Author Topic: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?  (Read 9952 times)

Offline iago

  • The Merlin
  • Posty McPostington
  • *******
  • Posts: 3071
  • I'm the site administrator.
    • View Profile
    • Deadly Fredly
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #30 on: April 29, 2010, 01:01:26 AM »
Aaaand, I'm out. Make the game what you will, folks. :)
Fred Hicks
I own the board. If I start talking in my moderator voice, expect the Fist of God to be close on my heels. Red is my Fist of God voice.
www.evilhat.com * www.dresdenfilesrpg.com
Support this site: http://www.jim-butcher.com/store/

Offline Valarian

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2010, 12:38:08 PM »
Do you actually think lawbreakers (the stunts) are actually needed?
I just can't resist the Star Wars quote for this:
Beware the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will

Personally, I like the stunts. They force the player to consider the implications of the character's actions (i.e. possibility of the character becoming an evil NPC). They also give a bonus to make future law breaking easier. The more times you break a law, the easier it  becomes to do so (a great temptation). Like the Dark Side of the Force, the law breaking (i.e. gaining stunts) becomes easy and seductive.

As a GM, if a player ever did lose his character due to law breaking and managed to evade the Wardens, I would definitely bring the character back as a bad guy.
Google Groups for FGII Games:
European FG2 RPG - Fridays & Sundays (8pm UK time)
Using Ultimate FGII and can accept unlicensed player connections on some of the games

Offline Korwin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 414
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2010, 04:47:06 PM »
I'm away from the pdf, but here my focused lawbreaker pc...

-2 Channeling (Spirit)
-2 lawbreaker killing
-2 lawbreaker thrall
-2 lawbreaker mindreading
-1 refinement + 2 Focus items
----
-9

Superb Conviction and discipline
Great Lore
+ 4 Focus Offensive Spirit

Does lawbreaker add to conviction and discipline?
If yes, that would be an +11 mental attack with an +15 to hit.
Without using aspects...

Start without the lawbreaker Stunts and the GM may even let you play that thing.



Offline luminos

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1234
  • Um... Hello?
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2010, 04:58:26 PM »
I'm away from the pdf, but here my focused lawbreaker pc...

-2 Channeling (Spirit)
-2 lawbreaker killing
-2 lawbreaker thrall
-2 lawbreaker mindreading
-1 refinement + 2 Focus items
----
-9

Superb Conviction and discipline
Great Lore
+ 4 Focus Offensive Spirit

Does lawbreaker add to conviction and discipline?
If yes, that would be an +11 mental attack with an +15 to hit.
Without using aspects...

Start without the lawbreaker Stunts and the GM may even let you play that thing.




Your numbers are off.  First of all, your focus gives you a bonus to either control or power with offensive spirit, not both.  Next, the max bonus you get from a lawbreaker gives a +3 to the roll, so there is no way that you can get a +15 to hit out of that combination (well, unless you get a +4 on the dice roll, which has 1/81 chance of happening). 

To answer your question about what lawbreaker adds to.  Lawbreaker only adds in when you roll the dice to perform that lawbreaking activity, so since you don't roll to summon the power, it won't increase what you can normally handle by conviction.  It does add to the discipline roll if the roll is used to control a spell that is intended to break one of the laws you have stunts for.
Lawful Chaotic

Offline Korwin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 414
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2010, 06:36:43 PM »
Yeah, I got the impression the Lawbreaker stunts are cumulative (if more than one Law is broken with it at once). I'm with the PDF's now and only the highest counts...

So I'll revise the build

-2 Channeling (Spirit)
-2 Lawbreaker Forth
-5 Refinement + 10 Focus items
----
-9

Superb Lore and Conviction
Great Discipline
+ 5 Offensive Spirit Controll Focus
+ 5 Defensive Spirit Power Focus
+ 2 Defensive Spirit Controll Focus


He uses Veils and Illusion by manipulating the Mind of the opponent (Law Violation).
In an fight, he uses his magic to put the enemies to sleep (Law Violation? Gatekeeper did it...)

An Block/Veil would be +10 with an +8 Controll roll (+2 Lawbreaker, +2 Focus)
An attack would be +5 Power and +11 Control roll (+2 Lawbreaker, +5 Focus)

Not as overpowered as the first (incorrect) version, but not bad...
And the Power comes mainly from the Foci not from the Lawbreaker.


Offline luminos

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1234
  • Um... Hello?
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2010, 07:16:19 PM »
yeah, not bad at all.  Of course, with all that lawbreaking, the GM is going to start going compel crazy on the twisted aspects of the character.  ;D
Lawful Chaotic

Offline Victim

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2010, 09:43:21 PM »

Not as overpowered as the first (incorrect) version, but not bad...
And the Power comes mainly from the Foci not from the Lawbreaker.


Yeah, any Channeler with tons of refinement is going to be pretty brutal.  I mean, you spent all of your refresh AND 2 Superbs +1 Great skill on one trick (granted Spirit is pretty broad).  You could achieve a similar effect by dropping lawbreaker and either buying more Refinement (for Defensive Control, so you can have a full effect Rote and Offensive Power) or just taking some more Fate Points.  The FP route lets you create a maneuver with your spells, and then spend your points to Compel that new aspect.  So you make an enemy dish out some 'friendly fire' instead of just tagging for a bonus.

You could do a lot with Veils without going directly into somebody's mind, after all.  Or with kinetics/fields to use the other side of spirit.

Offline KOFFEYKID

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 776
  • Im BLEEDING Caffeine!
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #37 on: April 29, 2010, 10:03:22 PM »
Unfortunately you cant take refinement with channeling, you have to have either full evocation or full thaumaturgy to do it, unless you houserule otherwise.

Offline Victim

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 75
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #38 on: April 29, 2010, 10:16:24 PM »
Unfortunately you cant take refinement with channeling, you have to have either full evocation or full thaumaturgy to do it, unless you houserule otherwise.

You can, but only to get items.

Offline Biff Dyskolos

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #39 on: April 29, 2010, 10:40:42 PM »
If you have Lawbreaker (First law), does the bonus automatically apply to your Weapon:x evocations or do you have to choose to use it?

If it is automatic then I prefer Lawbreaker as a stunt. Otherwise I think I prefer Lawbreaker as an aspect because it is compellable.

Offline luminos

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1234
  • Um... Hello?
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #40 on: April 29, 2010, 10:50:58 PM »
If you have Lawbreaker (First law), does the bonus automatically apply to your Weapon:x evocations or do you have to choose to use it?

If it is automatic then I prefer Lawbreaker as a stunt. Otherwise I think I prefer Lawbreaker as an aspect because it is compellable.

You have to be doing something that would break the law to get the bonus from the stunt.
Lawful Chaotic

Offline KOFFEYKID

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 776
  • Im BLEEDING Caffeine!
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #41 on: April 29, 2010, 11:06:03 PM »
The answer is, if you are shooting spells intending to incapacitate your target, the No, a 1st lawbreaker wont give you a bonus, if you are shooting spells to kill, then Yes, it will give you a bonus.

Offline Biff Dyskolos

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #42 on: April 29, 2010, 11:25:00 PM »
The answer is, if you are shooting spells intending to incapacitate your target, the No, a 1st lawbreaker wont give you a bonus, if you are shooting spells to kill, then Yes, it will give you a bonus.

Depends what you mean by incapacitate. I'm not talking about casting a Block or a Manoeuvre. When you cast a Weapon:X evocation your intent is to harm them. Even if you don't do it with the intent to kill them, death is still a possible outcome. It depends upon the targets current stress/consequences.

If the Lawbreaker bonus applies because you intend to harm them and death is possible then that feels grittier to me. Otherwise you can take Lawbreaker(First Law) just because it fits your character concept and then during play you throw evocations around but never intend to kill anyone. That seems gritless. :)

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #43 on: April 29, 2010, 11:27:26 PM »
I'd say Lawbreaker (First) only applies when you intend to kill someone.

Now, because of my house rule, I count Red Court vampires as someone for that bonus, but you still have to be trying to kill, not just capture or injure.

Offline Biff Dyskolos

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 147
    • View Profile
Re: Lawbreakers: Do We Need Them?
« Reply #44 on: April 29, 2010, 11:33:02 PM »
I'd say Lawbreaker (First) only applies when you intend to kill someone.

Now, because of my house rule, I count Red Court vampires as someone for that bonus, but you still have to be trying to kill, not just capture or injure.

Kind of like First Degree Murder vs Manslaughter?

I guess whatever power is behind Lawbreaker is more in tune with the spirit of the law; as opposed to the Wardens who are all about the letter of the law.