[Plane]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Vulnerability doesn't negate (or offset) No Wounding.

Horror 72 mentions that Vulnerability x4 from Hot Fat results in taking x3 damage from it...

The extra damage from the Vulnerability is applied to the spirit; the host takes only normal boiling-fat damage.

This seems to be based on "substantial stuff can't normally harm insubstantial stuff" being a -100% damage modifier similar to No Wounding.

IE even if you have an immunity to damage (either because it's No Wounding or you are Insubstantial) if you get points for a Vulnerabilty it should mean the Vulnerability over-rides your normal immunity.

Sort of like if you had either Vulnerability: Beheading Attacks (H59/H66) or Vulnerability: Head Shots (H91) you probably should not be allowed to take "Injury Tolerance: No Head" until you buy off those vulnerabilities.

Originally Posted by Varyon

The order of operations here is you roll for damage, see how much penetrates, and apply the relevant Wounding Modifier(s) as multipliers, not as percentage additions.

Basically "+300% becomes +200%" is how I interpret the Wendigo precedent of only applying the "extra damage" reducing a x4 multiplier to x3.

Originally Posted by Varyon

For a Powers-based Water Jet to still wound fire elementals, you'd need No Wounding to have a Limitation, such as "Not against Fire Elementals." If that's -5%, then you're looking at No Wounding (Not against Fire Elementals -5%) -47.5% instead of just No Wounding -50%.

You don't limit a limitation, you limit an enhancement which cancels it out.
So you'd take No Wounding -50% at full discount, then then instead of Yes Wounding +50% to offset it, we apply an Accessibility limitation to Yes Wounding.

If we say "1 in 10,000 people is a fire elemental, -50%" (PU8p4) then that would reduce +50% to +25% making the net limitation -25%.

Originally Posted by Varyon

That said, some GM's might allow for caveats like that without needing to account for them points-wise. Much as it's suggested that a Water Jet Power be able to put out fires, soak things, etc,

I can't find mention of a Water Jet power, but P140's "Water Cannon" mentions it's useful for "putting out fires".

I don't believe it's right to let a raw/wild "Crushing Attack" (as P140 stats it) do that, but I believe these "Examples" (part of the "Elemental Attacks" section starting P137) are intended to be coupled with an appropriate power modifier.

The reason we don't see the modifier is because the modifier might have a different discount depending on what source is used.

P135-136 has three possible costs listed for Water:
-10 for divine or magical or super or elemental
-20 for super AND elemental
-25 for spirit

Which modifier is chosen could also influence how it operates.

In addition to that, the "focus" (P7) of that power which might introduce special properties to advantages within that power.

That said, there should still be some property (trait) of an opponent which causes them to react to that trait. A "this trait means I am made of fire" aspect.

B262 for Body of Fire I think tries to do that via Weakness: Water but as it's a "per minute in environment" fixed damage instead of a multiplier it doesn't really interact with No Wounding situations.

Perhaps an interesting point for comparison is H93's "Cihuateto" as they have Vulnerability: Fire x 3 and Vulnerability: Impaling to Heart x4, yet being derived from Lilitu they are Specters (H27) which are Spirits who spend a lot of the time Insubstantial where normal fires and impaling attacks (lacking "affects insubstantial" enhancements) wouldn't be able to harm them in the first place.

So it raises the question: is this only meant to affect them while materializing, or to allow "Fire x 2" and "Impale x 3" substantial-only attacks to harm them while insubstantial?

Being able to harmed in insubstantial form by damage lacking "affects insubstantial" enhancements was a thing in 3e (Spirits). It was the standard assumption if you took the Vulnerability at full value, because you could only get half the normal value if the vulnerability couldn't harm you while insubstantial.

If we don't make it the standard assumption then I don't really know how to stat it. You could define "fire which harms the insubstantial" as a narrower vulnerability (rarer, worth fewer points as a disadvantage) and then buy "not vulnerable to insubstantial-damaging fire" as an Alternate Ability to Insubstantiality, if you don't want "affects both" giving a multiplier while in substantial form.

Originally Posted by Varyon

the GM is well within rights to say "Eh, it's a fire elemental, your Water Jet's "No Wounding" doesn't apply to it." He or she would then need to decide if it does normal wounding, or if the wounding is doubled (or more, depending on how the fire elemental is built) due to the Vulnerability.

I could see if you're a fire elemental defining your abilities as falling under P27's "Elemental" power modifier, whose -10% is a bit confusing since it is either from "mundane countermeasure" or "mundane insulator" or more weirdly "a little of both".

That could cover stuff like "water puts out my fire" disabling stuff like Burning Attack (Aura) but doesn't quite get us to "the 2d no-wounding crushing attack which doesn't injure humans injures you!" realm...

We could lump this under "special effects" (P113) but I think the problem is there's no actual root trait to modify here. We're talking about a situation of "a limitation on an innate attack doesn't apply against me".

Something like "No Wounding attacks hurt me" would be like saying "Insubstantial Only attacks hurt me while I'm substantial too!" or "I get knocked back by attacks limited by No Knockback".

We would need to decide whether "my crushing puts out fires" is a Functional Special Effect (113 left) or Cosmetic Effect (113 right) or Minor Benefit (114 top).

But then also: what is the disadvantage (quirk or otherwise) that designates "I am the target for such a Special Effect.

Maybe it works out to 0pt feature because "Accessibility: Humans Only" makes being a human a disadvantage when it's an attack, but a benefit when it's healing/buffing?

So "I'm an elemental" is a bad thing when enemies have "only hurts elementals" abilities, but a beneficial thing when your allies have "only heals elementals" abilities?