The Dresden Files > DFRPG
Quick DFRPG Questions: Evocation vs. Attacks and Stealth
iago:
--- Quote from: biff_dyskolos on April 26, 2010, 07:27:12 PM ---Diving for cover would use Athletics as a defence, wouldn't it? The original question was could evocation be used as a defence. That would mean using either Lore, Conviction or Discipline for the defensive skill.
--- End quote ---
Yes, Biff, and I've answered that already, above. You then came in and talked about the need to defend against "fast" attacks despite that answer, so I figured you needed something more. The something more is "dive for cover, nimrod, don't take your time to cast a spell". :)
iago:
--- Quote from: iago on April 26, 2010, 07:09:23 PM ---This may be a case of things being all spread around. In aggregate, 311-312 talks about looking at various factors that exist and adjusting difficulty appropriately. Movement is but one of them. And the skulking trapping on YS143 gets into this a bit: "It uses many of the same rules as Hiding, above, but it adds in difficulty factors based on how fast you are moving and the terrain. A slow crawl isn’t much harder, but running is tough. Bare concrete isn’t much of an issue, but a scattering of dried leaves and twigs makes it much more difficult to move quietly." I'll see if I can get into the stuff on YS312 and help it achieve more obvious unity with YS143, but I think the unity is there (just muddy).
--- End quote ---
Okay, marginalia time!
Addition to YS178:
HARRY: So what are all these “difficulty factors due to moving”, Billy? I’ve looked at skulking on page 143 and modifying difficulties for movement on page 312 and I’m still confused!
BILLY: Well, the difficulty modification stuff is mostly about looking at the situation and adding +2 for each factor that works against the stealthy individual. So here, each “reduced by two” amounts to “ignore one factor”.
BILLY: So to get into a specific example. Let’s say you want to move quickly across several zones, some of which are covered in crunchy-sounding gravel. Those are two factors, each adding +2 to whatever the GM decided the basic difficulty was. Inhuman Speed ignores one of those. Supernatural ignores both.
I'll poke around and see if more needs to be gotten at, but I think that hits the core of it.
Biff Dyskolos:
--- Quote from: iago on April 26, 2010, 07:29:32 PM ---Yes, Biff, and I've answered that already, above. You then came in and talked about the need to defend against "fast" attacks despite that answer, so I figured you needed something more. The something more is "dive for cover, nimrod, don't take your time to cast a spell". :)
--- End quote ---
I apologize for having offended you buy you may have misunderstood me. I was not talking about defending "against 'fast' attacks". I was trying to suggest a fast evocation used as a defence. It would be like using Weapons to parry an attack. Except in this case you would be using an underpowered evocation (because you were doing really fast) to parry an attack.
Deadmanwalking:
--- Quote from: biff_dyskolos on April 26, 2010, 08:09:33 PM ---I apologize for having offended you buy you may have misunderstood me. I was not talking about defending "against 'fast' attacks". I was trying to suggest a fast evocation used as a defence. It would be like using Weapons to parry an attack. Except in this case you would be using an underpowered evocation (because you were doing really fast) to parry an attack.
--- End quote ---
Dude. He specifically said you could do basically that the very post before you asked the question. The only difference being that it's a full power Evocation. So, yeah, when you ask the question he just answered, he may've gotten a bit annoyed.
Re-read the posts before your first in this thread for details.
iago:
--- Quote from: iago on April 26, 2010, 06:43:21 PM ---Current draft marginalia for YS254 -- there's absolutely no room to put it on the previous two-page spread -- which I'm vetting with my (so far unresponsive) dev staff:
HARRY: Billy, I have a question from the previous pages. Can you do Block evocations instead of rolling to defend? How about counterspells?
BILLY: I’d rule that you can do it with a block, but keep in mind that when you forego your defense roll, your blocking spell is the only difficulty your attacker will have to overcome—no defense roll means no defense aside from that. If the block is not broken, it would persist until the end of the next exchange.
BILLY: I’d also say that counterspells can’t be done reactively, due to the assessment requirement.
--- End quote ---
I've run this past the dev staff. As I suspected, we did not have an original design intent to provide for reactive blocks at all. Blocks are standard actions, so dev consensus is pointing at making it something you can do reactively only if you sacrifice your next action to do so. (If allowed at all. Lenny and I are still debating.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version