ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Tarion on January 01, 2013, 03:04:55 AM
-
Hey guys,
I tried searching this and didn't find anything, so I decided to throw a new thread up. As it stands, OW doesn't give a Catch for the Temple Dog's Inhuman Recovery. And while that's fine if they're only tangentially involved, I thought it'd be nice to try to nail one down for if players are trying to play them.
Now, based on what we know from the most recent AMA, Temple Dogs draw their power from thresholds. At it's most restrictive, this could translate to them only using their Inhuman Recovery when they're within, or near their "place of power" (as Lea puts it). I imagine a lot of people would find this really restrictive - Especially if they're wanting to play something reminiscent of Mouse, who we know cheats. They're wanting to play superdog, not the glorified security guard.
We could probably widen this a bit by also allowing it to work when protecting someone who shares a home with them. This more closely reflects the way Mouse acts in the series, where he's able to pull out some pretty intense superheroics when his friends and family are in danger. Unfortunately, this gets quite clumsy to phrase, which is a bit of a pain.
Thoughts on the matter? I'd rather avoid dropping the Catch altogether - The book is quite clear that it's a pretty potent power.
-
Inhuman recovery and toughness are not that big of a deal, that they would be gamebreaking without a catch. I for one can live with them, especially, if the subject is in fact inhuman. A D-Rex like Mouse would certainly be tougher than your average human, and it will certainly recover from wounds more quickly. Not necessarily by supernatural means, just because they are tougher by their very physical nature. I would, for example, give a bear inhuman toughness without a catch.
Anything above that though would need a catch, I think. It's "supernatural" toughness and recovery, it says so right there in the name. And even if temple dogs are tough, I would not grant them anything above inhuman, without additional justification. The catch would then stem from that additional justification, rather than their templedogness.
-
Inhuman recovery and toughness are not that big of a deal, that they would be gamebreaking without a catch. I for one can live with them, especially, if the subject is in fact inhuman. A D-Rex like Mouse would certainly be tougher than your average human, and it will certainly recover from wounds more quickly. Not necessarily by supernatural means, just because they are tougher by their very physical nature. I would, for example, give a bear inhuman toughness without a catch.
That does seem fair.
Anything above that though would need a catch, I think. It's "supernatural" toughness and recovery, it says so right there in the name. And even if temple dogs are tough, I would not grant them anything above inhuman, without additional justification. The catch would then stem from that additional justification, rather than their templedogness.
I'm not so sure. I mean, Mouse takes some fairly heavy hits throughout the series, and very rarely shows any effects. He gets hit at fairly high speeds by a van, and walks it off. He's shot. He jumps straight through a window on the second floor and lands running.
I wouldn't argue it for sure that he's at a Supernatural Toughness/Recovery level in game terms (I mean, look at the things with Supernatural resilience in OW. There's a fairly massive spread - Lord Raith and the Loup Garou are really supernaturally tough. On the other hand, I'm not sure I'd put Gard that far above Mouse. Yes, she heals quickly, but she still needed to seal her wounds to do so. She's not like Lord Raith who just ignores bullet wounds), but his toughness and recovery certainly are supernatural, rather than just him being a monstrous canine.
-
Personally, I'd go with Unholy Stuff for a Temple Dog's Catch, barring official information to the contrary, anyway. They are holy/celestial beings after all.
The 'powered by thresholds' thing sounds more like a Feeding Restriction applied to some or all of their powers than a Catch, at least to me.
-
Bear in mind, it's totally possible to have "Unknown [+0]" as a Catch. I mean, take, say, an elephant. That's at least Inhuman Toughness. But there isn't anything that would render an elephant as easy to kill as a regular human that would not work on an animal of similar toughness. Yes, you can kill an elephant with a lot of weapons, but elephant guns also do just as much damage to bears, or to people.
And yes, the book does say every Toughness power has to be attached to a Catch, but frankly, if it's +0, it could just as easily be "A 24K diamond that's been in the center of the sun and only I know about this weakness", in which case making it "Unknown" simplifies everything for all concerned.
-
Well, like you said: Mouse cheats. Could well be, that he declared the world his temple and he took physical immunity or something.
But that doesn't really help your game, does it? Ok, back on track :P
You could go with a clause that he only has his toughness and recovery powers when acting to defend what (or who) he is sworn to protect. Preemptive strikes? No superdog. Sort of like how the Righteousness bonus works. Additionally, the toughness and recovery powers could be attached to a sponsor, who catches additional blows, but for a price in debt. Maybe it's a bit like soulfire, and if the temple dog uses his toughness powers, he needs to recuperate his soul at one point, so if he uses it too long, it comes at the cost of the destruction of his soul.
I know, those are all not really standard catches, but temple dogs are by all accounts anything but standard. But all of those can work to limit the temple dogs access to his power, if you want to, even if it is just by compelling him to do so.
Bear in mind, it's totally possible to have "Unknown [+0]" as a Catch. I mean, take, say, an elephant. That's at least Inhuman Toughness. But there isn't anything that would render an elephant as easy to kill as a regular human that would not work on an animal of similar toughness. Yes, you can kill an elephant with a lot of weapons, but elephant guns also do just as much damage to bears, or to people.
That's what "Hulking size" is for, it adds a few more boxes to your stress track, like toughness does, only without the armor.
-
Bear in mind, it's totally possible to have "Unknown [+0]" as a Catch. I mean, take, say, an elephant. That's at least Inhuman Toughness. But there isn't anything that would render an elephant as easy to kill as a regular human that would not work on an animal of similar toughness. Yes, you can kill an elephant with a lot of weapons, but elephant guns also do just as much damage to bears, or to people.
Personally, I've always thought that such animals have a Catch of 'Certain specific vulnerable spots', which can actually be known by people who put some serious effort into, say, hunting and knowing the anatomy of that specific animal. That strikes me as a +0 (it's at least as hard as True Love, especially if those spots aren't very accessible).
And yes, the book does say every Toughness power has to be attached to a Catch, but frankly, if it's +0, it could just as easily be "A 24K diamond that's been in the center of the sun and only I know about this weakness", in which case making it "Unknown" simplifies everything for all concerned.
This is true, certainly. I'm not sure if it should be that hard to figure out a Temple Dog's weaknesses, though.
-
That's what "Hulking size" is for, it adds a few more boxes to your stress track, like toughness does, only without the armor.
Yeah, I know about Hulking Size. I guess a better example would be a tortoise. I'd bet money that the shell of an old Galapagos tortoise can stop virtually all clawed animals (excepting sharks, alligators, etc., since they can basically chew through steel), and small-caliber bullets, which is at least Inhuman Toughness. But there's nothing that can really go through a tortoise shell that wouldn't go through a similar amount of armor on something else, yet the armor is completely natural, and a tortoise is definitely no bigger than a person.
-
Yeah, I know about Hulking Size. I guess a better example would be a tortoise. I'd bet money that the shell of an old Galapagos tortoise can stop virtually all clawed animals (excepting sharks, alligators, etc., since they can basically chew through steel), and small-caliber bullets, which is at least Inhuman Toughness. But there's nothing that can really go through a tortoise shell that wouldn't go through a similar amount of armor on something else, yet the armor is completely natural, and a tortoise is definitely no bigger than a person.
That can easily be represented by a couple of stunts, for example one for endurance, that let's her reduce up to 2 shifts of stress inflicted by bonus stress from a weapon.
-
That can easily be represented by a couple of stunts, for example one for endurance, that let's her reduce up to 2 shifts of stress inflicted by bonus stress from a weapon.
That's substantially more powerful than an armour stunt should be by RAW.
-
That's substantially more powerful than an armour stunt should be by RAW.
Hmm, I see armor a bit different than this. Armor also applies to unarmed attacks, this only reduces shifts by weapons, strength and similar things will still get through. It is applied less general, so I thought it would be ok to move it up to 2 shifts. If it is attacked by a weapon:1, it will only take away 1 shift off the attack.
Otherwise, just make it armor:1, might be easier that way.
-
The existing armor Stunts are Armor 1, and then only very specific circumstances. See 'Tough Stuff' under Endurance, for example.
Armor 1 over a much broader category like 'weapon attacks' is overpowered, never mind Armor 2.
-
Personally, I've always thought that such animals have a Catch of 'Certain specific vulnerable spots', which can actually be known by people who put some serious effort into, say, hunting and knowing the anatomy of that specific animal. That strikes me as a +0 (it's at least as hard as True Love, especially if those spots aren't very accessible).
Given that research can teach you elephant anatomy, that Catch would be at least +1.
Personally, though, I prefer to use heavy weapons as a Catch. Because the massive size of an elephant reduces over-penetration and so makes heavy weaponry comparatively more effective. And because otherwise, an elephant with Supernatural Toughness and Hulking Size can shrug off anti-tank weaponry.
Inhuman recovery and toughness are not that big of a deal, that they would be gamebreaking without a catch. I for one can live with them, especially, if the subject is in fact inhuman.
I'm with you there. The game doesn't implode if you hand out a bit of Catchless Toughness/Recovery.
-
Given that research can teach you elephant anatomy, that Catch would be at least +1.
Depends on how difficult that knowledge is to put into use. I mean, if you need both knowledge and other criteria (using the right weaponry in the right way, something that might require specific skills and Aspects), it's suddenly a lot more difficult. I suppose that'd probably qualify for the 'use' portion of the cost as opposed to the 'research' portion, though...
Personally, though, I prefer to use heavy weapons as a Catch. Because the massive size of an elephant reduces over-penetration and so makes heavy weaponry comparatively more effective. And because otherwise, an elephant with Supernatural Toughness and Hulking Size can shrug off anti-tank weaponry.
A very reasonable alternative, particularly depending on how you stat anti-tank weaponry (and what anti-tank weaponry we're talking about). The only real criteria we have is 'Weapon 4 or higher'. If we assume the weaponry in question is, say, Weapon 8-10 and ignores armor...
I probably wouldn't go quite that far, personally, but it's a valid direction to take things, especially since being hit by a car is Weapon 5 (a circumstance that is barely gonna scratch a tank). Anything worse than that is thus logically higher (or does something else shiny like ignore armor, or both). Of course, it can certainly be argued that a car crash should be plenty to mess up an elephant...
-
Depends on how difficult that knowledge is to put into use. I mean, if you need both knowledge and other criteria (using the right weaponry in the right way, something that might require specific skills and Aspects), it's suddenly a lot more difficult. I suppose that'd probably qualify for the 'use' portion of the cost as opposed to the 'research' portion, though...
It would. The research portion is +1 regardless.
A very reasonable alternative, particularly depending on how you stat anti-tank weaponry (and what anti-tank weaponry we're talking about). The only real criteria we have is 'Weapon 4 or higher'. If we assume the weaponry in question is, say, Weapon 8-10 and ignores armor...
I probably wouldn't go quite that far, personally, but it's a valid direction to take things, especially since being hit by a car is Weapon 5 (a circumstance that is barely gonna scratch a tank). Anything worse than that is thus logically higher (or does something else shiny like ignore armor, or both). Of course, it can certainly be argued that a car crash should be plenty to mess up an elephant...
Given that a character with Mythic Strength can destroy reinforced steel barehanded and punches as weapon 6, I think weapons designed for use against heavy armour are probably about weapon 6.
The real effectiveness of an anti-tank weapon comes from satisfying the Catch of a tank, in my eyes. A car, though nearly as deadly to a human being, doesn't do that.
PS: I don't think it's possible for a weapon to have "ignores armour" as a quality. Weapons have a rating and Aspects, that's it.
-
It would. The research portion is +1 regardless.
Yeah, you're probably right.
Given that a character with Mythic Strength can destroy reinforced steel barehanded and punches as weapon 6, I think weapons designed for use against heavy armour are probably about weapon 6.
I dunno, some of that 'only' being Weapon 6 is the human body not being able to apply its strength effectively in a damaging fashion to other people (no sharp edges, for example)...something as simple as Claws raises that to Weapon 8. Still, 6-8's probably the range I'd use for such things, yeah.
The real effectiveness of an anti-tank weapon comes from satisfying the Catch of a tank, in my eyes. A car, though nearly as deadly to a human being, doesn't do that.
Hmmm. I'm not sure if building a tank with the existing Toughness rules and thus a Catch is quite the right way to handle such a thing. On the other hand I must admit to not coming up with anything more appropriate right now...
PS: I don't think it's possible for a weapon to have "ignores armour" as a quality. Weapons have a rating and Aspects, that's it.
Absolutely true, technically speaking. Giving some weapons a certain degree of ability to ignore armor is completely a House Rule...but a pretty reasonable one given the way some weapons actually work. I guess you could mimic it with an appropriate Aspect, too, but some people might easily go another route.
-
The 'powered by thresholds' thing sounds more like a Feeding Restriction applied to some or all of their powers than a Catch, at least to me.
That's a fascinating way to do it. Mechanically, it fits far better than a Catch for what I was trying to do. It ties the Temple Dog to their home, without crippling them outside it. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think it's a near perfect fit. Mouse, for example, pretty clearly takes a scene or two out to recover behind his threshold after using his Bark in White Night, in a way that's consistent with recovering from Feeding failure.
The only downside is that this is already represented a bit in the Temple Dog kit by the options for them to take Mental Stress to power their abilities. I suppose one way around this would be to switch The Bark and Sacred Guardian to Hunger stress, rather than Mental Stress, to represent them powering it from the energy they're channelling from their threshold.
I also don't know the system well enough to say what that does to balance - If you give them a feeding dependency without changing their abilities, they're going to have three stress tracks on the go in a physical encounter. It seems like it might be quite vulnerable to gaming, if done well (And YMMV as to whether that's a good thing or not).
Also, I wanted to add that I genuinely love the way that discussions about mechanics on this board have a tendency to branch out. We've got Temple Dogs, Tortoises and anti-tank weaponry, all on one page.
-
That's a fascinating way to do it. Mechanically, it fits far better than a Catch for what I was trying to do. It ties the Temple Dog to their home, without crippling them outside it. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I think it's a near perfect fit. Mouse, for example, pretty clearly takes a scene or two out to recover behind his threshold after using his Bark in White Night, in a way that's consistent with recovering from Feeding failure.
Indeed. this has always seemed the logical way to handle such a thing to me, assuming you wish to handle it at all.
The only downside is that this is already represented a bit in the Temple Dog kit by the options for them to take Mental Stress to power their abilities. I suppose one way around this would be to switch The Bark and Sacred Guardian to Hunger stress, rather than Mental Stress, to represent them powering it from the energy they're channelling from their threshold.
Definitely a valid way to do it, if you like...though I might be more inclined to leave it as-is. Or, if you do it this way, keep most of the Inhuman level physical stuff (probably everything but Recovery, really) out of the Feeding Dependency, just so they don't get super-tired all the time just from a standard battle.
I also don't know the system well enough to say what that does to balance - If you give them a feeding dependency without changing their abilities, they're going to have three stress tracks on the go in a physical encounter. It seems like it might be quite vulnerable to gaming, if done well (And YMMV as to whether that's a good thing or not).
Eh...no more than a Wizard with a Feeding Dependency (Magical Energy) on, say, an Inhuman Physical Ability or two (a very valid build for a Wizard with a bit of a magic-enhanced physique). Any gaming the system is really slowed down by the necessity of taking both Conviction and Discipline at at least fairly good ratings to make full use of the abilities in question (switching it all to Hunger Stress is debatably more powerful, since you can drop Conviction to Average at little loss then). I'd rather encourage tough-minded Temple dogs all-round, mechanically speaking. The powers in question would also still fall under the Feeding Dependency, so they'd actually be double-costing, hitting two tracks at once (well, one during combat, the other afterward, but still). I'd likely be inclined (as mentioned above) to say that the basic Inhuman level physical stuff didn't count on the Feeding Restriction, just to make it not too rough on the poor doggies...
Also, I wanted to add that I genuinely love the way that discussions about mechanics on this board have a tendency to branch out. We've got Temple Dogs, Tortoises and anti-tank weaponry, all on one page.
It's fun, innit? :)