breaking down No Fatigue / Not Subject to Fatigue

Plane · 03-13-2022, 01:40 PM

Pg 67 of Zombies and Pg 12 of Toolkit 2 seem to be describing the same thing with alternate terms.

Zombies' breakdown is particularly interesting since it goes into a bit of an 'under the hood' here.

Toolkit's "cannot spend FP to engage in extra effort" seems to correlate with Z68's "zombies can’t spend FP, either – even if they want to! Extra effort is off-limits" except it goes a step further: "cannot use FP to energize advantages, skills, or spells" making the "No Fatigue" of Zombies more explicitly restrictive than Toolkit 2's "Not Subject to Fatigue" even though I think they're intended to be the same thing?

Variations in what we call this 0pt feature (though you could also think of advantage+disadvantage as a 0pt meta-trait right?) makes me wonder if (though it would take up more space) it might be desirable in some cases to actually break it down into components on a character sheet.

This would also be important for cases like if someone had "Irresistible Attack" on a Fatigue Attack (which would bypass stuff like "Immune to X") and should in theory be able to inflict damage on someone protected by -something like Immunity to a “Very Common” hazard- as Z68 puts it. (even though that's supposed to help with HT rolls not Basic Damage)

One of the issues here in pricing though is that Zombies talks about buying off an FP supply of 10 even though HT fluctuations could alter this. Someone lacking FP should probably pay fewer points to buy HT (they aren't benefitting from the FP cost built in) and get fewer points for lowering their HT (they aren't sacrificing FP)

3e dealt with this in Spirits 39/43 with Doesn't Fatigue [15] and No Extra Effort [-15] which seems to be the similar components, just with half the assigned value.

There are certain things that deal with FP, such as "requires attribute roll" where you can't reroll at less than 3 FP, so is this unusable for FP n/a creatures?

Outright immunity to Fatigue Attack via a 30pt advantage (I guess Immunity to Metabolic Hazards might play a similar role to Toxic Attack?) makes Fatigue-Only DR pretty unattractive and seems to operate more in the 3e spirit of having outright damage immunities instead of the 4e spirit of replacing immunity with Damage Reduction and Damage Resistance...

I'm wondering about ways we might represent this other than using (abusing?) stuff like Resistant/Immune and moving them away from 'counters resistance rolls' to 'counters damage'...

Damage Resistance (Limited:Common:Toxic -40% Flexible -20% Semi-Ablative -20%) [1] for example could represent "I'm less organic than the rest of them" perhaps?

The whole reason that Toxic Attack 1 [4] is cheaper is I figured because you don't get wound multipliers for hit locations, no knockback, and so on. If it had Resistible -10% then stuff like "Resistant to Poison" giving a HT boost against that damage is cool, but if it didn't, there's nowhere to apply that +3 or +8 making the jump from 3/8 resistance to Immunity that much bigger.

Actually makes me wonder if in resistible things there should be infinite bonus (autopass) as that seems like 3e immunity to damage, what if it was just bought up indefinitely (like with Resistant to Magic) as if you were buying HT with an accessibility limitation?

03-13-2022, 01:40 PM	#1
Plane Join Date: Aug 2018	breaking down No Fatigue / Not Subject to Fatigue Pg 67 of Zombies and Pg 12 of Toolkit 2 seem to be describing the same thing with alternate terms. Zombies' breakdown is particularly interesting since it goes into a bit of an 'under the hood' here. Toolkit's "cannot spend FP to engage in extra effort" seems to correlate with Z68's "zombies can’t spend FP, either – even if they want to! Extra effort is off-limits" except it goes a step further: "cannot use FP to energize advantages, skills, or spells" making the "No Fatigue" of Zombies more explicitly restrictive than Toolkit 2's "Not Subject to Fatigue" even though I think they're intended to be the same thing? Variations in what we call this 0pt feature (though you could also think of advantage+disadvantage as a 0pt meta-trait right?) makes me wonder if (though it would take up more space) it might be desirable in some cases to actually break it down into components on a character sheet. This would also be important for cases like if someone had "Irresistible Attack" on a Fatigue Attack (which would bypass stuff like "Immune to X") and should in theory be able to inflict damage on someone protected by -something like Immunity to a “Very Common” hazard- as Z68 puts it. (even though that's supposed to help with HT rolls not Basic Damage) One of the issues here in pricing though is that Zombies talks about buying off an FP supply of 10 even though HT fluctuations could alter this. Someone lacking FP should probably pay fewer points to buy HT (they aren't benefitting from the FP cost built in) and get fewer points for lowering their HT (they aren't sacrificing FP) 3e dealt with this in Spirits 39/43 with Doesn't Fatigue [15] and No Extra Effort [-15] which seems to be the similar components, just with half the assigned value. There are certain things that deal with FP, such as "requires attribute roll" where you can't reroll at less than 3 FP, so is this unusable for FP n/a creatures? Outright immunity to Fatigue Attack via a 30pt advantage (I guess Immunity to Metabolic Hazards might play a similar role to Toxic Attack?) makes Fatigue-Only DR pretty unattractive and seems to operate more in the 3e spirit of having outright damage immunities instead of the 4e spirit of replacing immunity with Damage Reduction and Damage Resistance... I'm wondering about ways we might represent this other than using (abusing?) stuff like Resistant/Immune and moving them away from 'counters resistance rolls' to 'counters damage'... Damage Resistance (Limited:Common:Toxic -40% Flexible -20% Semi-Ablative -20%) [1] for example could represent "I'm less organic than the rest of them" perhaps? The whole reason that Toxic Attack 1 [4] is cheaper is I figured because you don't get wound multipliers for hit locations, no knockback, and so on. If it had Resistible -10% then stuff like "Resistant to Poison" giving a HT boost against that damage is cool, but if it didn't, there's nowhere to apply that +3 or +8 making the jump from 3/8 resistance to Immunity that much bigger. Actually makes me wonder if in resistible things there should be infinite bonus (autopass) as that seems like 3e immunity to damage, what if it was just bought up indefinitely (like with Resistant to Magic) as if you were buying HT with an accessibility limitation?