Catch I don't need no stinking Catch...

[Arcane257]

or do I?

I know by the rules you must take a catch that bypasses your abilities but it seems reasonable to me that some beings don't have a catch so to speak (unless its a universal thing like Swords of the Cross, Soul Fire, ect.). Has anyone tried this out? If so did it seem unreasonable to you? I am sure this has come up before, and what I am mainly interested in is peoples thoughts on it. Potential problems, actual play, and so forth.

Thanks in advance

[EdgeOfDreams]

There's a couple general lines of thought here:

1) Why not have a catch, but one so obscure and hard to get that it's worth +0? It'd probably never come up in the game, ever.

2) Only Physical Immunity really *needs* a catch.  All other toughness/recovery powers can be beaten with a large enough application of force.

[Arcane257]

I mean I could allow a catch of a dagger with my true name inscribed on it that was forged by Zeus on the first day of the year 273 BC, but at that point I am pretty much saying no catch yeah?

[UmbraLux]

Yep.  Technically you need a catch but, since it can be a +0 unknown catch, it doesn't need to be something which shows up in the game.

Even a +0 catch on Physical Immunity isn't necessarily a stopper (though I agree with EoD and would encourage use of a catch) - you can still be taken out via social or mental means. 

[Arcane257]

Basically what inspired this idea was reading a book the other day about Frankenstein still being alive creating newer and better creations. I thought it would be fun to bring that into the D-verse with "Frankenstein" being a disciple of Kemmler who went a different path (I am sure I am not the first to think of something like this). I thought it would be fun to play a creation with the catch weapons with my true name on them, especially with an aspect of my only Frankenstein knows my True Name or the like. So be stronger, faster, more resilient, guy who is wondering around wondering if he is a real boy or Pinocchio and if ether turns out to be true now what? Seems like it could be a lot of fun and a good character to hand to a newbie that will be simple mechanics wise but leave plenty of room for character development over time. Then I got to wondering if such a character really needs a catch as thematically it didn't seem too important... which lead me here.

[Sanctaphrax]

Well, it's probably not necessary for balance reasons.

But it seems to me that most forms of Toughness can be bypassed somehow. Skin like iron won't help against poison. A robot is vulnerable to hexing. Simple physical size renders one more vulnerable to heavy weapons. Etc.

Where exactly does the Toughness of this new creation of Frankenstein come from?

[Arcane257]

I was thinking like 200 years or so of mystical research dedicated to making bodies resistant to harm by a guy who is willing to use just about anything to get the job done. I figure like the rest of Kemmlers brood he would probably be very over confident about his mental, social, mystical defenses so not worry too much about building them into the body  as he will bring those into it when he finally creates his masterpiece. I also kind of like the idea of him using the flesh of different super naturals in his creations in an attempt to further increase the bodies resiliency.

To be honest though I saw it less as toughness and more as a recovery thing. IE the body just keeps repairing all harm done until it just gets overwhelmed and can't keep up anymore. Thats probably because I grew up watching the crow though and the idea of someone watching the hole you just shot up in their hand close up before they go back to beating you to a pulp still amuses me on some level.


PS also you really think a pixie is less threatened by the impact of a speeding minivan going 60 than say the Jolly Green Giant? or am I misunderstanding your size comment?

[ARedthorn]

To the heavy weapons vs small or large targets... best example of what he means is this:
1) Pixie hit by a point blank shotgun slug.
2) Pixie caught in a 4lb C4 blast.
3) a giant hit by a point blank shotgun slug.
4) a giant caught in a 4lb C4 blast.

Not saying that the C4 isn't clearly more damaging than the shotgun- or less threatening somehow, but either one will completely obliterate the pixie... it's semantics which one is more damaging, when all either one leaves is a pasty smudge.
Almost no difference between 1 and 2... but the difference between 3 and 4 is significant because the Giant is actually capable of taking that entire blast if he's right on top of it.

The solution offered by Sancta is that instead of granting C4 damage on the order of Weapon:10 or more (which it would need to take out the giant easily), simply give it the Massive Damage label, and have it bypass the catch of larger creatures.
Make sense?

[Sanctaphrax]

What ARedthorn said.

With the addendum that a pixie might actually be less threatened by the impact of a vehicle.

If you don't have much mass, you might just get carried along by the minivan instead of being splattered. What hurts you is having some parts of your body differently from others, and being tiny makes it easier for your entire body to move together.

Apparently flies can take hits from cars without too much trouble, but don't quote me on that. Just something I heard somewhere.

For the character in question here, I think that you could easily crib the catch from one of the supernaturals used in your development. Or you could use the "dead is dead" thing from the ghoul catch (if you have Recovery).

[sinker]

The way I always look at a +0 catch is that it doesn't have to be specified in advance because I will only use it when it's dramatically appropriate and it will predominantly be GM fiat anyway.

So yeah, just give him a +0 unknown catch and then when his story comes to a head go "Oh no, it's that thing that hurts you!" It tends to work well (especially when you go into more detail than "that thing that hurts you").

[ways and means]

If you don't want a catch you could just have a +0 catch of sword of the crosses it means the same thing anyway (your catch is an irrelevance as the swords bypass it either way). 

[Richard_Chilton]

Here's a good 0 point catch:
"No one born of woman or fathered by man may slay ye, yet only mortal born might do so".
- meaning that you need a test tube baby delivered by C-section strike the final blow...

And the crazy thing is, it's only 0 point if the prophecy is known only to a handful of people.

Richard

[Anher]

Here's a good 0 point catch:
"No one born of woman or fathered by man may slay ye, yet only mortal born might do so".
- meaning that you need a test tube baby delivered by C-section strike the final blow...

And the crazy thing is, it's only 0 point if the prophecy is known only to a handful of people.

Richard

That seems like it would have to be a clone depending on how strictly you define the word 'fathered'.

[Arcane257]

Thanks for the replies folks. It looks like some really think having a functional catch is needed for game balance and others do not. For my own take I really think the power of attacks out classes the defensive power gained from toughness and regen, within the scene anyways, and that's before you move on to ritual magic.

As for needing a catch being in the books I am not so sure anymore. Recent books have had some bad guys in them that seem to have pretty uber toughness that has no exception and their "weaknesses" being indirect attacks or just an even higher level than previously done brute force brought against them.

Thanks again for all the help

[Sanctaphrax]

Wait, who here has been arguing that you need a Catch for balance?

I don't think you need one for balance. I just have trouble thinking of a way to get Toughness that cannot be bypassed.

PS: Even if I cared about examples from the novels, which I don't, I'd still call whatever examples you have in mind irrelevant because having no evidence of a catch is not the same as having evidence of no catch.
PPS: The rules say you need a catch. This is an inarguable fact, unless I misremember. What I'm trying to say is that it's a rule that you can ignore without consequences.