ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: UmbraLux on October 03, 2011, 02:46:56 AM
-
Spun off from here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29497.msg1252355.html#msg1252355).
And why not allow massive damage as a catch?
Narratively: 1) it simply doesn't make sense for me to have one piece of lead allow regeneration while another doesn't; 2) it's boring - a bigger boom always does more damage; 3) military grade weapons aren't "hide-able" (as in from the law and other mortals) in an urban setting. Mechanically: 1) "massive damage" is poorly defined and, while it could be narrowed down; 2) it will mean near automatic extreme injury or death and consequently; 3) lead to down time or, worse, sitting out scenes for healing. Metagame reasons: 1) going from ping "I'm not hurt" to "Boom I'm dead" isn't usually fun; 2) yet catches above 0 should show up in the game; and 3) the same weapon is likely to completely destroy other team members.
I'm pretty sure I can answer #1 of each category pretty well.
But the others are good points.
Still, I can't think of a better catch for a large animal.
Think about this:
Normal rifles are fairly worthless against an elephant (according to Orwell). But an elephant gun can kill one in one shot. How would that work without using the Catch mechanics?
I honestly don't see the need for large animals to have toughness / recovery powers...much less a catch. A high Endurance, the "No Pain, No Gain" stunt, and the Hulking Size power (when appropriate) should be plenty against any normal animal. Basically, your elephant probably has 6 stress boxes and two extra mild consequences. That's enough to make taking it down with a light weapon extremely difficult.
As for needing a high powered rifle to damage an elephant, this guy took one down with a bow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcmfcihdd3U) (don't watch unless you want to see a dead animal). In short, controlling the situation and accuracy are far more important than weapon power.
That last really applies to most situations. It's not hard to damage people or animals. When you're accurate, a .22 will kill a human as dead and as easily as a .50 caliber. I do think FATE's aspect creation rules do a good job of modelling this...better than most games I've played.
Edit: I would also like to see your thoughts on the #1s!
-
About narrative note #1: The idea is that really heavy weapons are not terribly effective against people because they go right through. The extra power is wasted. Against something big, the extra power gets used.
This is true in real life: the difference in effectiveness between a small weapon and a big one is much more pronounced when aiming at something big.
About mechanical note #1: "Massive damage" can be defined about as well as True Love. If something would go right through a person and the wall behind them, it's massive damage. Weapon 5+ or so.
About metagame note #1: That's just the reality of catches for high-level toughness. An appropriate threat to someone with Mythic Toughness will splatter him if it satisfies his catch. C'est la vie (et la morte).
The guy in the video is clearly a Superb archer with multiple stunts using a very high-powered bow (weapon 3ish), plus several maneuvers and FP. Plus an ambush. With all that, he could probably go right through a 10-box stress track.
In my mind, there is no doubt that big animals need Toughness. Almost everything with Hulking Size needs Toughness.
An elephant without Toughness can be killed from ambush by an unarmed Pure Mortal Chest Deep martial artist, without the use of FP or fancy tricks. This is mildly absurd.
An elephant without Toughness can be killed by a gang of ordinary people throwing rocks. Again, absurd.
But more important than that is this: the difference in effectiveness between a pistol and an elephant gun against an elephant is greater than that indicated by the threeish point difference in weapon ratings. The Catch simulates this elegantly and effectively.
-
I don't really care what people use for catches.
I will say they generally should be symbolic or magical...and massive damage does sound a bit bland. No doubt there.
I can't see any real problems with it beyond that though.
As for a pure mortal being able to punch out an elephant... well - in this system some pure mortal with a might of +5 and a good roll can lift things that have a value of 9...thats more than most large cars....
I see little point in worrying if punching out an elephant is possible if a normal person can lift cars up. (arguing that the worlds strongest man can lift small cars or pull semi tractors won't hold water here. pretty sure the game lets you lift and carry anything you can pick up...even over your head. Hell with a 9 on a might roll you can pick up and body slam that same elephant.)
-
I totally agree that big animals should get toughness powers, but unless they are actually magical in some way they shouldn't have a catch. My understanding of what a catch represents is the one thing that busts through whatever magic makes you tougher than you should be, so while an elephant might have superhuman toughness it doesn't have it as a result of magic that is vulnerable to big bullets.
P.S. (IMHO you shouldn't add a catch unless you have a really good narrative reason why it should be there, otherwise the whole catch setup becomes way to meta-gamey.)
-
I totally agree that big animals should get toughness powers, but unless they are actually magical in some way they shouldn't have a catch. My understanding of what a catch represents is the one thing that busts through whatever magic makes you tougher than you should be, so while an elephant might have superhuman toughness it doesn't have it as a result of magic that is vulnerable to big bullets.
P.S. (IMHO you shouldn't add a catch unless you have a really good narrative reason why it should be there, otherwise the whole catch setup becomes way to meta-gamey.)
I am inclined to agree, mostly anyhow.
In the case of catches being meta - gamey...well, sometimes to preserve some semblance of game balance meta gamey things need to exist.
If balance isn't an issue, I suppose you can just disregard that.
-
The narrative logic here is:
It's really easy to kill an elephant with a rocket launcher.
But if you give an elephant Hulking Size and Supernatural Toughness, then that won't work.
You have to give an elephant Supernatural Toughness and Hulking Size, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
So you make it so the rocket launcher satisfies the Catch.
Bam! An elegant solution emerges.
PS: @Megapuff: The Purity Test in your signature has been updated. I recommend you try out the new one.
PPS: The lifting rules actually don't let you carry anything you can lift without penalty. You need Might equal to the lifting difficulty +4 in order to throw something or carry it without effort.
-
The narrative logic here is:
It's really easy to kill an elephant with a rocket launcher.
But if you give an elephant Hulking Size and Supernatural Toughness, then that won't work.
You have to give an elephant Supernatural Toughness and Hulking Size, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
So you make it so the rocket launcher satisfies the Catch.
Bam! An elegant solution emerges.
PS: @Megapuff: The Purity Test in your signature has been updated. I recommend you try out the new one.
PPS: The lifting rules actually don't let you carry anything you can lift without penalty. You need Might equal to the lifting difficulty +4 in order to throw something or carry it without effort.
Yeah ok. But the point is, one must suspend belief. No matter what mortals can potentially lift more by system than anyone in real life. (especially with stunts or a few tags)
-
My understanding of what a catch represents is the one thing that busts through whatever magic makes you tougher than you should be...
You have a tank. It can take machinegun fire and grenades. Thus, it has at least supernatural toughness (and maybe a couple of stunts) in addition to its hulking size. If you use specially designed kinetic penetrators they will pierce the tank's armor despite being only weapon 4 at most (KEPs are low caliber). If you use EMP or other electric shock, you fry its electronics. If you fire a blast of spellfire, it blows up (magic + technology = not good). All those are catches, effectively.
Catches don't always have to do with magic. The same situation as with the tank happens when you use fire against a mummy or a wickerman (wood golem). It also works on Ghouls - if they bleed out, no recovery. Ditto for Red Court vampires - their stomach is a physiological weakness rather than an outright magical one.
-
About narrative note #1: The idea is that really heavy weapons are not terribly effective against people because they go right through. The extra power is wasted. Against something big, the extra power gets used.
This is true in real life: the difference in effectiveness between a small weapon and a big one is much more pronounced when aiming at something big.
While you do have a point - a larger animal has more flesh to go through - it is still just flesh.
About mechanical note #1: "Massive damage" can be defined about as well as True Love. If something would go right through a person and the wall behind them, it's massive damage. Weapon 5+ or so.
Yep, I did note this could be resolved.
About metagame note #1: That's just the reality of catches for high-level toughness. An appropriate threat to someone with Mythic Toughness will splatter him if it satisfies his catch. C'est la vie (et la morte).
Nope, this is completely false. If the catch is an object or material which can be weaponized, it will hurt both tough guy and fragile guy equally. Take a catch of silver as an example - make a silver knife which does Weapon:1 or so. If everything but toughness powers are equal, it will do the same damage to both victims and take the same amount of healing time. That's the point of a catch - it bypasses toughness.
The guy in the video is clearly a Superb archer with multiple stunts using a very high-powered bow (weapon 3ish), plus several maneuvers and FP. Plus an ambush. With all that, he could probably go right through a 10-box stress track.
Yes. This is why I stressed the importance of controlling the situation and skill / aiming.
In my mind, there is no doubt that big animals need Toughness. Almost everything with Hulking Size needs Toughness.
An elephant without Toughness can be killed from ambush by an unarmed Pure Mortal Chest Deep martial artist, without the use of FP or fancy tricks. This is mildly absurd.
An elephant without Toughness can be killed by a gang of ordinary people throwing rocks. Again, absurd.
But more important than that is this: the difference in effectiveness between a pistol and an elephant gun against an elephant is greater than that indicated by the threeish point difference in weapon ratings. The Catch simulates this elegantly and effectively.
Absurdities always show up in game systems - if you let them. Those same people are probably punching / throwing rocks through steel walls. ;)
If you do think it necessary to give animals a toughness power, I'd go with MegaPuff's recommendation of no catch.
-
This is one of the reasons that in my group, we flesh weapons out with attached aspects... nearly every weapon. It has yet to provide any disadvantages, but something like "Massive Damage" or, hell, "Elephant Gun" might be a weapon aspect. We treat these as permanent/semi-sticky aspects: usable once per weapon maintenance for free (I'll explain this next), and for a FP after that. For balance reasons, and as far as determining how effective a given weapon is, we consider each aspect permanently placed on a weapon to be equivalent to a +1 damage bonus.
So, a Weapon:3 Rifle with "Elephant Gun" and "Massive Damage" and "Hollow-point Rounds" on it is capable of doing a theoretical Weapon 9 strike to a target as long as it's an elephant (or something equivalently massive)... easy overkill to anything else, but costs FP to be able to consistently do that much damage... and is roughly equivalent to a gun that does a constant Weapon:6 (Base 3 + 3 aspects).
Similarly, we stat out a Barrett .50 Cal as Weapon:5 with "Massive Damage" and "Long-Range Scope." Other possible non-lasting aspects include "Cold Fire Ready" and any number of custom hand-loaded rounds (these latter handled through a craft check to actually place a sticky aspect on the weapon...). Given a marksman who's willing to do this prep, and takes time to aim ("In My Sights", "Steady Breathing", "Calculated Shot"), a sniper can easily do CRAZY massive damage on a single shot... and that's not unrealistic or game-breaking, IMO.
The scope can be tagged for extra accuracy, or add to range (negate range penalties)... but as my ex-army marksman buddy can confirm, firing a gun changes how it fires. It heats up the barrel, leaves carbon in the barrel that can affect accuracy, shakes the scope slightly, etc, etc... all minor effects, but worth paying attention to.
This #1, explains narratively why the aspects only get one free use (FPs after that represent some measure of skill to adjust for the change), and #2 why weapon maintenance resets that usage (cleaning the barrel, dialing the scope back in, cold-firing it brings all this back into play)... it just has to be represented in some way- even if it happens off-screen.
For melee weapons, think about how you hone the edge of a blade for extra sharpness. Those edges don't keep even past the first cut. The most common melee permanent aspects I see are "Concealable," "Honed Edge," and "Heavy." (each with what I hope are obvious uses, and occasional drawbacks).
Concealable 'goes away' because you've lost the element of surprise (unless you're getting weird with slight-of-hand), honed edges wear off, and heavy weapons tire you... all require FPs, or a chance to rehide the weapon, rework the edge, or rest.
Would something like this work better for killing your elephant?
It's not catch- doesn't completely bypass that extra meat, but it goes a long way towards helping.
An elephant without Toughness can be killed from ambush by an unarmed Pure Mortal Chest Deep martial artist, without the use of FP or fancy tricks. This is mildly absurd.
An elephant without Toughness can be killed by a gang of ordinary people throwing rocks. Again, absurd.
But more important than that is this: the difference in effectiveness between a pistol and an elephant gun against an elephant is greater than that indicated by the threeish point difference in weapon ratings. The Catch simulates this elegantly and effectively.
I agree with you on almost everything, sancta, but must point out this:
I think an elephant getting taken out by a gang of ordinary people throwing rocks isn't that absurd... after all, being driven off is a kind of taken out, and is completely reasonable. If the gang has it's heart set on killing it, and the GM is uncomfortable with that, this is where negotiating the take-out comes into play.
Also, I'd say my solution effectively and elegantly solves the problem without needing to go into catches.
-
Maybe it's just the phrase "Massive Damage" that's problematic? Why not rephrase the catch as "Armor Piercing" or something like that? Hardened steel or tungsten bullets (encased in copper or cupronickel to avoid shredding your gun barrel) don't really have any advantages against a regular person but they would probably work better on an elephant or rhino than a normal round, which would likely have trouble penetrating the hide, muscle, and bone that are between the shooter and anything particularly vital.
-
You could give an elephant a catch of heavy weapons (which would cover most of the tings above weapons 5 would cover) other than magic (but then magic does enough stress anyway). If you don't thin things should have a catch but feel obliged by the system to make one then I find "high yield thermonuclear bomb" catch 0 (high yield nuclear bombs make anything toughness power other than physical immunity irrelevant anyway doing sufficient damage) which almost never comes up in game or for physical immunity sword of the cross (+0 catch) (which makes physical immunity irrelevant).
-
Wow, there's a lot to address here:
1. Why does the elephant just being flesh matter?
2. ARedthorn's weapon system sounds workable, but too complex for me. And it makes weaponry too important. Also, I'd rather not use houserules here, since the issue here is applicable to people who don't use them.
3. Mortals can indeed do implausible things, for a number of reasons. Mainly FP, which are essentially plot power. But that's no reason to throw plausibility out the window. The examples I gave do not rely upon FP or anything weird. They represent what would happen under normal circumstances.
4. If you don't give an elephant Toughness, it will be more fragile than many mortal combat characters. Sounds like a joke, but it isn't.
5. I may have explained the point about the catch being death poorly. My point was this: a character with Mythic Toughness likely faces weapon 8+ attacks regularly. If one of those attacks happens to satisfy his Catch, that's probably going to mess him up bad. For example, a Changeling with Mythic Toughness can take hits from a Mythically Strong demon with a weapon 3 stone hammer without too much trouble. But if that hammer happens to be iron, a glancing blow inflicts a severe consequence.
6. A good enough attack roll will let you kill something with Supernatural Toughness in one hit without the Catch. That's what the importance of aiming is in this system.
Alright. Now that that's covered, let me ask y'all something.
Why not give large animals Toughness? And why not give them a Catch? I seriously don't understand the problem here.
PS: I'll ignore the bit in YS saying that a Catch is mandatory because it's kinda dumb.
-
I don't see any reason not to give animals toughness. At the very least the first level is only defined as "Inhuman" and I would think many animals are tougher than humans.
As far as catches go I like DFJunkie's suggestion. "Armor Piercing" works better for me than "Massive Damage" under these circumstances. However don't ghouls have a "Massive damage" catch or do they just go with holy items and then explain massive damage in the flavor text?
-
I'm fine with giving animals at least Inhuman Toughness with a nonspecific Catch of +0, then allowing the players the option to Declare that Catch as being satisfied by an Aspect like:
Go For the Eyes
Blind Spot
Vulnerable Spot
Elephant Gun
Armor-Piercing
etc.
-
I'm not sure which side of the fence I want to be on. I can see good points on both sides. But to play Devil's Advocate, I will see what I can come up with..
An Elephant without a toughness power might not die from small caliber bullet wounds, but it won't wander away unscathed, either. Unless you hit a tusk, you'll do some damage, perhaps even lasting damage. Giving it toughness with a catch of (Massive damage) or (Heavy weapons) doesn't render the elephant invulnerable, just harder to kill.
I think the worry is in balance, and in the possibility of putting too much protection on the elephant, so that it is useless to come at it with a .22 rifle, even if it lets you walk up to it and put the barrel against its eye. The only thing keeping the balance is what the GM would allow.
Of course, perhaps adding a few stress levels and aome armor might do the trick, too. Without the need of a catch.
-
Let me ask this: is there any reason that an elephant can't have natural armor not from a Toughness power (ie, a 1 refresh power Tough Hide that grants Armor:1 or 2 refresh for Armor:2, etc.)... and/or Endurance higher than +5?
Given the above, you can simulate much of the benefit of a toughness power without needing to worry about actual toughness or it's catches... and it might be more appropriate than Toughness to do so.
Instead of an elephant with Armor:1, 8 Stress boxes (4 + Hulking Size + Inhuman Toughness) and 1 extra mild P, you have one with Armor:2, 6 Stress boxes (4 + Hulking Size), and 2 extra mild P (Same refresh cost, but higher skill).
In a single event (attack), having an extra mild consequence is of equal value to having a couple extra stress boxes... but over multiple events, less useful. The key here becomes the extra armor the second one applies...
As for Massive Damage weapons, you can simply rule that such attacks ignore armor ("I don't care if you're wearing a bullet-proof vest, you just got hit by a Mack Truck!")
Your .22 glances completely off the new build (accuracy pending, it does less Weapon damage than the Armor rating), but anything qualifying as Armor Piercing or Massive Damage ignores that armor and will most likely go straight into consequences (as I recall, hunters with elephant guns didn't expect to take an elephant down in one hit every time), or even death (accuracy pending).
Just trying to throw alternate options out there... best case scenario, one of them makes everyone happy. Worst case scenario, they can provide a benchmark for measuring what's already been put forward.
That said- I'm not unhappy with the idea of Armor Piercing as a Catch (for Toughness powers that are rooted in thick hides or armor and whatnot). It makes sense, solves the problem of weapon scaling... It's a good solution, I think... not perfect, but close as we're likely to get in the RAW.
-
I'm fine with giving animals at least Inhuman Toughness with a nonspecific Catch of +0, then allowing the players the option to Declare that Catch as being satisfied by an Aspect like:
Go For the Eyes
Blind Spot
Vulnerable Spot
Elephant Gun
Armor-Piercing
etc.
+1
-
Shoving a gun up against an eye would probably either give you a huge bonus to hit or bypass normal attack resolution entirely.
devonapple's approach would work, but it strikes me as a bit of a kludge. Also I think such a catch would be worth something, but that's not important.
ARedthorn's idea is also decent, but I'd rather not invent custom powers or houserules to deal with something so easily done with standard Toughness.
-
I forget: is there a Mortal Stunt that gives Armor?
-
I forget: is there a Mortal Stunt that gives Armor?
There's... Teflon Persona, which is Armor:1 for social attacks, but I don't know if you were looking for precedent for a different stress track or something preexisting in the rules for physical stress or what.
-
Yep. Several. Canon has Teflon Persona (YS page 154), Tower Of Faith (YS page 150) and Tough Stuff (YS page 152).
There's more if you're willing to go beyond canon, of course.
-
If you buy Tough Stuff (1 Armor against blunt trauma) and then make another stunt like Bulletproof (1 Armor against piercing trauma) you're spending as much as Inhuman Toughness, but getting less of an effect, and no Catch necessary. Add in No Pain, No Gain, and you have a moderately tough critter for 3 Refresh. Less efficient, pointwise, but you sidestep any argument about a Catch requirement. Plus, animals can cost as much Refresh as you need them to cost, because they are ultimately not going to be the game's primary antagonists.
Edit: Or maybe we create a 1-Refresh power "No Catch"?
-
1. Why does the elephant just being flesh matter?
Arrows and light bullets still penetrate, rocks hurt, knives and axes cut.
3. Mortals can indeed do implausible things, for a number of reasons. Mainly FP, which are essentially plot power. But that's no reason to throw plausibility out the window. The examples I gave do not rely upon FP or anything weird. They represent what would happen under normal circumstances.
It seems to me we're simply differing on which end of the "implausibility spectrum" to favor. :)
4. If you don't give an elephant Toughness, it will be more fragile than many mortal combat characters. Sounds like a joke, but it isn't.
More fragile than pure mortals with the same number of refresh? I think I suggested an elephant would have 6 physical stress and 3 mild consequences at minimum. It could have more if you don't cap its Endurance at human levels.
5. I may have explained the point about the catch being death poorly. My point was this: a character with Mythic Toughness likely faces weapon 8+ attacks regularly. If one of those attacks happens to satisfy his Catch, that's probably going to mess him up bad. For example, a Changeling with Mythic Toughness can take hits from a Mythically Strong demon with a weapon 3 stone hammer without too much trouble. But if that hammer happens to be iron, a glancing blow inflicts a severe consequence.
Probably a difference in game styles, but I haven't had anything close to Weapon:8 in game play yet. The brick in the party has shrugged off pistol fire and necromantic attacks...the curse stuck though. ;)
6. A good enough attack roll will let you kill something with Supernatural Toughness in one hit without the Catch. That's what the importance of aiming is in this system.
Yep, no argument there! Of course aiming, skill, and controlling the situation let you hurt just about anything with just about any weapon.
Alright. Now that that's covered, let me ask y'all something.
Why not give large animals Toughness? And why not give them a Catch? I seriously don't understand the problem here.
PS: I'll ignore the bit in YS saying that a Catch is mandatory because it's kinda dumb.
In addition to the reasons listed in my initial post, it's a matter of philosophy. I prefer a minimalist approach. KISS. I also see a tendency in (most if not all) role playing games to escalate damage and power levels far too quickly. It does sell splat books...but that's one reason I don't play D&D anymore. :-\
In general though, it's the specific catch I object to more than the toughness power (at least at Inhuman levels). The idea that ~0.43 ounces of metal will hurt an animal if it's from an RPG exploding but not if it's from a gun is counter-intuitive to me. A <insert weapon value> catch means a poor shot with the right weapon value is better than a good shot with something smaller...even when the resulting shifts are equal. Yet we know humans have hunted large animals with primitive weapons for a long time.
For simplicity's sake, I'd go with either no catch or no toughness powers. Devonapple's and ARedthorn's suggestions work as well. Actually, even the catch of "Massive Damage" is workable...it's just counter-intuitive and not something I'd use.
-
devon:
The major concern though is finding a situational way around the extra damage resistance... because there are ways that seem binary rather than gradual (ie, suddenly do significantly more damage against such a target because they're designed to, rather than scaling up to battle-field weaponry grade).
Bypassing a catch altogether doesn't solve this unless you involve a work-around representative of the extra damage.
For example, one could just give them situational armor (only applies against weapons of a certain kind or strength- as appropriate to the critter type... for elephants, anything not AP)... but it's semantics whether that's any different than using Toughness + a Catch, since the effect is essentially the same either way.
Like I said- sticking to the RAW, I don't see another way to handle this easily, than Toughness w/ an AP Catch.
At which point, we're back to debating whether or not AP or Massive Damage is a fair catch.
Umbra:
Fair on all points save one: There is a precise, critical reason why ~0.43 ounces of metal will hurt an animal more from one source than another... the delivery of that metal. More powerful guns manage extra penetration by 2 effects: speed, and shape/balance of the round. Faster, smaller but denser bullets will be more likely to breach a target, and from there do damage. When it comes to humans, and even animals, it gets a bit pointless (exactly how dead can something get? 'extra dead?')... but in this case, a poor shot with the right weapon IS more productive than a good shot with something else...
If the right weapon, for example, is throwing a ~0.43 ounce cone of 4000 degree burning magnesium, for example... vs a 9mm... I'd vote for the shaped charge.
And in the case of explosives, there's some mass effect going on- a .50 cal and a grenade might both be Weapon:5... the grenade's edge is in getting a free zone effect.
In the case of a human, it's a moot point- there's only so much surface area the grenade can affect, and you'll only get hit by so much shrapnel... an elephant on the other hand might well get hit with ALL of the shrapnel, meaning that at the very least, it's extra size is no longer an advantage (sure, it means more meat to take the hit, but it means more hits on the meat in equal proportion).
Make sense?