply cannot be harmed by a normal-sized pistol (unless something weird is going on). Something larger is required. Such a monster would have Physical Immunity with a scale-based Catch.
I think that most people consider this acceptable. So why is essentially the same thing so offensive on an elephant?
-
I disavowed the weapon value Catch a long time ago. I now advocate a "big weapons" Catch, which is very similar but not the same.
Can you define "big weapons"? If you use something related to how much damage it does, it seems exactly the same as a weapon value catch - just less defined.
-
It's very very similar to a weapon value Catch. It just excludes a few weird things like Warden Swords and certain evocations. And when it comes to weapon: 4 or so, there's some ambiguity about what counts.
-
The Catch really doesn't have anything to do with the specifics of the animal form. It's more like what is "known" to counteract shapeshifters/werebeasts in the wererhino's culture.
For example, a European werewolf's catch is probably silver, because everyone knows silver hurts werewolves. A shifter from an African culture is probably not vulnerable to silver, but maybe it's a wet weapon, or salt, or some plant of supposedly mystical virtue.
-
I know RAW says Toughness powers must apply to a catch, but then you've got Werewolves without one all over the place. Alpha style werewolves don't have a catch like Silver, so why would other were-creatures?
Er... where? None of the Alphas have Toughness abilities, so naturally there's no Catch. The only one I see like that is the generic lycanthrope, which is probably an oversight. Consider it some kind of rare, zero-value catch because they only get it during the full moon.
-
Compensation for only having the power during the full moon is provided by the 'rare or involuntary change' clause of Human Form.
In the absence of a listed Catch, and with no listed Catch value, it is best to assume '[+0]: unknown'
-
There's an in-character note on page 185 that explains why lycanthropes have no Catch.