Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

[BobGreenwade]

Many a superhero world has vampires, werewolves, and similar monsters of legend featured therein. Obviously, in such a world, it's advantageous to have garlic, silver, and other substances on hand that can repulse or harm them. So how would you write these things up in game terms?

 

The hard part is that these weaknesses are usually reflected on the creatures' character sheets, but these things are reasonably well-known and there's not really any other reason to do them this way.

 

My own take on the two specific things I mention in the topic header would be:

 

For silver weapons, just give -1 DC to the weapon in general for the normal cost break, as the "price" for being able to affect so many supernatural creatures. A silver bullet would be lighter than a lead one, and thus would do less damage naturally. For other weapons made from or laced with silver, the same principle applies.

 

For a grenade that creates a cloud of garlic powder, I think I'd just use an unmodified Change Environment, or possibly use it as a Special Effect of Darkness or Flash versus the Smell Sense Group.

 

I'm sure some of the other folks here can come up with other clever ideas.

[archermoo]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

My general way to take care of such thing is for the creatures that take special effect from otherwise normal objects deal with it in their build, rather than making the characters pay for weapons that are only useful against a limited selection of critters.

 

I like your build for the Change Environment garlic grenade. As far as silver weapons go, I've never required a reduction in DC for them. Though depending on the type of campaign they could be considerably harder to get.

[Edsel]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

In my Dark Champions campaign the supernatural made an appearance from time to time. We used the equipment pool rules for player character equipment. In our house rules it cost 5 equipment points to allow you to claim that your ammo with a particular weapon was silver.

[nexus]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

I've always considered these sorts of things Disadvantages the creatures in question had on their sheets (or as a campaign assumption).

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

In general, Bob, your approach sounds reasonable, especially for those garlic grenades. In Heroic games I would just make silver-laced weapons more difficult, expensive, or time consuming to replace if expended or broken. For a Superheroic game you might apply an additional -1/4 Limitation to Focus for silver blades and the like, or to the Charges of silver bullets, to reflect the problems with getting more of them. Assuming your characters don't have unlimited access to such things, of course.

[pinecone]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

I have to agree with the idea that you should not penalize the character for the disadds of the beastys..... and then you can have beastys that are Not vuln to silver, etc....

[archermoo]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

In general' date=' Bob, your approach sounds reasonable, especially for those garlic grenades. In Heroic games I would just make silver-laced weapons more difficult, expensive, or time consuming to replace if expended or broken. For a Superheroic game you might apply an additional -1/4 Limitation to Focus for silver blades and the like, or to the Charges of silver bullets, to reflect the problems with getting more of them. Assuming your characters don't have unlimited access to such things, of course.[/quote']

 

Though I understand that having a Focus that is difficult to replace could be limiting enough to warrant an extra limitation, in general making an attack more useful (extra damage/effect against some opponents) shouldn't save a player points.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

Just to make sure it's clear, I'm not saying the character takes -1DC to weapons for the same cost. The character would have, for example, a katana that only does 1d6+1 instead of 1 1/2d6 like a regular one, and pay the normal cost for a 1d6+1 attack.

 

And really the main reason I'd call for reduced damage from a silver weapon is because, as I said, silver is lighter and would naturally do less damage than lead or tempered steel.

[caris]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

To me it depends a great deal on the campaign and what the PC is doing/has as a schtick.

 

Start with does equipment cost points or money? In a monetary campaign the you only really need to build the equipment mechanically if you feel it is necessary. The monetary cost/availability would depend on the campaign world. For example in Laurel K. Hamilton's Anita Blake books, silver bullets seem to be a fairly easy to obtain item that is massed produced, but somewhat more expensive than regular bullets because of the material. In the Dresden Files, silver bullets are much harder to find, and probably custom made. Some classes of items like "holy" might require a perk like "Membership: Church Heiarchy" to obtain.

 

In a campaign where equipment costs points, than it depends on how common the opponents with a given weakness are, and how it relates to the character's schtick. Assuming that NPCs with a given weakness are not a major fixture of the campaign, than leaving it on the NPC would be fine and not create balance issues. On the other hand, if it is very common and comes up a lot, you could end up with a situation where the character with a given SFX is out of balance with the other characters (particularly if it is one PC that has this SFX and the other PCs do not), and you should not build the weaknesses into the NPCs mechanically, but instead make them required parts of the SFX builds. (Yes, as GM you do have the right to require how specific SFX are built.) The biggest problems tends to come when you want players to take advantage of those weakness with improvised means (e.g. using mirrors to bring sunlight into the vampire's lair, picking up a rod of cold iron in the junkyard, etc.), or you have a someone wanting to play one of those things as a PC.

[archermoo]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

Just to make sure it's clear, I'm not saying the character takes -1DC to weapons for the same cost. The character would have, for example, a katana that only does 1d6+1 instead of 1 1/2d6 like a regular one, and pay the normal cost for a 1d6+1 attack.

 

And really the main reason I'd call for reduced damage from a silver weapon is because, as I said, silver is lighter and would naturally do less damage than lead or tempered steel.

 

Depending on how much of the weapon needs to be silver for it to work, it actually might not change the weight/hardness substantially. Make the majority of a bullet out of lead, with a plating of silver on the outside. Bullets are already made with copper jacketing with no real impact on the damage done by them. And if you use silver as one of the "impurities" in tempered steel there isn't any reason that the katana can't be just as effective.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

Depending on how much of the weapon needs to be silver for it to work' date=' it actually might not change the weight/hardness substantially. Make the majority of a bullet out of lead, with a plating of silver on the outside. Bullets are already made with copper jacketing with no real impact on the damage done by them. And if you use silver as one of the "impurities" in tempered steel there isn't any reason that the katana can't be just as effective. [/quote']A very good point, that. Any idea what a mix of, say, 10% silver would do to a katana?

[Vondy]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

As a general rule, I tend to categorize these sorts of things as disadvantages, not as equipment that needs to be modelled. In terms of scarcity, that generally determines how much the disad is worth, not whether the PC has to pay points for the item. I can think of few situations where I would require the player to pay points for the item in question.

[archermoo]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

A very good point' date=' that. Any idea what a mix of, say, 10% silver would do to a katana?[/quote']

 

That one I couldn't say. Not enough metallurgy background.

[Vondy]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

A very good point' date=' that. Any idea what a mix of, say, 10% silver would do to a katana?[/quote']

 

Answer: make it useless as a weapon.

 

The whole notion of silver weapons affecting these beasties came into play after the advent of firearms and was centered on the notion of silver bullets [see The Two Brothers by the Brother's Grimm and the original tale of the Beast of Gevauden]. It wasn't a part of the original myths and is completely impractical for melee weapons. Its literally fantasy role playing.

 

You could coat a melee weapon with silver, but actually mixing silver (an extremely soft metal) into iron or steel (iron with a carbon ratio of .2 to 1.7%) would destroy its tensile strength and weaken the weapon signficantly - if you had the technique, facilities, and bonding agents to create such an alloy in the first place.

 

In fact, heating iron ore containing precious metals is how you get the two to separate so you can reclaim the precious metal. Most iron-silver alloys today are powder based and used for electrical switching and require various amounts of extraneous bonding agents to come into existence. They also don't contain much iron [less than 5%]. Doing it with ore at heat isn't done at all. The reason: the only metals silver bonds with easily are copper, zinc, and cadmium. Even worse, silver dissolves in super-heated oxegen, which is critical to making iron into steel.

 

A better option would be a bronze weapon (copper based) with silver mixed in. Or an iron weapon coated with silver. Or stick with bullets, which could even be pure silver.

[dsatow]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

Many a superhero world has vampires, werewolves, and similar monsters of legend featured therein. Obviously, in such a world, it's advantageous to have garlic, silver, and other substances on hand that can repulse or harm them. So how would you write these things up in game terms?

 

The hard part is that these weaknesses are usually reflected on the creatures' character sheets, but these things are reasonably well-known and there's not really any other reason to do them this way.

 

I don't agree. I believe its better as a disadvantage.

 

In building villains or heroes, it is usually better to build to react to an outside influence than it is to affect a target. When you react to an outside influence, then, it become easier to adjudicate when an effect happens what happens to the target rather than constantly deciding each build's effect for a situation. Does each bullet have the same damage bonus? Why should a .22 do +1d6K when a .50 is a much bigger round only doing +1d6. Should a shotgun do +1d6 too or should it be based on the number of pellets striking the target. If the damage is low, then wouldn't the amount of damage also be lower? Etc.

 

By building an affect attack, you also open the doors to the infamous (though I admit fun from a mental exercise) how many points as a wooden chair? Is it TK only used to prop up a character? Should it be a "shotgun" like attack if the legs were somewhat sharpened against a vampire? Should that cross beam in the chair work as a cross to repel vampires? Etc.

 

Finally, the disadvantages already reflect how common/common knowledge the vuln./sus. is. Werewolves suffer a very common allergy to silver because it is common knowledge not because silver bullets are common.

 

Now you may not have a trouble with this and each gaming group is different. Your gaming group may play perfectly well with this method. However, I believe it better to simply adjust the character than each possible attack. This leads to in my eyes a simpler game and a game/campaign which is more portable allowing players to come and go with less hassle. (as in a convention game or an open game recruiting new "blood" so to speak)

[Comic]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

I've always had more trouble modelling the "only dies if head cut off," type ability, myself. That and the "immobilized by a stake through the heart."

 

I mean, sure, normal people will die if their head is cut off, and a stake through the heart of an ordinary person would be at least as inconvenient as to a vampire, but both feats are available to relatively normal people to use on vampires, so you wouldn't want to let a vampire character run around immune to normal people with stakes aimed at their hearts, or cleavers at their necks.

[archermoo]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

I've always had more trouble modelling the "only dies if head cut off," type ability, myself. That and the "immobilized by a stake through the heart."

 

I mean, sure, normal people will die if their head is cut off, and a stake through the heart of an ordinary person would be at least as inconvenient as to a vampire, but both feats are available to relatively normal people to use on vampires, so you wouldn't want to let a vampire character run around immune to normal people with stakes aimed at their hearts, or cleavers at their necks.

 

Which is another reason to make things like that up to the target, rather than up to the attacker.

[BobGreenwade]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

While you all raise good points about it being modeled better through a Disadvantage than a player power (and that is, after all, how it's done in the published material), I was concerned only about the old "me too" method.

 

GM: You're facing a werewolf.

Player 1: Fortunately I always carry silver bullets with me.

GM: You do?

Player 1: I'm a paranormal investigator. I have KS: Lycanthropes right there on my character sheet.

GM: [checking] Oh. OK.

Player 2: I always carry silver bullets too.

Player 3: Me too.

GM: Wait a minute. You're a jeweler (#2), and you're a reporter (#3).

Player 2: So I'm the guy who made his silver bullets. If he's going to need them, I figure he knows what he's talking about.

GM: *sigh* All right. And you?

Player 3: Werewolves are a fact, so I'm prepared.

GM: But...

Player 4: And my sword is coated with silver, too.

GM: But you're a ninja!

Player 4: It's an ancient sword handed down from my great-grandfather, who used it against many monsters.

GM: Now wait a minute....

 

Of course players 3 and 4 would be overruled, but I think it would be reasonable to find *some* way to give the characters a price (albeit a marginally small one) for having an easily recognizable Special Effect covering an opponent's obvious weakness. (This is in contract with, say, a vampire's possible Vulnerability to fire; if the Special Effect of an attack is fire, the price is that it isn't electricity or cold or lasers or something else that might be someone else's Vulnerability.)

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

easiest solution there is to have a copy of their character sheets with their major gear on it and decided beforehand seems to me.

[Vondy]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

I've always had more trouble modelling the "only dies if head cut off," type ability, myself. That and the "immobilized by a stake through the heart."

 

 

In theory, regeneration and ressurection are supposed to have an FX (or group of FXs) that it doesn't work against. Its not always spelled out, but in this case you can define: "head chopped off" as the FX. The immobilized by a stake shtick is probably a phyiscal lim, esp. since vampires and their ilk might not otherwise be taken down by such a blow.

[pinecone]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

In theory' date=' regeneration and ressurection are supposed to have an FX (or group of FXs) that it doesn't work against. Its not always spelled out, but in this case you can define: "head chopped off" as the FX. The immobilized by a stake shtick is probably a phyiscal lim, esp. since vampires and their ilk might not otherwise be taken down by such a blow.[/quote']

 

I usually go with "Lim: Not vs material" for this: DR x1/2 PDr Not vs wood or silver...etc....Like wise on the damage resistance..... It seems like an easy way and avoids the weird lims.....

[Sidume]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

Many a superhero world has vampires, werewolves, and similar monsters of legend featured therein. Obviously, in such a world, it's advantageous to have garlic, silver, and other substances on hand that can repulse or harm them. So how would you write these things up in game terms?

 

Buy the standard power(s). Buy variable effects advantage. Define it as "Monster Huntin' Gear." In This bag of tricks (with a focus limitation) you would have silver, wooden stakes, garlic, moly, matches, hemlock, okra, kryptonite, etc. Of course, you would need a skill role to know that Monster X doesn't react well to Compound Y. And another one to get the right substance from your bag of tricks, and charges (with burnout) , because you can't be carrying everything, and you might only be able to change what's in the bag after you get back to the Batcave, etc.

 

You are taking advantage of their disads. You don't buy extra damage to justify what you're doing.

[NestorDRod]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

While you all raise good points about it being modeled better through a Disadvantage than a player power (and that is, after all, how it's done in the published material), I was concerned only about the old "me too" method.

 

GM: You're facing a werewolf.

Player 1: Fortunately I always carry silver bullets with me.

GM: You do?

Player 1: I'm a paranormal investigator. I have KS: Lycanthropes right there on my character sheet.

GM: [checking] Oh. OK.

Player 2: I always carry silver bullets too.

Player 3: Me too.

GM: Wait a minute. You're a jeweler (#2), and you're a reporter (#3).

Player 2: So I'm the guy who made his silver bullets. If he's going to need them, I figure he knows what he's talking about.

GM: *sigh* All right. And you?

Player 3: Werewolves are a fact, so I'm prepared.

GM: But...

Player 4: And my sword is coated with silver, too.

GM: But you're a ninja!

Player 4: It's an ancient sword handed down from my great-grandfather, who used it against many monsters.

GM: Now wait a minute....

 

Of course players 3 and 4 would be overruled, but I think it would be reasonable to find *some* way to give the characters a price (albeit a marginally small one) for having an easily recognizable Special Effect covering an opponent's obvious weakness. (This is in contract with, say, a vampire's possible Vulnerability to fire; if the Special Effect of an attack is fire, the price is that it isn't electricity or cold or lasers or something else that might be someone else's Vulnerability.)

 

 

Hate to say it, but that sort of situation is not solved by rules-mongering, just by good ol' plain GM common sense. As Nancy said: Just Say No.

 

If it's the character's schtick to be a "monster hunter" then, yeah, I could see him carrying silver as a weapon. Otherwise, unless the player specifically states he is doing so at the beginning of the campaign, he isn't carrying any.

 

I can see a character, after encountering werewolves in the game, making a point of arming himsef accordingly, but not retroactively saying, "Oh, I've been carrying these silver bullets with me since day one for just this occasion."

 

But hey, YMMV.

[Alibear]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

If a character hadn't said up fron that he wanted to have silver bullets he wouldn't have them in my game. If, however he had PS: monster hunter I'd allow him to carry them.

[ideasmith]

Re: Silver bullets, garlic grenades, and all that stuff

 

While you all raise good points about it being modeled better through a Disadvantage than a player power (and that is, after all, how it's done in the published material), I was concerned only about the old "me too" method.

 

GM: You're facing a werewolf.

Player 1: Fortunately I always carry silver bullets with me.

GM: You do?

Player 1: I'm a paranormal investigator. I have KS: Lycanthropes right there on my character sheet.

GM: [checking] Oh. OK.

Player 2: I always carry silver bullets too.

Player 3: Me too.

GM: Wait a minute. You're a jeweler (#2), and you're a reporter (#3).

Player 2: So I'm the guy who made his silver bullets. If he's going to need them, I figure he knows what he's talking about.

GM: *sigh* All right. And you?

Player 3: Werewolves are a fact, so I'm prepared.

GM: But...

Player 4: And my sword is coated with silver, too.

GM: But you're a ninja!

Player 4: It's an ancient sword handed down from my great-grandfather, who used it against many monsters.

GM: Now wait a minute....

 

Of course players 3 and 4 would be overruled, but I think it would be reasonable to find *some* way to give the characters a price (albeit a marginally small one) for having an easily recognizable Special Effect covering an opponent's obvious weakness. (This is in contract with, say, a vampire's possible Vulnerability to fire; if the Special Effect of an attack is fire, the price is that it isn't electricity or cold or lasers or something else that might be someone else's Vulnerability.)

 

I have two things to say about this:

 

1. The opponents with weaknesses against silver should be balance by opponents with advantages against silver.

 

2. Changing equipment in mid-game should only be possible with an in-game explanation of the change. Obviously, if learning they will be facing werewolves is followed by a few weeks time to spend aquiring custom stuff ...