ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Sanctaphrax on May 26, 2012, 12:46:10 AM
-
As we all know, The Catch has issues. Its costing doesn't work all that well for some weaknesses, and sometimes it creates bizarre situations where there's no reason to take less than 4 Refresh worth of Toughness.
And its mandatory-ness causes headaches for, so far as I can tell, no good reason.
Plus, the Catch rules are not always followed in canonical materials. There are some Catchless Recovery Powers out there, and some of the Catch values don't follow the rules.
Fortunately, this is easy to fix. Here's how you do it:
1. Replace the costing formula with one based around the question "how frequently will the Catch matter?"
2. Replace the rules requiring a Catch with rules strongly recommending one, remind GMs that they can Compel through Toughness if need be.
3. (Optional) Make the Catch rebate into a percentage of the Refresh spent on Powers.
Anyway, that's the approach I'm going to use when I rewrite the Catch. (Which will be soon.)
Unless, of course, someone points out some kind of flaw.
This thread is for people to point out flaws, and for me to hear what people think of step 3. Is it worth the increase in complexity?
-
A lot of that would be a judgment call and some of it would nurf toughness though I imagine that's the intent. See if we assume cold iron with only come up 25% in combat that would mean that catch would fall from a +4 to a -1 or -2 and most of the non-common catches (true magic, holy etc) wouldn't even be worth a point of refresh.
-
What?
How did you get that from what I posted?
-
What?
How did you get that from what I posted?
Well I didn't get that I just ran with a percentage model in my head and got odd results and decided it wouldn't be a good idea. Basing the catch on a % of relevance will be a very fiddly thing to work out and very debatable.
-
W&M seems to have assumed a direct:
% of instances where toughness is likely to be bypassed
=
% of cost of toughness powers refunded
-
W&M seems to have assumed a direct:
% of instances where toughness is likely to be bypassed
=
% of cost of toughness powers refunded
Pretty much, logically it works but it gives weird numbers even with rounding.
-
Yeah, I don't intend to do that.
That aside, what do people think?
-
I think the last question in your first post is the sticking point. Complexity.
The only simple fix I can think of loses some of the flavor.
-
I'd be interested in hearing where you're going with this.
-
I'd be interested in hearing where you're going with this.
This appears to be a non sequitur - or perhaps an Eliza clone. ;)
In the interest of clarity, I wasn't "going anywhere". I simply agreed your question "Is it worth the increase in complexity?" is a sticking point and noted I didn't like my own ideas on simple resolutions.
-
I believe it was intended as a prompt to share your ideas anyway, in the hopes that they might be improved upon by the community.
-
I believe it was intended as a prompt to share your ideas anyway, in the hopes that they might be improved upon by the community.
Yeah, this.
Plus I thought you might have some insight on what parts were over-complex and how that complexity could be avoided.
-
I'm working on a Fate based urban fantasy game, tentatively inspired by the DFRPG. I originally had something similar to the catch but scrapped it due to the issues you noted. Instead, I replaced it with a system of weaknesses. Rather than bypassing toughness powers, a weakness inflicts extra stress beyond what it would have dealt. It also inflicts one point of stress per round with simple contact.
Translated into DFRPG terms, pricing for weaknesses is +2 for an obtainable or common weakness that inflicts double the stress it would have otherwise. It is +1 for somewhat uncommon and +0 for rare.
There are also Environmental weaknesses which inflict one stress per round of exposure. +2 for a common environment that would be harmless to a mortal (or mostly harmless) like sunlight or submersion in water, and +1 for a somewhat uncommon environment.
Finally, there are power drain weaknesses. These work similarly to environmental, but instead of stress, exposure renders you unable to use any supernatural powers for the rest of the scene.
A character can only have one of each weakness type, any additional weaknesses of the same type give +0. You could require anyone with a toughness power to take the first type of weakness, but anyone can take a weakness even without a toughness power.
Just my two cents on one possible solution, I hope it gives you the germ of an idea.
-
I believe it was intended as a prompt to share your ideas anyway, in the hopes that they might be improved upon by the community.
Yeah, this.
Ahh, my apologies...had already discarded the idea so it didn't click with anywhere I was 'going'. Communications breakdown. :-[
It was simple though:
1. Catches do not give a rebate to a power's cost.
2. Instead, they earn fate points from the GM's endless stash for each instance used in play.
It's simple and gets rid of the issue of costing and any issue of under/over use in play. But it makes those powers much more expensive - might work for a low level game where everyone is a one trick pony but not as well for Dresden.
-
@Adin: Not a bad idea, but not what I'm looking for here. The idea that Toughness can be bypassed with a specific means is a good one, and one that I think the Catch represents pretty well. It just has a few oddities that I'd like to straighten out.
@UmbraLux: Yeah, that does lose some flavour. I'd rather just make Catches optimal and let GMs Compel away Toughness.
-
I know this isn't part of your original concerns, but I thought I'd throw it out there since we're looking at this.
It's always bugged me a bit that we have a mechanical system for removing toughness powers (which is usually initiated through a compel) but for any other similar removal of powers is dealt with solely through compels. Is anyone else interested in a catch for other powers or at least some unification of this concept?
As far as percentage based costs, that kinda reduces the ability for low-refresh characters to be more than just a tank. Personally I like the current rebate set-up (though as I've said before I long since replaced the current questions with "How frequently will the catch matter?").
-
For 1), I feel like the current questions are reasonable guidelines, though the language could use some reworking. For example, a +2 availability Catch shouldn't just be something that anyone can get their hands on; it should be something that anyone can easily acquire in a dangerous form. Cold iron certainly counts, as any home, workplace, or well-equipped car trunk has at least one mostly-iron item with the weight and heft to be used as a bludgeon or the pokiness to be used as a shiv. Fire, likewise, is inherently damaging, and can readily be generated. But something which is hard to find, even if it doesn't take True Magic or some other genuinely-limited resource to employ, shouldn't get that same benefit; anyone could theoretically acquire a bottle of holy water, but it's not common. Likewise, things that are hard to weaponize either shouldn't count, or should render the creature vulnerable to all attacks made after exposure; if garlic is your only weakness, you should either burst into flame when exposed or have your hide suddenly rendered soft and delicate. It shouldn't take actual garlic-induced blunt trauma to do you in.
Again, for commonality of knowledge, I'd make +2 something that either anyone who knows anything at all will know, or something that will almost certainly be arrived at by trial and error in the course of a given combat. The classic superhero Toughness, which doesn't apply to actual penetrating injury but shields against ludicrous amounts of blunt trauma, would count here; likewise silver against werewolves, which almost anyone who thinks they know what a werewolf is will try.
As far as point 2) goes, I think it's quite reasonable to simply design a +0 Catch as follows: Only by weapons which bypass all defenses, requires direct knowledge.
-
I've also always disliked the way the Catch was written. The fixed rebate causes problems, and it seems clear by comparing the rules for the Catch to samples in OW that even the game designers had no consensus as to how they should be applied.
There are a lot of good ideas above. I'm a fan of (a) shifting to a 'how often will the Catch matter' scheme, and (b) replacing fixed rebates with some form of scaled rebates. While the idea of replacing the refund with a purely compel-driven concept has some appeal, I think that the result becomes too refresh-expensive for characters with more that a a couple of refresh worth of toughness/recovery powers.
Here's my attempt:
First, decide how often the Catch in question should come into play. Factors may include such concepts as difficulty to discover, difficulty to acquire, or difficulty to use offensively -- but ultimately it is a question as to how often the player wants the Catch to impact play:
(*) Mild Catch: impacts the character only rarely (perhaps once or twice in the campaign)
(*) Moderate Catch: impacts the character uncommonly (perhaps once every couple of sessions)
(*) Severe Catch: impacts the character frequently (practically every session, and often multiple times in a session)
The character then gets a rebate on the total cost of any toughness/recovery powers based on the severity of the Catch, as follows:
(*) Mild: +1 rebate per three levels of applicable powers, starting with the second
(*) Moderate: +1 rebate per two levels of applicable powers, starting with the first
(*) Severe: +1 rebate per level of applicable powers
Note that 'levels' of toughness/recovery powers refers to 2-refresh increments (so Mythic Toughness counts as three levels, as does Inhuman Toughness plus Supernatural Recovery).
In addition, facing combat with Catch-equipped opponents should generally qualify as a compel.
Some features of a system like this:
1) There is no point at which a character can increase their toughness/recovery powers at no cost.
2) Character with many refresh invested into Catch-based powers get increased benefit from the rebate.
3) Characters with only one or two powers might get the same rebate at several different severities (basically a matter of rounding), but will 'make up' for this via compels.
-
It's not a bad system Becq, but how does that work with immunity (which has only one level that costs 8 refresh) and the stacked catch?
-
Count Immunity as level 4 of toughness?
-
Inhuman toughness (minor) -2
Inhuman Toughness (moderate) -1
Inhuman Toughness (severe) -1
Supernatural Toughness (minor) -3
Supernatural Toughness (moderate) -3
Supernatural Toughness (severe) -2
Mythic Toughness (minor) -5
Mythic Toughness (moderate) - 4
Mythic Toughness (severe) – 3
Mythic Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (minor) -7
Mythic Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (moderate) -6
Mythic Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (Severe) - 4
Mythic Toughness + Supernatural Toughness (minor) -8
Mythic Toughness + Supernatural Toughness (moderate) -7
Mythic Toughness + Supernatural Toughness (severe) - 5
Mythic Toughness + Mythic Recovery (minor) -10
Mythic Toughness + Mythic Recovery (moderate) -9
Mythic Toughness + Mythic Recovery (severe) - 6
Using Beq model it seems to work a lot better at higher toughness levels than lower where a lot of the categories are the same.
Minor (2) (5)
Moderate (1) (3) (5)
Severe half
-
I'm sure it gets more complex as you add recovery too.
-
Inhuman toughness + Recovery (minor) -3
Inhuman Toughness + Recovery (moderate) -3
Inhuman Toughness + Recovery (severe) -2
Supernatural Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (minor) -5
Supernatural Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (moderate) -4
Supernatural Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (severe) -3
Supernatural Toughness + Supernatural Recovery (minor) -7
Supernatural Toughness + Supernatural Recovery (moderate) -6
Supernatural Toughness + Supernatural Recovery (severe) -4
Mythic Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (minor) -7
Mythic Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (moderate) - 6
Mythic Toughness + Inhuman Recovery (severe) – 4
Mythic Toughness + Supernatural Recovery (minor) -8
Mythic Toughness + Supernatural Recovery (moderate) - 7
Mythic Toughness + Supernatural Recovery (severe) – 5
Mythic Toughness + Mythic Recovery (minor) -10
Mythic Toughness + Mythic Recovery (moderate) - 9
Mythic Toughness + Mythic Recovery (severe) – 6
Or maybe a simpler way of looking at it:
One level: Mild +0, Moderate +1, Severe +1
Two levels: Mild +1, Moderate +1, Severe +2
Three levels: Mild +1, Moderate +2, Severe +3
Four levels: Mild +1, Moderate +2, Severe +4
Five levels: Mild +2, Moderate +3, Severe +5
Six levels: Mild +2, Moderate +3, Severe +6
-
See what I mean it works much better at higher numbers.
-
Yeah, agreed.
-
Count Immunity as level 4 of toughness?
It would need to count not as 'level 4'of toughness', but as 4 levels of toughness in and of itself.
-
I'm more worried about the stacked catch than anything else. Does it follow the same guidelines? If so Immunity becomes much less workable in the way it was intended to work (though it also becomes less workable in the cheese-weaselly way).
-
My biggest problem with the method is that it really overprices selective toughness (only vs a certain thing) which I think does deserve a more than 50% rebate.
-
I'm more worried about the stacked catch than anything else. Does it follow the same guidelines? If so Immunity becomes much less workable in the way it was intended to work (though it also becomes less workable in the cheese-weaselly way).
I'm not sure I understand the problem that you're referencing. Could you elaborate?
@W&M
The solution, there, would seem to be a 4th tier of the Catch, rated at some variation of 'most of the time'
-
Me likey.
I think I'll just steal that.
Though there should definitely be another level for people who just want to be fireproof or tough against one type of monster ow whatever. I suggest +3/2 levels, for simplicity's sake.
Also, I'd forget PI. It should cost more anyway, it can work on a different system. Ideally, Catches would be more important to PI than to other forms of Toughness.
-
It's not a bad system Becq, but how does that work with immunity (which has only one level that costs 8 refresh) and the stacked catch?
Ah, PI -- I hadn't really had that in mind when writing my previous post, and I agree with Sanctaphrax that is needs to be handled a bit differently.
But as a first cut, here are some thoughts:
First, Physical Immunity should probably be separated (at least conceptually) into two powers. Full Physical Immunity is the default setting of the power, and represents immunity to everything that isn't The Catch. It's basically the next level of Toughness beyond Mythic; as such, it should count as four levels of Toughness/Recovery powers for purposes of the rebate (one level per two refresh).
Specific Physical Immunity is immunity only to a specific subset of attack types, and is what you get when you add a Stacked Catch to Physical Immunity. The normal Catch doesn't apply, so it counts as zero levels for purposes of the Catch rebate, but should have a cost reduction based on how commonly it offers protection from attacks.
Perhaps Specific Physical Immunity should be priced something like this:
Common PI: A significant number of opponents will be at a disadvantage against the character. Cost: -4
Uncommon PI: An opponent or two per fight or a hostile group or two per session will be at a disadvantage against the character, or a larger number will be inconvenienced. Cost -2.
Rare PI: Perhaps as few as several opponents per campaign will be at a disadvantage, or a larger number will be inconvenienced. Cost -1.
For purposes of the above, assume an opponent is 'disadvantaged' if they are unable to hurt the character at all (because they either don't have an alternate attack or are unlikely to realize that an alternate attack would improve things), and that an opponent is 'inconvenienced' if they are able to bypass the PI, and can quickly recognize the need to, but with significantly inferior attacks. Also note that if the number of opponents that are disadvantaged even begins to approach a majority, then the character should probably be buying Full Physical Immunity (possibly with a serious Catch) rather than Specific Physical Immunity.
This may well need significant adjustment.
-
So immunity to magic would be 2 because it isn't common in game terms but you would expect 1 or 2 opponents per fight to have it?
-
Using Beq model it seems to work a lot better at higher toughness levels than lower where a lot of the categories are the same.
True, but then again there is only so much room for varying costs unless you start using half-refresh increments. If you only have two refresh worth of powers, you can only ever pay 0, 1, or 2. I consider the '0' option to not be an option, so that leaves half price or full price. I dealt with this by staggering the half price levels, but if you have a better idea, I'm happy to hear it!
My biggest problem with the method is that it really overprices selective toughness (only vs a certain thing) which I think does deserve a more than 50% rebate.
A fair point. Hard to do without making some of the levels free, though, and I'm not fond of that idea.
One option is to rely on compels to fix this issue.
As another option, you might grant 'Specific Toughness' an additional bonus. Perhaps it grants an additional point of armor over the normal amount (but still the same number of stress boxes). So "Supernatural Toughness vs Fire" would give you armor:3 and +4 stress boxes, but only against fire-based damage (and would cost only -2 refresh due to the severe Catch of 'not fire').
-
So immunity to magic would be 2 because it isn't common in game terms but you would expect 1 or 2 opponents per fight to have it?
You need to be a little careful here, because it's not just the presence of the damage type that matters, but that an alternative damage type is either unavailable or inferior. Which would probably be true for a spellcaster, as their alternate attacks will generally be weaker than their magic.
So if PI (catch:bullets) run -4 refresh, then PI (magic only) should probably run around -2. I think.
Feel free to disagree constructively, though... :)
-
Specific Physical Immunity is immunity only to a specific subset of attack types, and is what you get when you add a Stacked Catch to Physical Immunity. The normal Catch doesn't apply, so it counts as zero levels for purposes of the Catch rebate, but should have a cost reduction based on how commonly it offers protection from attacks.
Perhaps Specific Physical Immunity should be priced something like this:
Common PI: A significant number of opponents will be at a disadvantage against the character. Cost: -4
Uncommon PI: An opponent or two per fight or a hostile group or two per session will be at a disadvantage against the character, or a larger number will be inconvenienced. Cost -2.
Rare PI: Perhaps as few as several opponents per campaign will be at a disadvantage, or a larger number will be inconvenienced. Cost -1.
For purposes of the above, assume an opponent is 'disadvantaged' if they are unable to hurt the character at all (because they either don't have an alternate attack or are unlikely to realize that an alternate attack would improve things), and that an opponent is 'inconvenienced' if they are able to bypass the PI, and can quickly recognize the need to, but with significantly inferior attacks. Also note that if the number of opponents that are disadvantaged even begins to approach a majority, then the character should probably be buying Full Physical Immunity (possibly with a serious Catch) rather than Specific Physical Immunity.
Hmm. I'm having issues with this, but I'm not sure why here and not with toughness.
I could not have done this with the last character I made with PI. I was making an outsider scion and gave him immunity to magic (cause it makes sense story-wise and I thought it was cool). I had no way of knowing how often the GM would involve magic. Looking back on the game I can tell you that it came up somewhere between 0 and 2 times a session (mostly due to friendly fire) and the GM had actually planned an outsider themed campaign, but I didn't know any of this. How are we to cost things if we have no idea how often they will come up?
Still not sure why I see this as an issue with PI and not with toughness, but there you go.
-
I'm in favor of a rewire of Physical immunity.
Call it Immunity.
have a table set up as a guideline for it.
This is a sliding scale that I put little thought into it coul;d be easily amended to work better. I just needed an example.
-1 Fatigue from running/flying, aging (including age based attacks)
-2 attacks from children, attacks from normal animals
-3 a set of attacks (bullets, claws, fists, melee weapons, man made weapons, explosions, mortal magic, non mortal magic, disease or insanity [ listed here since it has low usefulness)
-4 an entire element or phenomenon (fire, ice, poison, earthquakes, drowning???, mental damage, radiation)
-5 broad elements or attack types (attacks from bipedal creatures, any and all magic, attacks from transformed creatures)
-6 physical attacks or mental attacks
-7??????????
-8 immune to everything
Then include a + 0 catch for things with an immunity of 6 or above.
-
PI just shouldn't cost -8.
Would you call Supernatural Toughness and Recovery a bad investment? Do they not provide 8 Refresh worth of badassery together?
If you wouldn't, then how can you justify the existence of a Power that makes them look like crap for the exact same cost?
PI should be a lot pricier, and it should benefit more from Catches than other Powers do. Immunity to fire is probably fine for 2 Refresh. Immunity to everything that isn't iron for 5 Refresh isn't all that bad. But immunity to everything for 8 Refresh isn't fair at all.
-
PI just shouldn't cost -8.
Would you call Supernatural Toughness and Recovery a bad investment? Do they not provide 8 Refresh worth of badassery together?
If you wouldn't, then how can you justify the existence of a Power that makes them look like crap for the exact same cost?
PI should be a lot pricier, and it should benefit more from Catches than other Powers do. Immunity to fire is probably fine for 2 Refresh. Immunity to everything that isn't iron for 5 Refresh isn't all that bad. But immunity to everything for 8 Refresh isn't fair at all.
The -8 - I proposed was immune to mental and social damage as well. everything. literally. except a +0 catch.
Lemme clarify a bit.
First: Toughness and recovery has a catch. it could cost 4 for the same effect you mentioned.
Second: Immunity: should have no catch. It should not be a toughness power. It should be seperate. Do not think of it as immunity to everything but (a catch of everythign else)
Think of it as a cost to be immune to something.
My cost table was simply a preliminary. If you want to criticize, please offer an alternate cost? -12 for full immunity perhaps?
Whatever, I just offered a simple solution with baselines.
-
PI just shouldn't cost -8.
Would you call Supernatural Toughness and Recovery a bad investment? Do they not provide 8 Refresh worth of badassery together?
If you wouldn't, then how can you justify the existence of a Power that makes them look like crap for the exact same cost?
PI should be a lot pricier, and it should benefit more from Catches than other Powers do. Immunity to fire is probably fine for 2 Refresh. Immunity to everything that isn't iron for 5 Refresh isn't all that bad. But immunity to everything for 8 Refresh isn't fair at all.
Honestly not really, Toughness is worth it (unless mental or social combat are as common as physical) but supernatural recovery is comparatively mediocre (assuming its not being used to power crazy rituals). Spending 8 refresh on Supernatural Toughness + Recovery pales in comparison to 8 points of refinement or even spending 4 points of toughness and 4 points of refinement.
-
Just to clarify:
I agree with Sanctaphrax (and others) that PI is underpriced compared to toughness and recovery. The ideas I posted were intended less to balance or rewrite PI, and more to balance the Catch as applied to various powers including PI.
In general, I don't think PI is a suitable power for player characters, with the possible exception of narrowly-focused immunities (what I referred to as 'Specific Physical Immunity'). It's basically a plot device power, which makes it great for NPCs (ie, the storyline revolves around figuring out how to take down the bad guy who can't be hurt by any obvious means). But not so much for PCs. Why? Because even at it's most 'fair', this would come down to the GM rolling dice to determine if the enemy happens to knows or is able to figure out the player's weakness. And then what happens when a vindictive enemy posts (accurately) on badguyforums.net that Joe the Scion's +0 Catch is that he is vulnerable to wooden clubs carved by virgins from maple wood and coated with melted gummy bears? None of this strikes me as fun.
This bias on my part was what led me to overlook PI for purposes of my Catch proposal to begin with. (After all, pricing the powers high or low by a handful of refresh on an NPC has almost no effect compared to doing the same for a PC.)
-
@Silverblaze: I seem to have misinterpreted your proposal completely. My apologies. Could you explain it a bit further please?
@ways and means: Okay, make it Mythic Toughness and Inhuman Recovery. I personally think Recovery is awesome, but really it's beside the point.
@Becq: Indeed, broad PI generally isn't a very fun power for PCs. But its cost should still be written with PCs in mind, because PCs are the only people that it matters for.
Besides, narrow PI is totally PC-appropriate. If a pyromancer wants to be fireproof so as to drop zone attacks on himself without hesitation, I say more power to him.
-
In general, I don't think PI is a suitable power for player characters, with the possible exception of narrowly-focused immunities (what I referred to as 'Specific Physical Immunity'). It's basically a plot device power, which makes it great for NPCs (ie, the storyline revolves around figuring out how to take down the bad guy who can't be hurt by any obvious means). But not so much for PCs.
I agree, but what I see is a lot of proposed solutions that make PI less accessable for the right uses. I don't even see a benefit to changing it. Currently it's available when it's appropriate, and when inappropriate, the GM should be vetoing it. I don't have any problem with a system that relies on the GM to remain viable.
-
I don't have any problem with a system that relies on the GM to remain viable.
In other words, you don't care about game balance.
That's fine, since balance isn't really necessary, but please understand that it's not helpful right now.
"The GM should veto it when it's not appropriate" can cover for literally anything. No matter how broken it is.
"+4 to all skills for 1 Refresh? Not broken, GM can just not let it be taken by anything less than a god."
PS: This sort of thing is often referred to as the Oberoni Fallacy. You can see an explanation of it here (http://bb.bbboy.net/niftymessageboard-viewthread?forum=6&thread=12).
PPS: I usually measure the badness of a balance problem on two scales. First one is, how much trouble does it cause? The second one is, how hard is it to fix? If you have to fix anything, the thing is on this scale and therefore a problem.
-
@Silverblaze: I seem to have misinterpreted your proposal completely. My apologies. Could you explain it a bit further please?
@ways and means: Okay, make it Mythic Toughness and Inhuman Recovery. I personally think Recovery is awesome, but really it's beside the point.
@Becq: Indeed, broad PI generally isn't a very fun power for PCs. But its cost should still be written with PCs in mind, because PCs are the only people that it matters for.
Besides, narrow PI is totally PC-appropriate. If a pyromancer wants to be fireproof so as to drop zone attacks on himself without hesitation, I say more power to him.
I will explain more later. Likely in a new post about a new power called immunity. At present I am using a phone for this. Will do so later today or monday. My proposal is to make a new power that is not under the category of toughness at all.
-
@Sancta: You do realize that PI is specifically intended for NPCs, and having a player take it is the exception.
The Mythic
level is nearly always reserved for potent NPCs,
as is the special Physical Immunity ability.
So the natural state of this power is for the GM to veto it.
-
And that the above says absolutely nothing as to the game balance of the power, speaking solely to what the developers predicted as the predominant PC-group composition.
-
As Tedronai says, that's not relevant.
If Physical Immunity is too strong to let someone have for 8 Refresh, it should cost more than 8 Refresh. That's the entire reason that Refresh is a thing. To keep PCs at the appropriate level of power and to let people judge the strength of a Power at a glance.
-
This was actually supposed to go into the other thread, sorry.
-
You know what Sancta? It's all perfectly relevant. You asked what we thought of your rules changes. I mentioned that I already use one and otherwise have no problem with the current system. PI was mentioned, you said it's wrong, I said I disagree and have had good experiences with it, then you attacked my reasoning. Just because I disagree with you, doesn't mean that I'm "unhelpful." Dissenting opinions are necessary for balance.
So, I'll say it again, then leave it alone. I don't have any significant problems with the current system.
-
You know what Sancta? It's all perfectly relevant.
A suggestion that a power be restricted to NPCs is not relevant to a discussion about whether that power is balanced. I've gone into this point in greater detail on one of the spin-off threads, here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32537.msg1438033.html#msg1438033).
-
Apologies, I spoke out of frustration (and also in response to a number of posts). I did get a bit off topic with the "PI is only for NPCs". What I was trying to say is that, in a discussion about changing rules it's very beneficial to know that people like the current system and why. When I said "I like the current system, because the burden is on the GM and that's where I like it" I was met with criticism of my personal play style. That is unhelpful.
-
Personally I don't see it as possible to balance PI against toughness at any refresh because PI is unquantifiable so the numbers don't add up. Mind you actually the next time step down after mythic recovery would be healing all wounds (except extreme) instantly so PI does make sense as an upgrade to recovery. Really full PI (not PI vs a specific) should never be available to a PC and so it is debatable if it need a refresh cost at all or if it is just something you stick on a high powered opponent. But specific PI's actually can make sense for PC's especially Magic immunity which is in my opinion attached to the Ogre Changeling template and if you were to create an outsider scion it would be attached to their template too. I personally think the current costing of specific PI is reasonable but I can understand why some people think otherwise.
-
A suggestion that a power be restricted to NPCs is not relevant to a discussion about whether that power is balanced.
It is relevant if you're discussing balance between PCs. Very relevant.
Don't know about Sinker or others, but I don't even try to balance NPCs with the PCs. Don't really want to, I'm trying to create a challenge not parity.
-
Really full PI (not PI vs a specific) should never be available to a PC and so it is debatable if it need a refresh cost at all or if it is just something you stick on a high powered opponent.
See my link above.
It is relevant if you're discussing balance between PCs. Very relevant.
Still no. Why?
And that the above says absolutely nothing as to the game balance of the power, speaking solely to what the developers predicted as the predominant PC-group composition.
Don't know about Sinker or others, but I don't even try to balance NPCs with the PCs. Don't really want to, I'm trying to create a challenge not parity.
And properly powers with balanced Refresh costs are an important part of that effort.
-
sinker, I wasn't calling everything you said irrelevant.
But whether or not PCs can take a Power does not affect what cost is appropriate for it. Tedronai is spot-on.
Furthermore, PCs can take PI. It says right there in the passage that it's only restricted to NPCs almost all of the time.
So when PCs take PI, they should pay an appropriate cost for it. This isn't arguable.
What is arguable is what an appropriate cost for it is.
-
I have no issue with the catch at present.
I have nothing bad to say about changing it as an option for groups to use either.
I think PI needs a rewrite. I made a thread for it.
Please contribute.
-
And its mandatory-ness causes headaches for, so far as I can tell, no good reason.
I think largely setting purposes: everything seems to have a weakness - so it doesn't really make sense to get out of it just by having enough Refresh not to need the Catch rebate. Even Mab flinches from iron.
The only real problem, IMO, is caused by non-supernatural toughness such as really big creatures - the two extra stress boxes from Hulking Size aren't nearly enough to represent how much tougher something like Sue or Tiny the Gruff should be, just from being multi-ton critter, even before any supernatural defenses they might have.
Personally I don't see it as possible to balance PI against toughness at any refresh because PI is unquantifiable so the numbers don't add up.
I agree, the costing is kind of arbitrary.
Mind you actually the next time step down after mythic recovery would be healing all wounds (except extreme) instantly so PI does make sense as an upgrade to recovery.
Viewing it as super Recovery with a healing time of "absolutely instant", before the being can even lose blood or die from what would otherwise be a fatal wound, makes sense, yeah.
I'd actually personally like it if some things with PI instead had supra-Mythic Toughness or supra-Mythic Recovery (with a Stacked Catch as normal PI). Would a grendelkin be able to ignore, or would Madrigal's ward cloths be able to block, a fire spell cast by the original Merlin or by Kemmler? IMO, there should be some limit, since the grendelkin's power is in "fluff" described as an ability to counter magic. (I'm willing to accept Nicodemus' noose protection and Lord Raith's magic immunity as genuinely absolute - at least as long as their power source - probably Hell/Lucifer and HWWB or an Old One, respectively - exists, and short of intervention on the level of a no-holds-barred Archangel, a Faerie Mother, or higher. Loup-Garou ... depends. If they're really a Heaven-powered curse, it could really be absolute; otherwise, I'd vote "just really insanely tough", they probably wouldn't survive ground zero of a nuke or a Tunguska.)
Basically, I think immunity should work like everything else in the setting - power has to come from somewhere. If you're tough because of your personal powers/magic/supernatural nature, it should be limited by that power; effectively limitless toughness should require drawing on some effectively-limitless power source.
-
I think largely setting purposes: everything seems to have a weakness - so it doesn't really make sense to get out of it just by having enough Refresh not to need the Catch rebate. Even Mab flinches from iron.
And yet Evil Hat writes NPCs with no Catches. I found two just flipping through OW. (Gard and Tera West.)
If Evil Hat does it and it's not a problem, why should it be a problem if we do it?
Characters rarely get to choose where their Refresh goes. I'm sure plenty of people would love Wizard's Constitution or Human Guise, but despite being free they're not easy abilities to acquire.
I'd actually personally like it if some things with PI instead had supra-Mythic Toughness or supra-Mythic Recovery (with a Stacked Catch as normal PI). Would a grendelkin be able to ignore, or would Madrigal's ward cloths be able to block, a fire spell cast by the original Merlin or by Kemmler? IMO, there should be some limit, since the grendelkin's power is in "fluff" described as an ability to counter magic. (I'm willing to accept Nicodemus' noose protection and Lord Raith's magic immunity as genuinely absolute - at least as long as their power source - probably Hell/Lucifer and HWWB or an Old One, respectively - exists, and short of intervention on the level of a no-holds-barred Archangel, a Faerie Mother, or higher. Loup-Garou ... depends. If they're really a Heaven-powered curse, it could really be absolute; otherwise, I'd vote "just really insanely tough", they probably wouldn't survive ground zero of a nuke or a Tunguska.)
I agree.
-
If Evil Hat does it and it's not a problem, why should it be a problem if we do it?
This is just sloppy logic.
I see nothing here the would be sufficient to conclude that Evil Hat's Catchless creations are not a problem save that their actual use is purely optional.
-
I've never heard anyone complain about them, IIRC.
I wouldn't feel worried about including them in my games.
I have no reason to believe that anyone has a problem with them.
Why should I assume that the canonical Catchless characters are an issue?
-
Without presenting some evidence to suggest that Evil Hat ignoring their own rules failed to cause a problem, the fact that they did ignore their own rules is not meaningful evidence that ignoring that rule won't cause a problem.
-
They did it years ago.
There seem to have been no negative consequences in the time since then.
I'd call that evidence.
-
Whereas I'd call it another patently unsupported claim. Feel free to provide that support, or some other line of logic arriving at the same conclusion, any time you wish, though.
-
Okay, let me rephrase.
In years of hanging out here and hearing people complain about pretty much everything about this game, I can't recall any complaint about this.
So why should I believe that it's a problem?
-
I think its better to assume that those characters actually do have Catches, but that they are simply 'unknown' -- possibly because Jim Butcher didn't want to publish the information, or because Evil Hat wanted to leave some unique NPC's Catches up to individual GMs to create as a pleasant surprise for their players. The characters in OW often have too few aspects, rarely have Troubles, etc -- this is not an invitation for player characters to follow suit "because if it's good enough for Evil Hat, it's good enough for my PC".
-
If people don't want to have a catch for limited toughness then they could just say there catch is sufficient damage to overwhelm their toughness (+50 stress = 0 catch) or say a +0 catch of a thermonuclear bomb.
-
You could play that way, yes. Though I'm reasonably sure that The Catch is meant to be a type of thing, not an amount of a type of thing. So your Catch would be radiation or fire, not a thermonuclear bomb, for example.
But that's just my opinion, not RAW.
-
Even if you go with that interpretation that still leaves swords of the cross, Heavy Hitters (pick your poison) and Old Ones as options for catches that make a zero % difference to any fight involving the catch. You also have the option for extremely selective no-lethal catches in extremely bizarre and hard to reach places for example "The very first bloom of the delightfully sented flower that blooms inside the stomach of the immortal outsider furthest away from reality etc.
-
I think its better to assume that those characters actually do have Catches, but that they are simply 'unknown'
There are places in OW where characters are said to have unknown Catches. And then there are places where characters have no Catches.
If Gard was meant to have an unknown Catch, why would they not say so?
-
There are places in OW where characters are said to have unknown Catches. And then there are places where characters have no Catches.
If Gard was meant to have an unknown Catch, why would they not say so?
Devils advocate here: It could be a typo that passed the editors. Typo in this case meaning oversight ( they simply forgot). People do make mistakes.
Non devils advocate: Toughness says everythign has a catch. Period. This leads me to beleive the catch is simply unknown.
Then again. 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.
-
Then again. 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.
Same here.
Anyway, if the company writing the game ignores a rule and nobody cares...then maybe that rule shouldn't exist.
-
If Gard was meant to have an unknown Catch, why would they not say so?
Or you could just as easily say "If Gard was meant to have NO Catch, why would they not say so?" But whatever...
-
For me it is a matter of scale.
For Inhuman Toughness or Recovery I see a Catch as more trouble than it is worth. The powers themselves are useful to have, just not so powerful they require a shortcut to get around them.
For Supernatural Toughness or Recovery I see it as an optional situation depending on what accompanies it. A character with only Supernatural Toughness may not need a catch. All defense and no offense just means the character dies a little slower than most. A character with Toughness, Strength and Speed on the other hand is a whole different situation. A character like that definitely needs a catch of some sort and preferably a significant one.
For Mythic Toughness or Recovery a Catch is pretty much a must in my book. Even an otherwise average character can do a lot of damage if he can shrug off almost everything that can be thrown at him.
-
Or you could just as easily say "If Gard was meant to have NO Catch, why would they not say so?" But whatever...
They did. They listed her Powers, and The Catch was not one of them.
-
I'm still saying I bet it was a typo.
An oversight.
I'm pretty sure when a book contradicts itself in the same volume or on the same page it is an error.
I see Becq's point.
I think Sanctaphrax is ignoring the fact tht it also does not expressly say that she has no catch.
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.
-
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. :)
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@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: 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.
-
So you don't want to use it as written, but you don't want to rewrite it either.
What do you want?
-
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.
-
As-written is not flexible. Flexibility is not as-written.
-
As-written is not flexible. Flexibility is not as-written.
Okay.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Okay, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm probably just being thick...but I seriously don't follow.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter much. This whole discussion was kind of beside the point, right?
I'd kinda like to update the list again sometime today or tomorrow. Here's my current plan, tell me if it's bad:
-Make Catch optional.
-Use Becq's cost scaling, with one extra level for Catches that will be bypassed really often.
-Allow Catches to be taken for Powers other than Toughness at GM's discretion.
The third bullet is there because I realized today that it'd be really easy to do and that I couldn't think of any real consequences.
-
What he's saying is that 99% of the people who play this game--hell, probably literally everyone but the people who have directly contributed to this thread, and even then not all of them--will never even consider playing with whatever house rule results from this thread or the one about Physical Immunity.
The vast, vast, vast, etc. majority of players and GMs will just look at what's in the book, call it good, and gloss over the instances where there's some kind of hiccup. Because the book is universal, and the one thing that is really easy to point to and take with you.
You act like you're making some grand correction that's going to be a great boon to the players, but honestly? You could probably count on one hand, maybe two, the amount of people who'll actually use it with their groups.
-
Okay, I have no idea what you're talking about.
I'm probably just being thick...but I seriously don't follow.
Fortunately, it doesn't matter much. This whole discussion was kind of beside the point, right?
I'd kinda like to update the list again sometime today or tomorrow. Here's my current plan, tell me if it's bad:
-Make Catch optional.
-Use Becq's cost scaling, with one extra level for Catches that will be bypassed really often.
-Allow Catches to be taken for Powers other than Toughness at GM's discretion.
The third bullet is there because I realized today that it'd be really easy to do and that I couldn't think of any real consequences.
Replying to bold in bold and underline in underline.
Yep. I thought I was clear, but honestly who cares?
Sounds good to me.
Just ask if you need more feedback.
-
@Silverblaze: Excellent.
@Mr Death: Believe me, I have no illusions about the amount of use that this stuff sees. But I don't see why that's relevant. Making things better is worthwhile for its own sake.
-
Aight. Here's the new Catch.
THE CATCH [+varies]
Description: Your abilities are limited in some way.
Note: Suffering from the negative consequences of taking this Power will often, but not always, be a Compel.
Skills Affected: None.
Effects:
Limited Powers. Attach this Power to at least one other Power that you possess. Then, select a circumstance. Whenever that circumstance applies, you are treated as though you did not possess the attached abilities.
Rebate. This Power reduces the Refresh cost of the attached Powers. The percentage that the cost is reduced by depends upon how commonly the limitation on your Powers will cause problems for you. If it will rarely matter, reduce the cost by one-sixth. If it will cause problems from time to time, reduce the cost by one fourth. If it will be a frequent impediment, reduce the cost by half. And if it will prevent you from using your Powers except in unusual situations, reduce the cost by three fourths. At the GM's discretion, difficult-to-classify limitations might grant a rebate in between two of the suggested ones. Round all Refresh costs to the nearest positive integer.
What do y'all think of it?
I'm not happy with it. What the heck does "rarely" mean in this context? Well, I want it to mean "only a few times in the lifespan of the average game, it's a big deal when it shows up". But I'm not sure how to word that elegantly.
I'll take another poke at this later.
-
Looks familiar (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32434.msg1431596.html#msg1431596), though more generalized... :)
A nitpick: refresh costs are always expressed as negative numbers, so you might want to reword your rounding rules (or else technically, all powers will become +1 powers, and all characters will have all of them -- and small mountains of Fate points after each refresh). Also, you'll need to deal with rounding of halves (ie, -0.5, -1.5, etc: round to more expensive, or round to less expensive?)
As to the vagueness in the frequency descriptions, if this was in the DFRPG book, I could see this being handled by margin comments:
Wait the heck does "rarely" mean in this context?
Well, I want it to mean "only a few times in the lifespan of the average game, it's a big deal when it shows up."
Possibly with a bit more detail for each of the rarities, of course. Feel free to raid my post (linked at the top of this post) for possible starting points.
-
One other thing:
Folks have brought up the fact that the player (or even the GM) might not be able to accurately project how 'rare' a given Catch is (because who knows where the campaign might take you?). One way to address this might be to simply adjust the value of the Catch as the campaign progresses. You might cost out Catch:Fire one way when you start up the campaign, then adjust it significantly when the campaign veers off into the Elemental Plane O' Hot Stuff.
-
Looks familiar (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32434.msg1431596.html#msg1431596), though more generalized... :)
Yep.
Frankly, I didn't think I could do better than you already had.
A nitpick: refresh costs are always expressed as negative numbers, so you might want to reword your rounding rules (or else technically, all powers will become +1 powers, and all characters will have all of them -- and small mountains of Fate points after each refresh). Also, you'll need to deal with rounding of halves (ie, -0.5, -1.5, etc: round to more expensive, or round to less expensive?)
Herp derp.
As to the vagueness in the frequency descriptions, if this was in the DFRPG book, I could see this being handled by margin comments:Possibly with a bit more detail for each of the rarities, of course. Feel free to raid my post (linked at the top of this post) for possible starting points.
Interesting idea...but I don't have margins. Maybe I could add to the Note section.
One other thing:
Folks have brought up the fact that the player (or even the GM) might not be able to accurately project how 'rare' a given Catch is (because who knows where the campaign might take you?). One way to address this might be to simply adjust the value of the Catch as the campaign progresses. You might cost out Catch:Fire one way when you start up the campaign, then adjust it significantly when the campaign veers off into the Elemental Plane O' Hot Stuff.
I'd prefer to kludge that with Compels, but I think that's mostly my playstyle talking. I'll add a note warning about the problem and suggesting solutions.
-
Herp derp.
Unsure of what that was supposed to mean. I assume it was derogatory?
-
It indicates something stupid being done.
In this case, by me.
-
Oh. I see, sorry for my ignorance in any case.
-
It can also mean that someone else is doing something stupid. So reading it as an attack on Becq is actually reasonable, though I didn't intend it that way.
-
THE CATCH [+varies]
Description: Your abilities are limited in some way.
Note: Suffering from the negative consequences of taking this Power will often, but not always, be a Compel. If the importance of this Power changes during play, it might be necessary to change its cost or compensate with Compels.
Skills Affected: None.
Effects:
Limited Powers. Attach this Power to at least one other Power that you possess. Then, select a circumstance. Whenever that circumstance applies, you are treated as though you did not possess the attached abilities.
Rebate. This Power reduces the Refresh cost of the attached Powers. The percentage that the cost is reduced by depends upon how commonly the limitation on your Powers will cause problems for you. If it will matter rarely (perhaps once every 6 sessions or so), reduce the cost by one-sixth. If it will cause problems from time to time (in some, but not all, sessions), reduce the cost by one fourth. If it will be a frequent impediment (once a session on average), reduce the cost by half. And if it will prevent you from using your Powers except in unusual situations (no more than once a session on average), reduce the cost by three fourths. At the GM's discretion, difficult-to-classify limitations might grant a rebate in between two of the suggested ones. Decimal costs should be rounded to the nearest integer, with GMs rounding halves based on what cost seems more appropriate.
Blag. Not much of an improvement. Feedback would be appreciated, I could use some help with the next rewrite.