Is anyone else annoyed by Physical Immunity?

[sinker]

Umm... sounding a bit like dead horse beating here.

It kind of looked like the original poster was a bit frustrated or uncertain about this power and wanted to know how to use it effectively in a game. Later comments have made me uncertain that was the correct way to read this. Taer, do you mind clearing this up? Just posting opinions that disagree with each other isn't particularly useful. If you're actually still looking for how to use this, then I think you'll find some interesting ideas have been posted that could give you new angles to think about.

This is not a statement that I like. It doesn't seem to help the discussion move forward. It dismisses everything that isn't the same as what you believe, which is incredibly irritating.

It seems to me that the original statement was 1) I really hate physical immunity because it seems overpowered, but 2) there seems like no alternative or even a justifiable reason for an alternative.

Seems like most people are acknowledging the first without looking at the second, and that's what I'm trying to remedy. If Taer feels like correcting me then I'll stop expounding on the concept.

[Hal]

Note, however, that I'm not asking here whether or not you can beat someone with PI. I'm focusing on whether it's an appropriate ability.

Would you allow for total immunities to other things? How about Social and Mental tracks? How about an immunity to Physical Blocks or Maneuvers(call it "Unstoppable Force" or whatever)? How about an immunity to assessments("Null Presence")? Or Declarations(Reality Warper)?

If any of those would be considered inappropriate, why do Attacks get a pass? What makes them special?

Appropriate?  Sure.  But you have to use your discretion in determining where it's appropriate and where it isn't.  For example, that Ogre with physical immunity to mortal magic?  Appropriate for a mixed group; the wizard might have trouble dealing with the guy, but he can provide support to the guy with the gun and the fae knight in your group.  The BBEG with physical immunity to everything but one thing (ala Nicodemus)?  You have to use that fittingly; unless you have someone who can break through his defenses reliably (like a Knight of the Cross), the point of fighting that guy is to delay him or get away from him.  It's a GM's tool, and like any tool you have to apply it where necessary and put it away when it wouldn't work.

I'd totally allow mental/social immunities, but it would have to be a sensible thing.  A golem or construct, for example, would probably have social immunity.    I'd probably give mental immunity to something that simply has no mind.  A plant, for example.  As for the rest of the things you mention, it just goes back to how you use them.  What's the purpose of shutting down those mechanics?  If it's to create something justifiably dangerous and encourage your players to work towards an unconventional solution, that's one thing.  If it's just to be big and scary and hard to destroy, then that's probably not a good use of the tool.

[Taer]

All right, let's go over this again, point by point.
1) It's an imbalanced ability. The philosophy of the game's design clearly states that roughly equal Refresh should equal to roughly equal powers(clearly, it's not always the case, but at least we should strive towards that). If you have a choice of -8 Refresh in Toughness powers, PI is unquestionably superior to any other combination of Toughness powers.

So, in other words, PI breaks the game design almost by default. But that is ultimately a minor issue.
2) I know that it can be beaten, I really do genuinely know that. I'm not asking about whether it can be beaten. I know there are multiple ways to overcome it.
3) What I'm asking is - does the ability make sense?
Does it really make sense that there are entities out there - who are not true heavyweights by any means - that can take the entire nuclear arsenal of the world to the face and not just survive but entirely laugh it off?
Does it really make sense that if the entire White Council worked together on the most potent Heart Exploding spell in existence, spend weeks and weeks sacrificing humans and going full crazy-on black magic to get into the 4 or 5-digit range as far as shifts go, creating a spell powerful enough to wipe a country off the map, a freaking Ogre(not a heavyweight by any means) could just shrug it off?

This is one of the bits of advice that I've seen repeated often in my GMing days. Do everything you can not to say "No". Say "Yes, but". The "But" is, make the challenge tougher. Make it much harder. Don't make it entirely impossible. PI just outright says "No, you can't do that, find a different way". And it annoys me.

EDIT: Or, let me put it in another way. Imagine an alternate world, where there was no Physical Immunity in canon. Where the Toughness abilities ended at Mythic Toughness and Mythic Endurance. Say, I came onto the Custom Powers thread and proposed PI. Does anyone here seriously think they'd say the ability was anything but crazily inappropriate?

[InFerrumVeritas]

Here's my feeling: 

Physical immunity against a single thing (fire for fire spirits, cutting and piercing weapons for Nemean Lion, Nuclear Radiation for roaches, etc.) is an excellent use of the power.  It shuts down a specific type of attack and makes a character look at having the use it a different way.  When used this way, it is an effective power to influence the story and reasonably priced.

Physical immunity against everything is absurd.  Superman can still be hurt by things that don't bypass his weakness, just not killed.  When he simply can't be hurt, it's considered bad writing.  It reduces tension in the story.  It sucks. 

If I wanted to make a character that couldn't be killed except in a very specific circumstance, I'd make a power to do so.  It wouldn't make the character tougher, just harder to kill.  He could still be hurt, beaten, bloodied, but eventually he'd bounce back from it.

As written, I'd be more comfortable with PI being priced at 12 (possibly 14) refresh.  In this case, the "applies only to one thing" would be worth quite a bit more as a catch.

Personally, I'd rather just raise the Toughness and Recovery powers up if I wanted a very tough monster.  I'd also rather PI only be allowed for a single thing.

Ultimately, it doesn't really affect my games.  It's not a power that most player concepts, even at Submerged, could take or consider.  It's basically meant to be a "not quite plot device monster" power if for a +0 Catch. 

To use a cannon example, we see two things that could be said to have it: Nico and Shagnasty.  Both of which were basically plot device level characters.  It's priced as an option for them.

All games break at their highest levels.  DFRPG seems to do so less than others.  I like that.

Does that cover everything? 

[Bruce Coulson]

Yes, I think it does make sense.

In mythology, there are creatures and beings who simply could not be hurt by a given type of attack.  Fantasy literature has drawn on and expanded that concept.

Physical Immunity is a game-mechanic way of representing that absolute immunity.  If used carefully and rarely, and generally only against specific types of attacks (e.g. Ogres), it's not being unfair to the players, who (generally) are familiar with the tropes of myth and fantasy.

That -8 Refresh also means eight less refresh for attack powers, flexible powers.  When using the rules for scaling the opposition, game guides have to keep in mind what abilities would make for an interesting, challenging encounter.  An unstoppable, unkillable opponent who can force concessions in one hit isn't very interesting.  An opponent who is tough, can fly, breathe fire, (something else you could get with that 8 Refresh) could make for a tense, exciting battle.

You might be right that -8 is underpriced for the value; but overall, I feel that Physical Immunity is fair within the setting.

[TheMouse]

Bringing in nukes is GM fiat, because there are no rules for nukes. One could posit that rules for them might include explicit interactions with Toughness powers. We don't know, because there aren't rules for it. Using an argument based on non-existent rules does not make any sense.

We also don't have rules for the most powerful spells possible within the 'verse. It is entirely conceivable that if those rules existed, there would be an explicit way to overcome Toughness powers. I mean, there exists within the fiction the ability to do so. But the rules don't exist that say one way or another whether that's possible. Using an argument based on non-existent rules does not make any sense.

In short, while I admit that saying that these things work this way is GM fiat, saying that they do not work this was is also GM fiat. The rules don't cover nukes. The rules don't cover every spell that could conceivably be cast by a high powered wizard. Using your  fiat interpretations on rules that don't exist is not a logical argument.

[Belial666]

Physical immunity is better than toughness powers. It is not better for defense in a fight than other powers with similar costs precisely because it does not stop maneuvers, blocks and the like. It makes you impossible to harm by physical force. That's about 1/3 the ways someone can physically harm you, 1/9 the ways someone can harm you in general.

What I'm asking is - does the ability make sense?  Does it really make sense that there are entities out there - who are not true heavyweights by any means - that can take the entire nuclear arsenal of the world to the face and not just survive but entirely laugh it off?

Vandal Savage and anyone else who is truly immortal; like Nicodemus their bruises and pain (if any) would be aspects rather than stress that can take them out. Sebastian Shaw and anyone or anything else that can absorb a broad range of energy types, including kinetic. Susan Storm, Martial Manhunter and any ghost or spirit or shade or whatever creature doesn't actually have a physical form that can be physically damaged part or all of the time. Beings that, due to their nature, are utterly immune to a form of attack such as fire elementals and dragons being immune to fire, ice beings and forst giants being immune to cold and so on.

Does it really make sense that if the entire White Council worked together on the most potent Heart Exploding spell in existence, spend weeks and weeks sacrificing humans and going full crazy-on black magic to get into the 4 or 5-digit range as far as shifts go, creating a spell powerful enough to wipe a country off the map, a freaking Ogre(not a heavyweight by any means) could just shrug it off?

Ogres don't have immunity to magic. They have immunity to physical damage directly caused by mortal magic. Don't think of it as infinite resistance; think of it as no resistance. Direct physical force by mortal magic just goes through them like a sword goes through a ghost.

On the matter of that big spell, sure, if the White Council directly focuses the entirety of their magic into physically harming an Ogre, the Ogre will just ignore it, much like if they tried to crash a mountain-sized meteor onto a ghost. Now, if they try to crash a mountain-sized meteor onto the Ogre or directly focus the entirety of their magic onto the ghost, you bet neither the Ogre nor the ghost will like it.

This is one of the bits of advice that I've seen repeated often in my GMing days. Do everything you can not to say "No". Say "Yes, but". The "But" is, make the challenge tougher. Make it much harder. Don't make it entirely impossible. PI just outright says "No, you can't do that, find a different way". And it annoys me.

PLAYER: Can I melt the ice golem by throwing cold spells at it?
GM: No
PLAYER: Can I kill the Acid Elemental by throwing acid at it?
GM: No
PLAYER: Can I open my manacles with my lockpicking skills even though they have been magically welded instead of having a lock?
GM: No
PLAYER: Can I socially fast-talk the gelatinous cube into letting me pass even though it's mindless, blind and deaf?
GM: No
PLAYER: Can I bribe the traps in the dungeon into not closing if I step on them?
GM: No

[paul_Harkonen]

3) What I'm asking is - does the ability make sense?
Does it really make sense that there are entities out there - who are not true heavyweights by any means - that can take the entire nuclear arsenal of the world to the face and not just survive but entirely laugh it off?
Does it really make sense that if the entire White Council worked together on the most potent Heart Exploding spell in existence, spend weeks and weeks sacrificing humans and going full crazy-on black magic to get into the 4 or 5-digit range as far as shifts go, creating a spell powerful enough to wipe a country off the map, a freaking Ogre(not a heavyweight by any means) could just shrug it off?

To answer the two "Does it make sense?" questions.  Yes, it does.  Compare it this way, if you are made of fire, does it make sense for you to be able to withstand a similarly powered column of fire?  same answer.  You may not like the existence of those creatures, but it does make sense.

The next question to ask is:  Does it make them more powerful against those things as well?  Yes it does.  If you are immune to magic and all that the wizards have is fireballs to throw at you, you should win.  Just as a creature of fire should handily beat someone only armed with a flamethrower.

If that's true then you need to ask the last question: Does it break the game?  I remain unconvinced.

Combat does not have to simply be direct fireballs and physical attacks.  There is much much more to it, and physical immunity only prevents that direct confrontation, it does nothing to stop every other method of interaction available to the players.  Social combat, Mental attacks, physical aspects that are tagged, and invoked.  Throughout mythology there are plenty of creatures that are just flat out immune to X, why shouldn't they be modeled that way in the game?

Physical immunity is a very specific very powerful ability.  As a GM you should limit its use, but that doesn't make it a bad power.  Shapeshifting, Glamors, even Thaumaturgy all have the potential to be game breaking when used and thought of in very specific ways, why shouldn't physical immunity?  It exists to model those few creatures that are really and truly untouchable, and for those creatures I think it should be there.  It is ok to force the players to panic, its ok to put them up against something that requires lots of creative thinking, and maybe even forces them to run away the first time.

While a GM should try everything they can to answer "yes but" there are times when "no" is the right answer.  "Can I beat him into a pulp?"  "No, but you could trap him in iron chains" is just as good an answer.

*Edit:  And Belial just barely beats me to the punch with exactly the same thoughts.

[EdgeOfDreams]

stuff

Good points, Belial666, I agree.

To approach things from a slightly different angle, Taer, let me ask this - How would you feel if Physical Immunity had a line that said something like "This power is not necessarily absolute; plot-device-level threats still have the potential to harm the creature even if the catch is not satisfied (e.g. a nuclear bomb, the combined magics of the entire senior council, etc.)"? Would that have made the power less objectionable to you if the writers had included such a caveat?

[computerking]

"This power is not necessarily absolute; plot-device-level threats still have the potential to harm the creature even if the catch is not satisfied (e.g. a nuclear bomb, the combined magics of the entire senior council, etc.)"

That's pretty much the same type of thing I was about to bring up: Being the GM, you have to understand that all powers as written in the book have at least a little bit of "wiggle room", where the Story's needs are concerned. It's probably a good idea to imagine that every rule has a "PS: this is subject to the needs of the GM and the Story; Don't be ridiculous with it," invisibly written after it.

As for Physical Immunity, I think it can be fair, but only if the GM is mature enough not to abuse such a power. The Original Poster mentioned the possibility of a nuke, or the entirety of the White Council aiming a ritual at a character. I wonder, though, if they intend for this to happen in the course of their game? If not, then the question is moot. If you can only come up with improbable, ridiculously powerful things as examples, you're stumbling into the land of hyperbole.

As several posters have mentioned, the reason to choose Physical Immunity rather than Mythic Toughness and Recovery is because it fits the character you're making, the experience you want your players to have, and the story you're trying to tell. If you want a baddy who takes a licking, and keeps on ticking, but gets visibly worn down as the fight progresses, Take the Mythic coupling. If you want a villain that seems to be unstoppable, until you figure out his Achilles' Heel (Perhaps literally, if you have the players come up against Achilles), then he goes down quickly when hit with "the right stuff", then choose Physical Immunity. It's the story that determines whether the power is appropriate or not, not just the Letter of the Law.

And if you are allowing Physical Immunity for a Player character, I suggest you have a sit-down with them regarding how you view the power, and the restrictions you will be putting on it, if any. Perhaps requiring an extension of the Catch, so that the character can be hurt by, for example, "Left-handed Sword attacks and single attacks of more than 12 shifts of damage," would make it more palatable to both parties.

[BumblingBear]

I really don't understand why this is a big deal.

GMs point blank can allow or not allow things in their games.

I won't allow a character with a catchless PI.  In fact, I won't allow a character without a very specific PI.

Conversely, I /would/ allow an 8 refresh toughness power.

So... that kind of blows the powergaming argument out of the water.  PI is not "better" than an 8 refresh toughness power if the GM won't let you take PI.

Why is this so difficult?

[EdgeOfDreams]

I really don't understand why this is a big deal.

GMs point blank can allow or not allow things in their games.

I won't allow a character with a catchless PI.  In fact, I won't allow a character without a very specific PI.

Conversely, I /would/ allow an 8 refresh toughness power.

So... that kind of blows the powergaming argument out of the water.  PI is not "better" than an 8 refresh toughness power if the GM won't let you take PI.

Why is this so difficult?

I believe Taer expressed that he's aware of the GM fiat option but prefers not to have to use it.  It's sort of a discussion about the game design that led to such a power existing as written, as opposed to something different.  Just 'cause you can houserule or work your way around something doesn't mean it was good or bad design or well or poorly written to begin with.

[Becq]

Again, GM Fiat is not a good solution. As a GM, I can already do anything. The rules in the book are there to tell me what I should and should not do.

I think you are looking at this from the wrong direction, if you feel that you have to pull the GM card to prevent the abuse of powers like Physical Immunity.  Consider the following: "The Mythic level is nearly always reserved for potent NPCs, as is the special Physical Immunity ability"(YS184).  Reworded, this basically implies that Physical Immunity can only be used by GM fiat (rather than the alternative that it can be used except when GM fiat disallows it).  So the rules already say that you should not allow it.  You may over-rule them, but if you don't want players to use it, the rules have your back.

On a more general note in response to comments about using a power (like Physical Immunity) for no reason other than it's more refresh-efficient that other options, consider that: "At the very least, this usually means that the supernatural abilities must clearly derive from your character’s high concept"(YS158).  It's not good enough to want a power, or to decide that it would really make your character ub4r.  The power also has to make sense with respect to your High Concept and/or Template.  Your Table and GM are the final judges.

How does this apply to a Shapeshifter with Modular Abilities?  I think that this is one of those cases that excercises the 'usually' in my second quote above.  In this case, you are emulating something else's form, and that something else also was restricted by its High Concept as to what powers it was allowed.  So in effect, you are borrowing the High Concept of the creature that you are turning into, and choosing powers that that High Concept would allow.

[Thrythlind]

Physical Immunity, with three exceptions, is used in game to represent a narrow band of situations which that particular creature is completely protected from.  Very often, it is used on top of Toughness and Recovery.

The two exceptions: Loup-Garou, He Who Walks Behind and Nicodemus had broadly applied Physical Immunity with very specific catches.  If we had Shagnasty's stats it might be similar.

Toughness is meant to be a broad ability to resist damage with a narrow way to ignore that resistance.

Recovery is meant to be a broad ability to recover from damage with a narrow way to prevent that recovery.

The book clearly states that some of the powers included are originally only meant for use with critters.  Physical Immunity is basically one of those powers.

We had a player that wanted to use the Living Dead power because it mechanically appealed to him and he wanted to refluff it away from actually being undead.  The GM had to repeatedly tell him "no" and he would go "awww" in a mock "I'm not really upset" way and not bring it up again for three or four sessions.

As the GM it is always permissible to tell players "no" to a specific power.

As to why refresh costs for villains?  It makes perfect sense.

If I have 6 Refresh characters, they're going to be eaten alive by a 12 refresh enemy unless they get very, very, very creative.  However, that same 12 refresh might qualify as a mini-boss for a 10 refresh party.

The refresh costs exist primarily to compare matters and see what sort of trouble the party will have with it.

Mechanically, Physical Immunity gives its best returns when combined with another Toughness power...one of the examples is a fire-elemental type being vulnerable to cold and totally immune to fire.  The Toughness/Recovery had one catch and the Physical Immunity had a stacked catch, the combination totally paid for the physical immunity.

Physical Immunity is very much a thematic power.  You take it when there is no possible way to duplicate a particular resistance.  Taking it "just because" is roughly equivalent to saying "rocks fall everybody dies".  Sure, as GM you can decide that the players lose at any given time, but that's not the reason you're there.  You're not in competition with the players, you're providing them challenges and story.  If these kinds of games were a competition between player and gamemaster, the gamemaster would win every time.  There's no trick to that.

Think about it in terms of what you want from the encounter.

If you want it to be possible to defeat a particular enemy using normal, everyday tactics.  Look toward Toughness/Recovery.

If you want at least one of the standard tactics to be absolutely meaningless, then you go with Physical Immunity.

As to the Nuke question.

a ) it could be that a nuclear blast transcends physical damage

b ) I've played Rifts wherein dropping a nuke on a vampire might cause it to be thrown backwards a mile or so....but do absolutely no damage to it

A lot of game systems these days scoff at the idea of anything being completely immune to something.  HERO system, for example, there is no similar power to physical immunity.  You can buy a heavy amount of Resistant Defenses and Damage Reduction, but you can't just say "I'm immune to fire."  Even if your character is a fire elemental, if there is a fire out there hot enough, yes fire will burn even fire.

When approaching power selection the proper question isn't "why shouldn't I?" it's "why should I?"

"Why should I?" is more restrictive, it will tend to keep more in theme.

Physical Immunity only very rarely has an answer to "why should I?" that compels me to put it on a bad guy's list of powers.

to finish off....on the earlier conflict over forcing an enemy to concede.....I believe the original person to suggest that idea was speaking of conceding in character...as in the character looking around, realizing that he's not going to be able to win even if his enemies can't kill him and said character saying "All right, I concede to defeat."

They were not speaking of the game mechanic of concession which is what the protestor clearly thought they were doing.

[Sanctaphrax]

The prevailing opinion on Physical Immunity seems to be that it is entirely based upon GM fiat. If that is the case, then it should not be given a refresh cost.

If it is too powerful for player use (and it probably is when the catch is narrow) then it should be more expensive.

Having two options and having one be strictly better than the other is just bad design. DFRPG (kinda) avoids this because Toughness canonically tops out at Mythic, but in high-refresh games higher levels of Toughness are sometimes needed. I speak from personal experience here.

Sure, you can just ignore the problem. But solving it would be so much better. The way to do that, I think, is to increase the cost of the power and increase the importance of the Catch. Physical Immunity to fire for 2 refresh is probably alright. But Physical Immunity unless attacked with a Sword Of The Cross is not fairly priced at 8 refresh.