How do non-awakend deal with spirits?, Is there something like magical bullets? Options

[Tarantula]

Horses don't have much. Running at a skill of 3. Thats it. They don't even have unarmed combat, so why would they have a natural weapon? Its not what they do.

[JoelHalpern]

Horses don't have much. Running at a skill of 3. Thats it. They don't even have unarmed combat, so why would they have a natural weapon? Its not what they do.

You ever seen a stallion protecting his herd? (Or, I suppose more cogently, what a trained warhorse was capable of doing to a person?) In fact, almost all hervbivores need to be able to fight, even the very fast ones.

If we had more examples, maybe we could come up with another vexplanation.
Hippo? Moose? Antelope? Mountain Goat? Eagle / Hawk? Elephant?

I don't need all of them. But without some more examples it is very hard to construct a model that makes sense. (Hooves really are a natural weapon.) If the rule is supposed to be "does damage other th\n str/2" then there is no way to generalize.

If I were running (or playing in) a campaign that actually was in the wilderness, then the basic stats gap would be an issue. For me, the only problem right now is trying to decide why some animals bypass spirit armor and others do not.
(No, I don't really thing catalyst should produce a book full of normal animals for us. That is not anywhere near the top of my list.)

Yours,
Joel

[Tarantula]

You ever seen a stallion protecting his herd? (Or, I suppose more cogently, what a trained warhorse was capable of doing to a person?) In fact, almost all hervbivores need to be able to fight, even the very fast ones.

If we had more examples, maybe we could come up with another vexplanation.
Hippo? Moose? Antelope? Mountain Goat? Eagle / Hawk? Elephant?

I don't need all of them. But without some more examples it is very hard to construct a model that makes sense. (Hooves really are a natural weapon.) If the rule is supposed to be "does damage other th\n str/2" then there is no way to generalize.

If I were running (or playing in) a campaign that actually was in the wilderness, then the basic stats gap would be an issue. For me, the only problem right now is trying to decide why some animals bypass spirit armor and others do not.
(No, I don't really thing catalyst should produce a book full of normal animals for us. That is not anywhere near the top of my list.)

Yours,
Joel

Again, point is, its a defensive use of what is not primarily a weapon. Hooves are not primarily a weapon, not nearly to the level of the claws/teeth of a mountain lion. Even if the rule is supposed to be damage other than str/2 then all that means is that hooves would just simply do Str/2 dmg from a horse.

As far as a horse protecting its herd? Horse vs wolf. Horse goes first, attacks wolf with a hoof kick... 4 dice, average 1 1/3rd success. Wolf defends with 7 dice, average 2 1/3rd success, no damage. Wolf attacks horse, attacks with 7 dice. Againt, 2 1/3rd success. Horse defends, 5 dice. 1 2/3rd successes. Wolf hits. One net hit. 2P Natural weapon, +1 for the hit = 3P. Horse has 8 body, no armor, average 2 2/3rd hits, takes 1P. Repeat, horse slowly loses. Now, if the horse does manage to hit the wolf, he'll be doing Str 8 / 2 at least 5S (+1 for his net hit). THats definately gonna mess the wolf up. Horses have enough strength to scare off what they need to, without their hooves being super extreme killing weapons like the predatory animals.

[JoelHalpern]

Tarantula, two very different things:

1) From what I understand, a full grown wolf will almost never choose to go 1-1 on a healthy horse, even a mare (much less a strong Stallion.) The odds are just not that good. Wolves much prefer to work in a pack, and take down the weak, isolated, member.
1') Many herbivores have accoutrements that are quite clearly weapons. Nasty weapons. A wild board is an herbivore. It can take down an isolated armed man unless he has the right gear. And it will choose to do so if it feels threatened.
1'') Heck, a male lion almost never uses those nasty teath and claws to get its food.
So the offensive / defensive split, and the combat ratings of the animals are not very helpful.
I am not trying to second-guess the stats on the animals.

2) Having a rating other than Str / 2 is no more helpful for a GM trying to decide if some animal not in the book can ignore a spirit's immunity. The GM also has to decide if the animal should have damage other than Str/2. I was hoping there was some conceptual definition that someone could provide that was different from "this animal has sharper teeth, so it ignores spirit armor completely."

Yours,
Joel

[Jackstand]

Let's try this again and start from scratch.

Immunity to Normal Weapons:This immunity applies to all weapons that are not magical.

Natural Weapon: The critter possesses some natural form of weaponry capable of inflicting Physical damage, such as claws, sharp teeth, or a stinger.

Some powers are natural in nature, such as claws or armor. Others, such as Concealment or Engulf, are magical.

So...

1. Immunity to Normal Weapons applies to all non magical attacks.
2. Some critter powers are natural and some are magical.
3. Those critter powers which are natural are not magical.
4. One power, Natural Weapon, grants claws.
5. Claws are a natural power.
6. Natural Weapon is a natural, and not a magical, power.
7. Those Critter Powers which are magical in nature bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.
8. Those Critter Powers which are natural in nature do not bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.
9. Natural Weapon does not bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.

Any further questions?

[Daier Mune]

1. Immunity to Normal Weapons applies to all non magical attacks.
2. Some critter powers are natural and some are magical.
3. Those critter powers which are natural are not magical.
4. One power, Natural Weapon, grants claws.
5. Claws are a natural power.
6. Natural Weapon is a natural, and not a magical, power.
7. Those Critter Powers which are magical in nature bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.
8. Those Critter Powers which are natural in nature do not bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.
9. Natural Weapon does not bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.

Any further questions?

Ghouls have natural weapons, claws, and are dual natured, do they bypass ItNW? and again, is it the fact that its Dual-Natured that allows it to bypass the immunity? if so, we're back where we started with dual natured projectiles being effective against manifested spirits.

[Muspellsheimr]

Ghoul claws are not magical weapons. Simply being Dual-Natured does not make your fists magical. Unarmed attacks (or natural weapons) do not bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons unless specifically stated otherwise (Killing Hands).

[JoelHalpern]

It would be much simpler if it worked the way you say Jackstand:

Let's try this again and start from scratch.

...

So...

1. Immunity to Normal Weapons applies to all non magical attacks.
2. Some critter powers are natural and some are magical.
3. Those critter powers which are natural are not magical.
4. One power, Natural Weapon, grants claws.
5. Claws are a natural power.
6. Natural Weapon is a natural, and not a magical, power.
7. Those Critter Powers which are magical in nature bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.
8. Those Critter Powers which are natural in nature do not bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.
9. Natural Weapon does not bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons.

Any further questions?

Unfortunately, the way the text is written, we are in the section on "Powers". The description of the Immunity power specifically says that Critter Powers bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons. Many critters clearly have the "power" Natural Weapon. Therefore, the book as written is quite clear that Natural Weapon is a power, and that all critter powers bypass this Immunity.
Yes, one solution is to simply say, as every GM has the right to, that this is wrong, and non-magical critter attacks shouldn't bypass armor. I might even personally agree.
But I am trying to understand how RAW is supposed to work in this regard.
In particular, is there some reasonable model by which a GM who is trying to follow RAW, who has some non-listed animals confronting spirits, can decide whether those animals have "Natural Weapons"
We know that the hooves of a horse don't count. (Even though they are as effective as most clubs.)
We know that the bite of a common dog does count for this power.
But we don't know about Bear Claws, Boar Tusks, Hippo teeth, Rhino Horns, Elephant Trunks or Tusks, ...
NOw, I don't want Catalyst trying to list every possible animal. It is a waste of time.

That is why I am asking what the theory would be, if one was trying to follow RAW, as to which animals have Natural Weapon, and which do not. (I have real trobuel telling teeth from hooves for this purpose.)

Joel

[Jackstand]

I'm totally in agreement that it says that Critter Powers bypass ItNW. It doesn't say that all powers do, though, and with good reason. I gave you proof right there that not all Critter Powers are magical and only magical Critter Powers defeat ItNW.

[Tarantula]

I'm totally in agreement that it says that Critter Powers bypass ItNW. It doesn't say that all powers do, though, and with good reason. I gave you proof right there that not all Critter Powers are magical and only magical Critter Powers defeat ItNW.

You're making an assumption. It says critter powers bypass ItNW. It does not say some critter powers do. The way it is worded it does in fact, mean all critter powers.

I will agree, that this is rather dumb in regards to natural weapon, and it appears the book does contradict itself at the start of the powers section. Also, since only claws are mentioned as being exclusively natural weapons, does it mean that the critters with Bite can still bypass ItNW?

It would be nice if critters simply had an extra stat seperate from characters which was for natural weapons. That way, they'd be included in the stats, but not a part of critter powers.

By the way the rules are written, natural weapon does bypass ItNW. It probably shouldn't(and certainly the houserule police won't be raiding you if you don't let it), but it does if you follow the rules to the letter.

[Tarantula]

But we don't know about Bear Claws, Boar Tusks, Hippo teeth, Rhino Horns, Elephant Trunks or Tusks, ...
NOw, I don't want Catalyst trying to list every possible animal. It is a waste of time.

That is why I am asking what the theory would be, if one was trying to follow RAW, as to which animals have Natural Weapon, and which do not. (I have real trobuel telling teeth from hooves for this purpose.)

Joel

Just for my off the cuff ruling, bear claws yes, boar tusks no, hippo teeth, no, rhino horns yes, elephant trunks no, elephant tusks no.

Why? Nothing you make up for an unlisted creature is RAW, so go by whatever feels right to you. You certainly can justify all of those being natural weapons (except maybe the trunk).

[darthmord]

BTW, Levitate would work against something that has ItNW.

How?

You mean to tell me that big bad F10 *something* (that can't fly) doesn't take falling damage?

It doesn't really matter how resistant to damage something is... there are natural, mundane effects that will cause damage... like terminal velocity falling damage, dumped into a volcano, etc.

==================

My two cents to the discussion at hand...

Natural Weapons get to bypass ItNW if the user is dual natured. Otherwise, it's solely a P-P or D-P interaction rather than D-D.

Dual Natured means (IMO) your Natural Weapons are also present on the Astral since you exist in both at once. In effect, DN makes your otherwise mundane natural weapons magical for the purposes of combat vs ItNW.

P = Physical
D= Dual Natured
A= Astral

[Tarantula]

BTW, Levitate would work against something that has ItNW.

How?

You mean to tell me that big bad F10 *something* (that can't fly) doesn't take falling damage?

It doesn't really matter how resistant to damage something is... there are natural, mundane effects that will cause damage... like terminal velocity falling damage, dumped into a volcano, etc.

==================

My two cents to the discussion at hand...

Natural Weapons get to bypass ItNW if the user is dual natured. Otherwise, it's solely a P-P or D-P interaction rather than D-D.

Dual Natured means (IMO) your Natural Weapons are also present on the Astral since you exist in both at once. In effect, DN makes your otherwise mundane natural weapons magical for the purposes of combat vs ItNW.

P = Physical
D= Dual Natured
A= Astral

Levitate would be able to cause damage yes, much the same as throwing a rock can cause damage, but it won't bypass the ItNW and the spirit would still get its armor rating to resist the damage caused by being levitated into a wall/ground/whatever. (Also, spirits are not affected by gravity. None of them, they can all fly).

As far as your interpretation I like it. Except for the part that natural weapon uses unarmed attack, and attacks in astral use astral combat. Still like it though, probably use it in my games.

[Jackstand]

You're making an assumption. It says critter powers bypass ItNW. It does not say some critter powers do. The way it is worded it does in fact, mean all critter powers.

I will agree, that this is rather dumb in regards to natural weapon, and it appears the book does contradict itself at the start of the powers section. Also, since only claws are mentioned as being exclusively natural weapons, does it mean that the critters with Bite can still bypass ItNW?

I am making an assumption, as are you, but mine is based on that it also says that adept powers bypass ItNW, but clearly not all adept powers do. It doesn't say some adept powers, either. My assumption isn't one based on the mere, though perhaps reasonable, opinion that a dog shouldn't bypass ItNW with its teeth, but based on the clear use of "adept powers" and "spells" in the descrption of ItNW to refer to some, but not all, spells and adept powers.
The fact that there is a contradiction means that it cannot possibly work the way that you suggest, and it must be some other way, I maintain mine, which avoids the contradiction entirely. Also, no, it doesn't mean that Bite can bypass ItNW, because it says "such as claws" as one example of a non-magical Critter Power, not as a comprehensive list of non-magical Natural Weapons. By that reasoning, one could deny a wholly astral being the negation of ItNW because they're not included in the list of magical attacks.

[Tarantula]

The rules say critter powers. It is not an assumption to read that this means all critter powers. If instead, the rules said kicks bypass ItNW. It would not matter if it was a front kick or a round kick, it would bypass it. As such, it says critter powers. It doesn't not matter what the critter power is, if it is an attack, it is able to bypass the immunity.

[Carny]

The rules say critter powers. It is not an assumption to read that this means all critter powers. If instead, the rules said kicks bypass ItNW. It would not matter if it was a front kick or a round kick, it would bypass it. As such, it says critter powers. It doesn't not matter what the critter power is, if it is an attack, it is able to bypass the immunity.

I think the first paragraph of the critter powers section of the rulebook settles this question pretty clearly for anybody that is being reasonable:

"Powers are special abilities that critters possess as part of
their physiology. Some powers are natural in nature, such as claws
or armor. Others, such as Concealment or Engulf, are magical."

Obviously, only the magical critter powers are covered, when it comes to getting around Immunity to natural weapons

[JoelHalpern]

I think the first paragraph of the critter powers section of the rulebook settles this question pretty clearly for anybody that is being reasonable:

"Powers are special abilities that critters possess as part of
their physiology. Some powers are natural in nature, such as claws
or armor. Others, such as Concealment or Engulf, are magical."

Obviously, only the magical critter powers are covered, when it comes to getting around Immunity to natural weapons

That does at least provide strong support for a house rule, since the Immunity to Normal Weapons exception says "applies to all weapons that re not magical (... critter powers ..." suggesting that the Immunity can only be bypssed by things which are magical.

Several of the folks involved in writing the books have said that the meaning does not match this interpretation.
If you are right, I am left puzzled as to why weapons like teeth and claws are listed as a "Power" at all. There has to have been an easier way to list the damage modifier for the creatures.

Joel

[Carny]

That does at least provide strong support for a house rule, since the Immunity to Normal Weapons exception says "applies to all weapons that re not magical (... critter powers ..." suggesting that the Immunity can only be bypssed by things which are magical.

Several of the folks involved in writing the books have said that the meaning does not match this interpretation.
If you are right, I am left puzzled as to why weapons like teeth and claws are listed as a "Power" at all. There has to have been an easier way to list the damage modifier for the creatures.

Joel

Probably because they were looking for a single blanket term for anything that a critter can do that Joe Metahuman can't.

[Jackstand]

The rules say critter powers. It is not an assumption to read that this means all critter powers. If instead, the rules said kicks bypass ItNW. It would not matter if it was a front kick or a round kick, it would bypass it. As such, it says critter powers. It doesn't not matter what the critter power is, if it is an attack, it is able to bypass the immunity.

It is an assumption, because the sentence, "Critter Powers bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," can just as correctly be read to say, "All critter powers bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," as it can to say, "There are such things as critter powers which bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons." Just as the sentence, "All weapon foci bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," is more than likely the correct reading of the statement, "Weapon foci bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," but, "There is such a thing as an adept power which bypasses Immunity to Normal Weapons," is the correct interpretation of "Adept powers bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons."

[Tarantula]

It is an assumption, because the sentence, "Critter Powers bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," can just as correctly be read to say, "All critter powers bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," as it can to say, "There are such things as critter powers which bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons." Just as the sentence, "All weapon foci bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," is more than likely the correct reading of the statement, "Weapon foci bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons," but, "There is such a thing as an adept power which bypasses Immunity to Normal Weapons," is the correct interpretation of "Adept powers bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons."

No, it is not an assumption. The sentence reads, "This immunity applies to all weapons that are not magical (weapon foci, spells, adept or critter powers)" The list of magical weapons is inclusive. All weapon foci, all spells, all adept powers, and all critter powers. If it were to mean only some critter powers, it would equally mean only some weapon foci.

[JoelHalpern]

No, it is not an assumption. The sentence reads, "This immunity applies to all weapons that are not magical (weapon foci, spells, adept or critter powers)" The list of magical weapons is inclusive. All weapon foci, all spells, all adept powers, and all critter powers. If it were to mean only some critter powers, it would equally mean only some weapon foci.

I am inclined to read this sentence the way you do, except for the point raised by Carny. The text sys that some powers are natural, and others are magical. Hence, if it were not for the flat assertion by Frank that "Natural Weapons" bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons, one would conclude that
1) The text on Immunity to Normal Weapons says that it is ignored by Magical attacks
2) The text on ItNW then provides examples of Magical attacks, referencing critter powers
3) Therefore, the text means to refer only to the magical critter powers, and not the natural critter powers, as bypassing the protection.

This has the advantage that Natural Weapons is not considered somehow magical, with regard to normal critters.

At this point, the text which I though was clear does not appear so clear.
Frank, I know you prefer very short concise statements.
In this case, can you (or Synner, or AH, ...) comment on how we the readers are supposed to know either that Natural Weapons do, or do not, bypass spirit ItNW.
(Yes, house-ruling it is simple. I would like to know what RAW means.)

Yours,
Joel

[Tarantula]

RAW says they bypass, because the list is inclusive. House rule and common sense says the don't, which also means you override the specific rule (in ItNW) with the general description (in the critter powers).

[AngelisStorm]

I know it was many sentences ago, but a wolf (single) does not pick a fight with large non-predators. Because the wolf dies. Even in pack situations, if a wolf is caught by the kick of a elk/horse/other large herbavores, it is likely to die, because it will starve before the wound heals.

Heck, I work around them (horses, and know alot of people who also do. If a warhorse doesn't have "natural weapons," few animals do. I don't care if you have claws, and the horse has hooves "which are used for running." The damage output of the animal in question is the point, not how it evolved to such a point. In this case the training (or instinct) of the animal should be represented by the unarmed combat skill, and all animals except those that really can't hurt someone noticably should have a "natural weapons" "power" that represents how much damage it does (becuase Str/2 is not how hard a horse kicks).

Anyway, what I'm interested in is the dual natured part of this discussion. All dual natured creatures can't bypass Immunity to Normal Weapons, otherwise wouldn't you have astral percieving Irish Magician/Boxers?

So why DO Ghouls bypass ItNW's? I just read Bug City recently, looking for some info (and got sucked in and read most of it), and it said that Ghoultown was one of the few bug free areas of the city, because they were dual natured and thus could just go out and lay the beat down on the spirits.

If it's because their dual natured, then does that mean that you can make dual natured marble or jade bullets? Or hell, arrowsheads and stone bladed knives would be alot easier.

And if something was dual natured when alive, it is no longer so when it's dead, right? Otherwise the Corps would just grow lots of dual natured moss, let it die, then mix it in with the wall insulation of their important buildings (isntead of having to keep it alive).

(And apparently, to point to the other post, possessed armor should be added to the list, to go with possessed bullets, as a means for non-awakened to deal with spirits.)

[Fortune]

The thing about being dual-natured is that you have access to the Astral as well as the Physical. As such, a dual-natured creature can attack another dual-natured creature via the Astral, therefore bypassing ItNW, which is a Physical Power, and doesn't apply on the Astral.

I believe that Synner mentioned that there is Errata somewhere (or maybe it is still 'soon to be updated') stating that all dual-natured creatures also possess Astral Combat equal to their Unarmed Combat skills.

[AngelisStorm]

The thing about being dual-natured is that you have access to the Astral as well as the Physical. As such, a dual-natured creature can attack another dual-natured creature via the Astral, therefore bypassing ItNW, which is a Physical Power, and doesn't apply on the Astral.

I believe that Synner mentioned that there is Errata somewhere (or maybe it is still 'soon to be updated') stating that all dual-natured creatures also possess Astral Combat equal to their Unarmed Combat skills.

So... you can have astrally percieving Inish boxing magicians who just knock spirits around with their bare hands?

And if this is the case... wouldn't it then become almost more useful to take Astral Sight as a Adept Power than killing hands? (Yes, I know, .5pt difference.)

What happens when a dual natured creature attacks a spirit with a hand weapon, like a sword? (A ghoul with a golf club. Or sword adepts who take Astral Perception.)