The Dresden Files > DFRPG Resource Collection
Sample Combat
luminos:
--- Quote from: Doc Nova on August 19, 2010, 04:18:07 PM ---They could tag the consequence...but it would be a +2 to a roll or a reroll. If they wanted to make him collapse, they could still...potentially...do it but it would be treated as a compel and cost the players 1 (or more) fate points, which Voldy would get. It's a give and take that also protects them from it happening to them, as well.
--- End quote ---
Absolutely. Think of how mad your players will get when you tell them that an opponent tags one of their consequences to do something similar, and they aren't allowed to buy it off, they don't get a chance to resist it, and they don't even get paid a fate point for it.
Belial666:
--- Quote ---if the GM was willing, by "buying" their way out of it with 1 (or more) fate points (akin to buying out of a compel).
--- End quote ---
It's not a compel, it's an attack. They could use a fate point to get +2 to their roll but not to negate it. And with a block of 10 against might or endurance of, say, 3, they need to roll +4 and use two fate points.
JesterOC:
There is an economy to fate point use, and I wish it was a bit more clearly stated. Here is my take on it.
Effect Cost
Narrative control that benefits the player = Free Die roll, Setup action or 1 Fate
Give yourself a re-roll or a +2 = Setup Action or 1 Fate
Narrative control that Limits the actions of an enemy = 1 Fate Plus the enemy gets the Fate if accepted or looses a fate point if declined.
The fate point is the most expensive way to accomplish the effects listed.
It appears that the game considers player narrative control to be the least expensive effect, because it can be put into effect with a free die roll.
Next costly is giving yourself a bonus or a re-roll, this costs either a tag (which in effect is costing you an exchange and only on a successful die roll).
Finally a compel is the most costly because it will always cost you 1 fate and it may not always work as intended (but it will always do something).
p.s.
I only bring this up, because it helps me understand how to arbitrate invokes for effects and compels, because it indicates that compels are considered more costly than declarations and thus any invokes for effects that border on the strength of a compel should be carefully considered.
infusco:
Generally, a block is intended to create a hindrance to one specific action. A grapple is a special case and, the way it is written, I'd rule that it could only target a single person or creature and would tie up your own action in the process. A long duration block to all actions to an entire zone would indeed be significantly overpowered.
Remember, even the Orbius spell is a block against breathing that could cause someone to suffocate and pass out. Nothing about the spell's description claims that the person under it's effect can't do any other action, like shooting at the caster. Now you could call it a complete physical grapple, but notice that the grapple rules state you need to tag an aspect first to establish the grapple, so the spell is clearly missing something ... i.e A maneuver creating evocation the previous round.
In the Invoke For Effect/Compel argument, that does indeed look like a compel. I wouldn't allow tagging for that as it's too strong. Now the GM himself could claim that the NPC passed out from his wounds and quietly write down that this NPC has a Fate point to use in the future should he survive.
As for Mental attacks, it is indeed skirting dangerously into 4th law territory due to one simple fact: mental consequences are almost always psychological scars that last a while and generally compel someone into either following specific actions or denying them others. For example, you could blast him with a mind-crushing wave of fear. If they survive, they could get stuck with moderate or severe consequence of The Bogeyman Is Real And He Is After Me, and hence be naturally paranoid and constantly looking over his shoulders. You could try to narrate it with your GM that you are casting a sleep spell who's effects only last the scene and should not inflict any consequences, but even there it's a hard sell.
Although in the latter case, you could cast it as a maneuver, defended by Endurance, that afflicts someone with the Sleepy aspect as a *physical* effect rather than a mental one.
JesterOC:
Just when I thought I had the whole invoke for effect vs Compel down pat....
Can someone please explain how Entanglement works on page 293.
All it does is place a Bound In Place aspect on the target, and adds one point to make it last the entire scene.
So if this was cast on V what happens on V's turn? Can he move? Does the aspect by itself lock down the target. Does the GM compel it? if so can the target buy himself out of it? Does the caster need to burn an invoke for effect to make it work?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version