Vulnerability and Weakness -- when do they apply?

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

I have a (hopefully) quick question about Vulnerability and Weakness.

Is it a disadvantage to be Vulnerable or Weak to a weapon or substance which has to be manufactured specifically to cause Vulnerability or Weakness? For example, "evil" magic creatures vulnerable to "holy" weapons, if the weapons are made holy for no reason except to hurt "evil" magic creatures. Fairy creatures Vulnerable to "cold iron" or silver weapons, which nobody actually makes at all except when they want to hurt Fairies. Is this a Vulnerability disadvantage of said creature, or just a special trait of the weapon itself?

Likewise, Weakness. If a species is harmed by some substance, say a chemical, designed solely to hurt that species, is that Weakness (rare chemical) or is it a property of the chemiacal? For simplicity let's say this species doesn't have Unusual Biochemistry.

I ask because in the case of Social Stigma vs. Intolerance, who gets the disadvantage seems to be a question of whether most people stigmatizes somebody, or just some or a few people. This seems to be an analogous situation.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

Is it a disadvantage to be Vulnerable or Weak to a weapon or substance which has to be manufactured specifically to cause Vulnerability or Weakness? For example, "evil" magic creatures vulnerable to "holy" weapons, if the weapons are made holy for no reason except to hurt "evil" magic creatures. Fairy creatures Vulnerable to "cold iron" or silver weapons, which nobody actually makes at all except when they want to hurt Fairies. Is this a Vulnerability disadvantage of said creature, or just a special trait of the weapon itself?

This is typically a feature, just like being vulnerable to True Faith or Hypnotism.

Likewise, Weakness. If a species is harmed by some substance, say a chemical, designed solely to hurt that species, is that Weakness (rare chemical) or is it a property of the chemiacal? For simplicity let's say this species doesn't have Unusual Biochemistry.

If the chemical is a rare special purpose thing, then it's a Feature. Humans are vulnerable to Cyanide as a feature. Parrots are vulnerable to Teflon as a feature for that matter. If it's water, or sodium chloride, or something and the creature otherwise lives in the same environment as humans than it's a Weakness. In the case of something that normally lives in an environment that lacks the substance and has complementary immunities (a methane breather poisoned by oxygen) than it's a feature.

I ask because in the case of Social Stigma vs. Intolerance, who gets the disadvantage seems to be a question of whether most people stigmatizes somebody, or just some or a few people. This seems to be an analogous situation.

I don't think that's the case. People have Intolerence: Liberals, does that mean all Liberals have Social Stigma. If one person in the world has Intolerence: Elves does that mean Elves have Social Stigma?

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

That's exactly what I meant about Social Stigma: if all or most people are intolerant, then you have a Social Stigma. If a small proportion are intolerant, they're the ones with a disadvantage.

Anyway. Thanks for the advice.

Would you say that these are features regardless of how common or rare the specially-created weapons/chemicals are?

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

That's exactly what I meant about Social Stigma: if all or most people are intolerant, then you have a Social Stigma. If a small proportion are intolerant, they're the ones with a disadvantage.

Ah, I misread you.

Would you say that these are features regardless of how common or rare the specially-created weapons/chemicals are?

No, if it turns out that trees only exist because the gods made them to kill vampires it would still be Vulnerability(Wood).

[Vaevictis Asmadi]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

No, if it turns out that trees only exist because the gods made them to kill vampires it would still be Vulnerability(Wood).

How did you know that was my plan for my next campaign!?


But seriously, what I gather is that it's a feature if being specially-made for the task makes the dangerous thing rarer than Rare?

[starslayer]

I interpret it a bit differently.

A poison is a poison is a poison (for the most part)- baring advantage or disadvantage or a blanket 'unusual biochemistry with the following noted changes' any PC is vulnerable/weak to everything that a normal human is vulnerable/weak to.

When you are starting to become weak/vulnerable to things that would not effect a human (or not effect a human this badly) AND there is no compensating advantage, then it is a vulnerability/weakness.

Example: I recall some sort of D&D shapeshifter being vulnerable to salt. A regular human can be killed by salt overdose, or being tossed into a pit of the stuff, but the shapeshifter reacts to it like acid. The shapeshifter has weakness- salt (possibly with reduced time to make it burn like acid, instead of slowly eat away at them for 1d6/minute)

In my own fantasy game dragonsbane is a toxic herb which can be used as a poison. It is vaguely effective against anyone (1d6 toxic damage, immediately). Dragon's however are vulnerable to the poison (suffer 4x damage) AND weak to the poison (suffer 1d6/minute of exposure). If a dragon is struck by a weapon coated in dragonsbane they suffer 4d6 damage, AND 4d6 damage per minute of exposure (say because it was a poisoned bolt lodged into them and it is now still stuck in there scales.). Further because of the way a weakness works even if a dragonsbane coated weapon fails to penetrate there scales they still suffer 4d6 damage per minute due to proximity.

[sir_pudding]

Originally Posted by starslayer

A poison is a poison is a poison (for the most part)- baring advantage or disadvantage or a blanket 'unusual biochemistry with the following noted changes' any PC is vulnerable/weak to everything that a normal human is vulnerable/weak to.

But not to something like True Faith or the Pentagram spell?

[David Johnston2]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

[I have a (hopefully) quick question about Vulnerability and Weakness.

Is it a disadvantage to be Vulnerable or Weak to a weapon or substance which has to be manufactured specifically to cause Vulnerability or Weakness? For example, "evil" magic creatures vulnerable to "holy" weapons, if the weapons are made holy for no reason except to hurt "evil" magic creatures.

As long as it's still Gear. It is possible to build a Gadget that does extra damage to unholy creatures as x many damage dice with the accessibility "Only versus Unholy" and a Holy power source, and that will be truly devastating against Unholy creatures who also got the Vulnerability because both sources of damage apply. But for all that they are housed in an object the character can be deprived of, Gadget advantages are still part of the character who paid the character points for them. Gear can just be bought or made with the right skills and materials.

Likewise, Weakness. If a species is harmed by some substance, say a chemical, designed solely to hurt that species, is that Weakness (rare chemical) or is it a property of the chemiacal? For simplicity let's say this species doesn't have Unusual Biochemistry.

If there are multiple species in the setting, and only one is vulnerable to the poison, and that one does not comprise the Reference Society, then it is either a Weakness of the target species if it can be produced mundanely, or an attack of specific characters if they are specially endowed with an ability to make it that can't be copied by mundane means.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Vaevictis Asmadi

I have a (hopefully) quick question about Vulnerability and Weakness.

Is it a disadvantage to be Vulnerable or Weak to a weapon or substance which has to be manufactured specifically to cause Vulnerability or Weakness? For example, "evil" magic creatures vulnerable to "holy" weapons, if the weapons are made holy for no reason except to hurt "evil" magic creatures. Fairy creatures Vulnerable to "cold iron" or silver weapons, which nobody actually makes at all except when they want to hurt Fairies. Is this a Vulnerability disadvantage of said creature, or just a special trait of the weapon itself?

Likewise, Weakness. If a species is harmed by some substance, say a chemical, designed solely to hurt that species, is that Weakness (rare chemical) or is it a property of the chemiacal? For simplicity let's say this species doesn't have Unusual Biochemistry.

Depends on how you buy it. If you buy _foo as gear with G$, then the things that are especially weak/vulnerable to it have a disadvantage. If you buy _foo as a trait with character points, then the things that are especially weak/vulnerable to it have a feature and you have a limitation on _foo that reduces how many points you pay for it.

Whether something can be purchased as gear or as a trait is a campaign-level decision.

[starslayer]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

But not to something like True Faith or the Pentagram spell?

Being a magical creature (affected by pentagram) has both advantages and disadvantages, as you are now able to instantly shatter force dome/walls and apply your strength against utter dome/walls (otherwise completely impregnable to non-magical entities). That you now have to overcome pentagrams is the trade-off for the ability to do that.

Affected by true faith is a bit more of a grab bag on this, there is not really any special advantage that goes with it. In my own games I would allow a PC who wants to be affected by true faith be able to buy up a dread: true faith, and potentially a weakness (likewise); This also allows the PC to decide HOW effected by true faith they are (can they be forced into corners and trapped, how far are they forced away from the individual employing true faith, etc).