The Dresden Files > DFRPG Resource Collection
Sample Combat
JesterOC:
We just need to get Lenny in here and grill him for 5 days and we would be fine.
eberg:
--- Quote from: infusco on August 24, 2010, 07:22:34 PM ---Uhm ... then why this line from that section on page 253?:
"As with other effects, you can pay an additional shift to make the effect persistent at the cost of 1 shift per additional *exchange*"
Me thinks a new sticky thread with Errata and an FAQ should rear it's head soon ;)
--- End quote ---
It occurred to me, pondering this the other day, that maybe it has to do with whether the aspect is caused by an instantaneous effect or an ongoing one. If you call up a magical windstorm that puts the aspect HIGH WINDS on the scene, you need to give it power to keep it going or it ends. If, however, you use a flash of light to temporarily blind someone, it will work like any other combat maneuver and be sticky if you get one or more shifts. Does that make sense to folks?
fabulator:
So what you mean there is that if you create an aspect that covers the whole zone (High Winds) you've got to apply shifts of power to keep it going but if you create an aspect that just hits one person (or a few) then if you apply an extra shift of power it becomes sticky. Is that it?
Also, in regards to all the discussion on Law-breaking, the original act in question was a 'direct mental attack' that (I believe) was aiming for unconsciousness. Now, to my eye, that doesn't automatically violate any laws but as a DM I would definitely be asking the player for more description. A spell that seeks to overload the target's sense with false and/or contradictory info and thereby produce confusion would be a mental attack but most likely that would be a maneuver to apply an aspect. A spell that plays upon a target's fears and tries to call up his worst nightmares; that's a direct mental attack that could definitely cause some stress damage. It's also a grey area for the Third Law at the very least. I think the major issue becomes if the subject is impressing his or her own fears onto a sort of 'fear-template' provided by magic that's not Lawbreaking; the caster has not invaded the subject's mind or thoughts. However, if the caster actually reaches into someone's mind to find their fear of clowns and then uses that to drive the person insane, that's Lawbreaking. Someone brought up the fact that mental stress/consequences usually involve things like The Bogeyman is Real or somesuch and I don't think that kind of thing is grounds for Lawbreaking. If the caster applies an aspect to a target, the caster is responsible for that aspect and the nature of its application. If the target applies the aspect themselves (they chose to do so instead of taking stress hits) then the target is responsible for the nature of the aspect.
eberg:
--- Quote from: fabulator on September 23, 2010, 05:23:32 PM ---So what you mean there is that if you create an aspect that covers the whole zone (High Winds) you've got to apply shifts of power to keep it going but if you create an aspect that just hits one person (or a few) then if you apply an extra shift of power it becomes sticky. Is that it?
--- End quote ---
No no, it is a matter of whether there is some magical creation causing the aspect or if the aspect is a side-effect of something that happened instantaneously and is done. To use the blindness example, if I use the instant flash of bright light to make you blind, it is fragile if I get no shifts and sticky if I do. If I wrap your head in magical shadow, though, you will only be blind until the magical shadow goes away, so I need to put power into making it last for as many exchanges as I want it to stick around. Is that more clear?
--- Quote ---Also, in regards to all the discussion on Law-breaking, the original act in question was a 'direct mental attack' that (I believe) was aiming for unconsciousness. Now, to my eye, that doesn't automatically violate any laws but as a DM I would definitely be asking the player for more description.
--- End quote ---
Reading the laws closely we have:
The Third Law: No mind-reading.
The Fourth Law: No mind-controlling.
To my reading, nothing here prohibits mental attacks, provided you aren't (as fabulator points out) dredging up deep-seated fears out of their sub-conscious or otherwise turning their mind against them. What I envisioned happening in the sample combat was a blast of raw mental energy to knock him out. Basically punching him in the mind. :)
AlexFallad:
--- Quote from: eberg on August 16, 2010, 08:54:48 PM ---Exchange 2
* Igor, alarmed by the injury of his master, leaps at Barry. He rolls Fists (+4) and gets a +3, so his effort is +7. Barry rolls Athletics (+1) to get out of the way and gets an unfortunately -1, for 0 effort. Luckily, his protective amulet offers a Superb (+5) defense, put it only has one use per session, so its discharged. The effect is then +2 (+7 attack minus +5 defense) but it adds the ghouls Weapon:4 claws, so it is still a 6-stress hit. Barry decides, rather than being Taken Out (since the ghoul will almost certainly just kill him), he'll use his Severe Consequence (Gutted) to soak it.
--- End quote ---
Quick question: Could Igor also attempted a Declaration here? Maybe something like Fists vs. Fists that Barry is "Not Used To Putting Up His Dukes" or Fists vs. Athletics "Backpedals In Panic" ?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version