The Dresden Files > DFRPG Resource Collection
Sample Combat
JesterOC:
You get a free Invoke. You can either do a standard invoke, or an invoke for effect. Invoking for effect lets you declare a fact or circumstance that would be of benefit to your character.
Seems to me that having the bad guy fall while trying to get away, benefits the character.
greycouncilmember:
--- Quote from: Belial666 on August 16, 2010, 09:24:55 PM ---The following is mostly a commentary on the characters' choices in the conflict, not the conflict itself. It is what the good guys could do if they had a decent plan;
3) If you want to win a combat vs a caster and a ghoul while protecting a girl, you do a zone-wide offensive (Tazering can be force. As can a telekinetic hold) block vs endurance on all of them (including the girl), feeding it with conviction 5, +3 from 4th mental box +4 from your 2 mild mental consequences, rolling +7 disipline, a fate point and your 2nd or 3rd physical box as backlash.
This gives you a zonewide block of strength 10, which you are going to maintain with more power in later exchanges. The enemies and the girl can probably do nothing to beat a 10-shift block vs endurance and your buddy is now free to shoot the bad guys dead while you do a soft maintain with 3-4 shifts of power every so often.
Fight won without any consequence over mild, without any danger of enemies escaping, without any property damage and without any danger to the girl. (that's why you always blast the wizard if you can - so he can't pull off the nova)
--- End quote ---
I have two questions because I don't really understand how this block works. What does a block do against endurance, does that mean they can't do anything at all?
Wouldn't the block affect both the caster casting the spell (Barry) and the cop (Dave) if it's a zone effect?
babel2uk:
--- Quote from: JesterOC on August 17, 2010, 03:33:30 PM ---Seems to me that having the bad guy fall while trying to get away, benefits the character.
--- End quote ---
Just my point of view, but I'd say that's far more heavily weighted towards the detriment of Voldemort - which edges it into Compel territory.
The paragraph on page 98 says that Invocation for Effect allows you to make a Declaration - which is defined on page 116 as introducing a new Aspect. So effectively you can add another aspect to Voldemort, and then tag that, and then again and again ad infinitum - which seems a little silly. In this case I wouldn't allow an Invocation for Effect, just a straight Invocation or Compel.
wyvern:
While a PC compelling that consequence with the free tag is questionable, the GM compelling it (and giving the guy a fate point) is not; that's a perfectly valid and reasonable thing to do, and is one of the things that give consequences teeth - I mean, if compels don't get involved, you'd have guys with broken legs running around at no penalty, and that's obviously just wrong.
edit: I'd also point out that Voldemort gets a fate point when the conflict ends, as per YS206 (cashing out).
Doc Nova:
I would also rule the effect of Voldy toppling being far more detrimental to him than beneficial to the player, hence it being a compel. And certainly the GM is within rights to (and rightly should) compel the consequence, that is not what a tag enables, however, which was my only point. I'd hate for one of my players to read this and suddenly think they would have that ability at the table. It is neither how the rules are written, nor would they want the GM doing the same to their characters without recourse (in this case, a fate point to the villain).
Otherwise, what was to stop the ghoul's player from compelling the wizard's "Gutted" consequence to eliminate action and without awarding them a fate point?
Conseqeunces are vicious things as written, but they, at least in my opinion, do not need added teeth.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version