when things don't have a catch

[Richard_Chilton]

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

[EdgeOfDreams]

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.

[zenten]

My PCs have taken out a badie with Mythic Toughness before without using the Catch.  It's certainly possible.

[Sanctaphrax]

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.

[Discipol]

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.

[ARedthorn]

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.

[Discipol]

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.

[Masurao]

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...

[Discipol]

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.

[ARedthorn]

... 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?

[Sanctaphrax]

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.

[zenten]

I'd give a bear or rhino super high levels of Endurance, not Toughness.

[ARedthorn]

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).

[Discipol]

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

[ARedthorn]

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.