The Dresden Files > DFRPG Resource Collection
Custom Powers Master List (Work In Progress)
crusher_bob:
OK, using the Math! that I show here, here's a comparison of straight up damage values for the two different implementations of multiple appendages:
-----------
great base skill, weapon 0, defender has great skill
1 action expected damage: 0.91
Your version:
1 action at +4, 2 actions at +3 (Damage: 1.90)
4 actions at +3 (Damage: 1.98)
My version (total pool 8, max +4):
2 actions at +4 (Damage: 1.82)
4 actions at +2 (Damage: 0.94)
---------
Compared to a hypothetical weapon: 8 for -4 refresh claws.
Expected damage: 5.58
---------
great base skill, weapon 4, defender has great skill
1 action (damage: 3.24)
Your version:
1 action at +4, 2 actions at +3 (Damage: 7.55)
4 actions at +3 (Damage: 8.61)
My version (total pool 8, max +4):
2 actions at +4 (Damage: 6.49)
4 actions at +2 (Damage: 5.09)
---------
Compared to a hypothetical single weapon 12 attack (damage: 7.91)
---------
Will do up the math for the more powerful design space later...
Sanctaphrax:
Thank you for this excellent analysis, crusher_bob.
It looks to me as if my approach is reasonable.
This is because the storm of Good attacks will look pretty lame against an Epic defence. And it's not game-breaking against a Good one either.
Thing is, your approach looks even better, mathematically.
But I don't like the way that your approach works best with a two-hit spray. I want to see huge flurries, and I want them to be balanced.
Tall order, I know. Maybe I'm being unreasonable.
Sanctaphrax:
Alright, rereading Swing For The Fences and Emotional Vampire here.
...
Alright. Swing For The Fences has a flawed writeup. It's advantages are clearly meant to be balanced out by the defence penalty, but that's written so that it doesn't always apply. I think that's a mistake on Evil Hat's part. (Small one, though. I feel kinda bad about picking on them for it.)
I had previously read Emotional Vampire's "psychological attack" as mere description. But you're right, it should probably be considered a full out attack. I think I'll be enforcing the "touch" part of Feeding Touch rather harshly from now on. Either that, or I can read "inciting the emotion and feeding on it as a single action" in a downright self-deceptive way.
PS: Incite Emotion's writeup says maneuvers at +2 and Lasting Emotion says you can use that trapping to attack. Your reading is totally reasonable, but I think I'll stick with mine.
BumblingBear:
--- Quote from: crusher_bob on May 19, 2011, 11:13:20 AM ---Hitting people with an out of context attack is way too easy in this game. That's why I don't like the implementation of incite emotion. I also don't like the various resisted with: (some skill other than athletics) attacks sometimes made with evocation. It's like saying "My group thought they were badass until I made them use basket-weaving or die. hur, hur hur." In other implementations of FATE, where, AFAIK, weapon values usually aren't used, an out of context attack is usually just another way of saying, "Do +2 damage." But in DFRPG, where weapon values are such a big deal, it can be saying "Do +8 damage" instead.
Hero/champions is one of the few games I've seen that mostly gets the cost of out of context attack right. They generally cost between 2 and 2.5 times as much as a regular attack.
--- End quote ---
Gravity attacks are in the books AND in the RAW. That is hardly GM mumbo jumbo.
I really don't like relying on ridiculously high attack roll monsters vs a group with super high defense because on a bad roll, a PC can get hit /hard/.
I am talking about submerged+ campaigns here. In feet wet campaigns, perhaps only using one style of attack in appropriate. In higher level campaigns, a GM has to get creative in order to give PCs a challenge that won't instantly take out one member of the party at a time.
--- Quote ---I also don't like the various resisted with: (some skill other than athletics) attacks sometimes made with evocation.]I also don't like the various resisted with: (some skill other than athletics) attacks sometimes made with evocation.
--- End quote ---
But this is exactly why evocation is cool - the creativity that can go into attacks or defenses. That's like saying you dislike the entire foundation of the DFRPG. Or is it that it's ok for PCs, but NPCs should all be eternally stupid and randomly swing weapons with no maneuvers or creative attacks at all?
--- Quote ---It's like saying "My group thought they were badass until I made them use basket-weaving or die. hur, hur hur."
--- End quote ---
This is offensive. I'm not sure why my comment brought out the attitude.
Sanctaphrax:
Personally, I like the idea of an attack vs. Might or some other such thing.
The execution, though...
It would feel pretty lousy to invest heavily in Athletics before getting gravity-pounded. Maybe once in a while it'd be fun, I guess. But I'd like it to be possible for a character to be legitmately hard to kill, and letting attacks hit any skill takes away from that.
Also, wizards really don't need extra power. But that's another issue.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version