A bit frustrated

[noclue]

OK, I don't like the free lunch of dealing damage due to the car. I would say that's just a straight telekinesis attack, colored by the fact you're using TK to throw a car at them. Your reasoning is sound. I'm just not concerned with that level of simulation.

Yeah, I think I'd handle it as a Telikinesis attack if damage was the objective.

[Taran]

It seems to me that this goes back to invoke for effect.  You use your power 8 rote to throw a car on someone and do "x" damage, adjudicated however you wish (either the damage is part of the spell - our wizard has air magic with a "throw stuff" spell.  It's a power 7 Rote where he throws debris at baddies -or by saying it's a power 8 Might spell that can lift a car and the car does "x" damage); in either case, from what I've been hearing from people, is that you have to compel "there's a car on you and you can't get up" or "after you fall through the bridge you get hit by a passing car".  I'm not sure you can just automatically do more stuff.  But I got your point: a maneuver can kill someone when the power is that high enough.  

I guess it kind of answers my invoke for effect question.  While there is no official aspect on the target, I could just say "he got hit by a flying car, I'd like to invoke that he's pinned under it".  Then it's up to the GM to decide what happens.

Another thing I've been seeing from people is that Power 8 rotes are awesomely powerful (I've notice that somewhat in our game that the wizard takes things out quickly).  It seems well within the rules to have that kind of power...our skills are capped at superb and he gets his foci + whatever refinery...Is this kind of power unusual at this lvl? (10 refresh).  When I start to GM should I be concerned?

Random Thought : people keep mentionning blinding people.  Do you keep compelling the blindess?  Are there rules around being blind and how it affects dodge.  There must be a thread on this topic...

EDIT:  here's one.   http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19694.0.html
 
Although it doesn't mention things like what Belial66 was saying,

" If it is a block against perception (offensive veil), you could really blind your opponent so they can't see you to target you and then get up to them and shoot them in the back for the next 2 exchanges - they'll roll mediocre defense since they won't be able to see the attack to dodge... Even big enemies rarely have Alertness high enough to pierce a 7-shift veil and then the entire group can hit them when they can't see to dodge for double the normal effect of their attacks."

I assume these are all compels as well?

[Belial666]

Nope, no compels. You put 7 shifts into a veil, 1 shift to prolong duration to 2 exchanges and instead of casting the Veil on you (and make yourself invisible), you cast it on the opponent (and make them effectively blind). If their perception (usually alertness or investigation) can't roll higher than the block, they are blind for the duration.

Similarly, a immobilization spell would be a block 7 vs any movement. Unless they rolled athletics higher than that, they'd be rooted to the spot for the duration.

Also similar, but more dangerous, is the Orbius spell from the books. It is only block 3 but duration 5 (I'd suggest upping the block and reducing duration) and grapples the opponent (roll vs Might). After that, it tries to strangle them, rolling each round vs endurance; success keeps them immobile and deals stress. Eventually they either break the block (pretty easy if you keep it only block 3) or they get strangled to death.



Offensive Blocks do not apply an aspect and depend on it being compelled/invoked. They flat-out impose an effect that stops some types of action from happening. Want someone blinded? Block vs perception. Paralyzed? Block vs Athletics or Endurance. Strangled? Vs Might/Endurance. Put to a light sleep? Block vs Discipline. Buried by debris? Block vs Might.

[Taran]

Offensive Blocks do not apply an aspect and depend on it being compelled/invoked. They flat-out impose an effect that stops some types of action from happening. Want someone blinded? Block vs perception. Paralyzed? Block vs Athletics or Endurance. Strangled? Vs Might/Endurance. Put to a light sleep? Block vs Discipline. Buried by debris? Block vs Might.

Right, just like my first example for the stun.  It was a power 8 block vs...acting, basically a magical grapple, but flavor-wise it's not a grapple.

What about all that stuff about double damage and mediocre dodges because they're blinded?  That is above and beyond the actual block.

[Belial666]

Surprise rules. If they cannot see your attack, they are surprised by the attack. They still get to roll defense but their active defense skills fall at mediocre. So, someone shooting them with superb skill and weapon 3 gun could move up behind them and shoot them in the back for 8 stress (assuming normal rolls) because they can't see him attacking.
Be careful though; blocks are short duration. If you put everything into the strength of the block, they'd only last for a single exchange. To make them last longer you'd either have to trade power for duration or use the spell duration extension rules.


Also, there's another advanced trick you can do with offensive blocks in some situations. Say you conjure a magical force to immobilize an enemy with Block 7 vs athletics, 1 more shift put to duration. The first exchange he is immobilized and takes damage from your group. The second exchange you want to finish him off instead of keeping him immobilized so you roll your Control to convert the energy of the block into an attack; suddenly your Bigby's Crushing Hand spell stops merely holding and crushes down, becoming a Weapon 7 attack without you paying extra mental energy for the spell.

As long as there's duration remaining and it would make sense to convert the energy of the spell into a new use, you can reuse any remaining Power without casting a new spell.

[Taran]

Surprise rules.

Yeah...I went searching for those.  The appendix is a little lacking.

Also, there's another advanced trick you can do with offensive blocks in some situations. Say you conjure a magical force to immobilize an enemy with Block 7 vs athletics, 1 more shift put to duration. The first exchange he is immobilized and takes damage from your group. The second exchange you want to finish him off instead of keeping him immobilized so you roll your Control to convert the energy of the block into an attack; suddenly your Bigby's Crushing Hand spell stops merely holding and crushes down, becoming a Weapon 7 attack without you paying extra mental energy for the spell.

As long as there's duration remaining and it would make sense to convert the energy of the spell into a new use, you can reuse any remaining Power without casting a new spell.

Oh.  That's a gem!

[WillH]

Yeah...I went searching for those.  The appendix is a little lacking.

Look under the Ambush trapping of Steal on YS142.

[BumblingBear]

A slippery slope to where?

A slippery slope to an unbelievable narrative and characters who are never challenged in combat.

[WillH]

A slippery slope to an unbelievable narrative and characters who are never challenged in combat.

How would it lead to an unbelievable narrative?

[BumblingBear]

How would it lead to an unbelievable narrative?

If super nasty 10 refresh monsters go down with a single shot every time, that seems a bit silly to me.

I have a submerged group, and 8-12 refresh monsters still take a while to go down sometimes.  The group /should/ work for it IMO.

On the flip side, I like rewarding creative attacks and good narrative.  If someone does a really cool attack and rolls well, THEN I will deem the monster "taken out" and hand its fate to the player.

I go by the mantra - anything a player can do an NPC can do.  As such, the NPC /can/ take consequences up to extreme.  Whether it takes them or not depends completely on its will to live and belief in whatever mission it was on.

For instance, a monster trying to warn its brothers that the PCs are killing them would probably soak up as much damage as possible to get away.

[Jack B]

My GM does this sometimes and it sometimes it works and is quite challenging while other times it feels cheap.

Just to give some examples, I found that it worked quite well when our group of four PCs was attacked by a tentacle beast and had to take out the tentacles individually.  Each one acted on it's own turn and was considered an individual but they didn't take consequences.  They would be ripped/torn/blown/chopped off if we beat it's stress track.

I found it didn't work well when the same party was attacked by a dozen goblin-type fairies and it just became an issue of number crunching (2 left on player 1, 0 on player 2 etc.). 

[WillH]

If super nasty 10 refresh monsters go down with a single shot every time, that seems a bit silly to me.

If a single attack does enough stress to blow through the targets stress track, then it is realistic for the attack to take out the target. Consequences are not another type of hit points you have to chew through. They are an option the person controlling the target has to reduce the amount of stress taken. They can be used or not depending on what the situation calls for.

Whether it takes them or not depends completely on its will to live and belief in whatever mission it was on.

The character's will, belief or any other in character motivation is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to take consequences and what those consequences will be is one made by the person controlling the character. This decision is made based on what that person wants in the narrative and what they think the situation calls for. Consequences are about what people want, not the hypothetical desires of the fictional entities they control.

[Taran]

The character's will, belief or any other in character motivation is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to take consequences and what those consequences will be is one made by the person controlling the character. This decision is made based on what that person wants in the narrative and what they think the situation calls for. Consequences are about what people want, not the hypothetical desires of the fictional entities they control.

I have to disagree.  If you`re playing the character properly you`ll take the consequences or not depending on its goal.  You can argue that that is narrative control but, in the end, the more desperate, fanatical, determined... the creature is, the less likely it`ll just concede and more likely it`ll take consequences.  yeah, so I agree that an NPC`s motives matter in a lot of situations...

[BumblingBear]

If a single attack does enough stress to blow through the targets stress track, then it is realistic for the attack to take out the target. Consequences are not another type of hit points you have to chew through. They are an option the person controlling the target has to reduce the amount of stress taken. They can be used or not depending on what the situation calls for.

The character's will, belief or any other in character motivation is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to take consequences and what those consequences will be is one made by the person controlling the character. This decision is made based on what that person wants in the narrative and what they think the situation calls for. Consequences are about what people want, not the hypothetical desires of the fictional entities they control.

I pretty much disagree with everything you just said.

Cheers!

[devonapple]

Combat would be maddening if a GM played every mook, tentacle monster, and wild bear as if it had a full Consequence track.

The consequence track is there to increase the dramatic tension of a given challenge. They are also a hit point sink, true, and should be taken into account when adjudicating attempts to summon or take out high-plot NPCs, but not everything should get them - the RAW recommends that mooks should generally take no Consequences, or at most Mild Consequences.

That said, yes, 10-Refresh monsters should be more than mooks unless one has a high-Refresh game.

As such, the NPC /can/ take consequences up to extreme.  Whether it takes them or not depends completely on its will to live and belief in whatever mission it was on.

For instance, a monster trying to warn its brothers that the PCs are killing them would probably soak up as much damage as possible to get away.

The first sounds more like when an NPC is willing to Concede. The latter definitely sounds like a moment of dramatic tension outside of a normal combat, and/or making the players work harder to avoid a potentially more problematic complication if they let the monster escape and warn the others.