EFFECT: Summons local spirits to scare and harass all targets in an area. Block 3 on any action except running away.
•ANIMUS TEMPESTAS
TYPE: Spirit evocation, Block
POWER: 3 +2 for Area
CONTROL: Discipline 3 +1 for Ring and +1 for Spirit Control Specialization
DURATION: One exchange
OPPOSED BY: Discipline
EFFECT: Summons local spirits to scare and harass all targets in an area. Block 3 on any action except running away.
Also, your spell, as currently designed, has only a one-exchange duration (unless, of course, you Prolong it the next round as per the normal Prolonging rules).
Once ANYONE beats it? So if there was one person with a high Alertness the spell is completely innefectual?Yep, that's the way blocks work. Armor lasts after being pierced but blocks don't.
The spell is resisted by Discipline so wouldn't they have to beat that instead to be able to use Alertness?As a general rule of thumb, blocks are resisted by whatever they're blocking. (Note: This can make broad blocks easy to break, the blockee simply uses their best applicable skill.) There is some amount of play (and player - GM negotiation) in that, but spells are built from effects to mechanics. So a block against sight is generally resisted by one or more skills related to sight...details are mutable based on the exact description of the effect.
I do get that it wouldn't prevent a spray and pray action though. How would I "redo it as a pair of manueuvers or an armor block"? Are you saying it would just give my character an Armor of 1 against any attacks that hit? Not sure it is worth it at that point since I already have a Shield Rote that is a lot more effective than that.As a five shift maneuver, you could apply one aspect to a zone for one exchange or one aspect to an individual for three exchanges. When tagged, you'll gain a +2 bonus. Using a five shift block spell as 'armor' you'd have two points of armor for two exchanges, one point of armor for four exchanges, or potentially one point of armor (essentially a debuff) to everyone in a zone for two exchanges.
I am not really trying to prevent them from seeing me so much as scaring the hell out of them rendering them less effective and maybe even scaring them off.Sounds like this could be termed as applying a 'Quaking in Fear' aspect (maneuver), a fear based block against offensive action potentially resisted by any skill which helps deal with fear (Discipline is most likely but Lore could be used to realize the spirits are harmless, Conviction might be used to resist the fear and even Presence might be usable...depending on the situation and spell), or a fear and distraction based debuff (armor) against offensive actions.
Can you declare a spell with that much of a far reaching effect? I was thinking that originally would be what I was going for but I wondered if that was too far reaching. That is why I thought the Alertness Block resisted by Discipline might be a way to model it.You can, but note my rule of thumb on resisting it...the broader the block the more skills which can break it.
You can, but note my rule of thumb on resisting it...the broader the block the more skills which can break it.
Is that the balancing mechanism, then, when building a more broad Block? That may be sufficient.It's my rule of thumb. :) However it is backed up by the mechanics behind combat blocks, grapples, and wards in the text.
It's my rule of thumb. :) However it is backed up by the mechanics behind combat blocks, grapples, and wards in the text.
You do still have the 'specific' vs general block guidelines for individual vs group blocks.
If I stipulate that the spell is resisted by Discipline wouldn't the targets have to defeat it with that or be forced to inaction (or to run away) for a round by the spell?
If I stipulate that the spell is resisted by Discipline wouldn't the targets have to defeat it with that or be forced to inaction (or to run away) for a round by the spell?My point was simply that it's a group game with a shared narrative. If you stipulate Discipline and your GM agrees, then yes - they should use Discipline to attempt penetrating the block. IMO GM's should only agree if it makes sense. If other things appear to apply, bring them up as options. By the same logic, players have the option of trying to convince the GM.
Running away or inaction would be tactical choices made on a case-by-case basis.
Or possibly a Compel in the case of an Evocation Maneuver Aspect (as opposed to a Block).
My players generally do Zonewide Evocation Blocks versus movement, resisted by Athletics, the skill needed to move in a hurry. That's just one action type, with a single obvious opposed skill.
Since you can potentially come up with a lot of ways to do a move action (drive, might, athletics, etc), any one of them can overcome a block against movement, if justified. I think otherwise it can get way overpowered (I block his ability to think about moving since I know his discipline is crap).
Ah, perhaps I should have mentioned that, with the Block versus Moving as resisted by Athletics, the victims who make the Athletics check are also getting to move if they break the block. I suppose they could have used Might to break the block as well, but then they would have used an action. None of the Jiang Shi had a car, though, so no Driving check. I may also have been Compelling their Hopping Vampire aspect to limit how they could break out of their bonds.
You should be able to resist with any appropriate skill.
But how would Athletics, Might or Weapons help you with resisting a horrific apparition rushing right at your face like it is about to rip it off while screeching with a soul numbing wail? I guess I am getting just a bit confused at how open to interpretation these rules really are.'
To resisit fear caused by appiritions you could roll discipline to ignore, lore to realise it cannot hurt you, conviction to carry on even given you fear and alertness to work out it is not real.
Yeah, I am just pointing out a block is against a particular kind of action, not a particular skill. It's important to keep that in mind. Even veils aren't against alterness or the like, they are against DETECTION.*
Yeah, mechanically, that's true. How do we simulate metagame effects like fright and horror, though?
Would this whole thing be better simulated by making it a weapon 3 mental attack with possible consequences representing the fear that it would cause? If so would this then be violating the Laws of Magic?
Yeah, mechanically, that's true. How do we simulate metagame effects like fright and horror, though?
If you are scaring someone away, then that sounds more like a maneuver, invoked for effect (resulting in a compel). Potentially it would be a mental attack.
Sure though, you can do fear as a block in some manner, but that has a limited amount of teeth to it. It attempts to stop an action, but that action can still go through. It's being horrendously cheap (and in fact rightly against the rules) to put up a block on someone and say "this is fear, you can only overcome it with discipline or something like that". That just leads to people with magic making blocks that can only be overcome by the weakest skill a known enemy has...and it is just messed up in general. Weapons can easily represent your MARTIAL discipline (e.g. training and such), much like it can represent knowledge. One shouldn't look at skills so narrowly. Otherwise you're essentially putting up two blocks attached to each other, and one of those blocks is of infinite strength...and how lame is that?
I suspect that the halfway point between the two is perhaps setting up an Aspect and then using an Invoke-for-Effect/Compel to specify they won't do X until they pass a check of skill Y, like someone who has been hit with the aspect "On the Ground" is going to be on the ground until they make an Athletics check to get up. For doing this to a large group of people, you need a lot of shifts (for stacking up free tags) or a lot of Fate Points.
The whole idea of forcing someone to make a particular skill check is rather against the spirit of the rules, imho.
Isn't this what you do every time you attack someone with a gun or a sword? You force them to make an Athletics roll to resist?
The guiding principle for all uses of the rules in this game is that intent precedes mechanics. What this means is that you should always start off by figuring out what the player wants to accomplish, and then determine how to model that using the rules. This might seem like common sense, but it’s easy to get caught in the trap of looking at the various game actions (like attack, block, declaration, maneuver, etc.) as a straightjacket that limits your available options, rather than as a set of tools to express whatever the player wants to try to do.
Many actions map directly to one of the mechanics already, so most of the time this isn’t going to be very hard—a player says, “I want to punch that dude in the face,” and you reply with,“Okay, that’s an attack using Fists, and he’s going to defend with Fists. Roll it.”
Sometimes it isn’t going to be quite so simple, and a player will say something like, “Well, I want to push the table over the landing while he’s charging me, so that he’ll smash into it before he hits me.” You don’t want to refuse the player just because that action doesn’t clearly fall into one of the basic conflict action types (page 197)— especially because that’s a pretty cool move.
In those cases, you’ll have to tease out a more specific intent from the player, which will allow you to make a decision. If the player says, “Yeah, I want to hurt him with the table,” that might be an attack with Might, and the NPC rolls defense normally. If he says, “I just don’t want to get bowled over by the bull charge,” the NPC could get a defense roll with Athletics and you might give the player credit for declaring the table by letting him tag it as a scene aspect. What matters is that you match the mechanics to the player’s intent, not the other way around
So then any attack can be resisted by any skill if you can create a rationale for it? The spell I propose could conceivably be resisted by spells, Discipline, Presence or Conviction. Does that make it bad/wrong since it isn't using spells, Athletics, Weapons or Fists (with a stunt)?
Sigh. I guess I just don't get it. I will read the book again and see if I can grok this stuff.
I like FATE but at times it just seems too...obtuse for me. Every time I think I finally have a handle on something someone explains to me that I am completely wrong and here is why. Makes me wonder if it just isn't a good game for me. Or I could just need to get some sleep... ;)
I will read the book again and see if I can grok this stuff.One thing to keep in mind as you reread - FATE in general and DFRPG in particular strive to create a story through game play. It's not trying to simulate reality or some fantasy take on a world. The shared narrative / consensus trumps static mechanics. Hence the 'effects first, mechanics later' approach.
I like FATE but at times it just seems too...obtuse for me.
Hope that helps.It does. Thank you.
Remember that you can make maneuvers that effect zones as well. So, in theory, you can place an aspect on everyone in the zone, not just one guy.
It can be a bit cheesy, so think of whether you'll allow it in your game or not.
Example:
Wizard guys gets the drop on 3 thugs, and decides to use a zone wide maneuver. He's got a base power of 6 for evocation, so he does a power 4, 1 zone maneuver. Each thug resists the maneuver separately, so you could only effect some of the thugs, but you'd have a free compel against every single thug that failed.
-------------
If you allow this, you should probably let people with really high skills do the same trick. For example, someone with intimidation 5 takes a -2 on his intimidation result to try to intimidate everyone in the room individually (so they'd each get an intimidated aspect).
I guess the best thing for this spell would be to say it is a manuever adds an aspect like "Blind Terror" that can be compelled. This makes it fairly useless as far as I can tell since I won't have very many Fate points as a Wizard and won't really be able to compel that many targets. I guess it is pretty good against thugs and the like though since my fellow players could tag the aspect to help themselves out in a variety of ways.
I see nothing wrong with the spell. It's beautifully cinematic, and functionally seems effective. Admittedly I would go with Discipline or Conviction to resist.
With a DM handling things right that should never happen. Technically yes the DM should choose what they resist with, but if creating a fear based effect the obvious answers are discipline or conviction. You always choose what they resist with in a sense. They resist with something that dodges/blocks the effect. Dodging fire requires athletics or a shield. Dodging fear requires willpower or discipline.
Make them roll both, Discipline to act and Guns to attack. Gain the right to attack against this fear effect. It's well within the scope of what the game wants (to tell an interesting story). The spell is a block that is resisted, a mental block instead of a physical one. It's like an evocation illusion.Remember, you block action types (blocks & armor) or perception (veils). You're generally not blocking methods or specific skills unless your block trappings limit its effects.
Veils are described as blocks on sight within RAW. Would you roll guns to see through a veil? Nope, you would roll alertness to spot them and then roll your attack. Same idea.
But it can easily function the same way as blocking perception. It fits flavor wise, functions nigh on identically to a RAW example but with a different skill, and isn't really broken given these facts. Especially given that the character is doing this out of flavor motivations. In that sense it is really awesome.I agree. That's where the trappings limitation comes in. Just not sure you've considered the ramifications...
Plus it looks suspiciously like necromancy... Mightn't the white council care. Same as my wizards mental blocks functionally breaking the 4th(?) law on regular people and not doing jack against things that don't take to being controlled(non-minion types) limit them.
I used looks like for a reason... Wardens can be jumpy about these. It most definitely doesn't break the 5th law, but it might raise suspicion for a while.
Make them roll both, Discipline to act and Guns to attack. Gain the right to attack against this fear effect. It's well within the scope of what the game wants (to tell an interesting story). The spell is a block that is resisted, a mental block instead of a physical one. It's like an evocation illusion.
Veils are described as blocks on sight within RAW. Would you roll guns to see through a veil? Nope, you would roll alertness to spot them and then roll your attack. Same idea.
Look up the rules on hiding (stealth and altertness skills). A veil against sight is just letting you hide for all intents and purposes. If you get your attack off, everyone knows where you are because at that point you don't NEED alertness to spot people participating in combat. Now, you might say your block against enemy attacks is being hard to see, in which case it works like any other kind of blocks. People roll their attack against it to hit you. Your interpretation of how veils work in combat has no backing in the rules (and would likewise ALSO be horribly broken if implemented). Heck, this is even backed up in the books with Shagnasty who had great veils. And Molly who also has really good veils can't stay hidden in combat unless she isn't participating in the combat (e.g. not attacking).
This isn't about "telling an interesting story" that can be done with blocking working as written. This is about game balance, which this idea would wreck. Wizards are already extremely powerful in the game; there's no need to make them ridiculously powerful and able to shut down anyone with an evocation that breaks the rules and makes the target have to success with an arbitrary skill decided by the evoker before they can do anything.
I already conceded your point and endured you essentially saying I was gaming the system like some kind of power gamer. I realized you were right about how to use zone blocks and I said so. So please quit telling me that my spell idea would wreck a game. I proposed it as a interesting point of flavor for a character who deals in spirits. Maybe I am just being a bit cranky and misreading your posts but I would really appreciate it if you would stop acting as if you are the only one who is right in these discussions and telling me how I can't do things without ruining the game and maybe instead give me an idea or two on how I can go about making this work.
And another thing; you seem to be morally opposed to idea of using an "arbitrary skill" as you call it to resist a spell. Yet Earth Stomp on page 293 specifies it is resisted by Might. On the same page Entanglement states it is opposed by a target's Athletics. In fact most of the spells listed on page 293 on have an "Opposed By:" listing in their write up. Admittedly most of them are resisted by Athletics but this suggests that a caster may indeed specify what skill is used to resist a spell based on its context. If this was not true then why would they have that listing in the spell write ups?
The Discipline roll to control an attack spell also counts as the attack roll; to avoid the spell, the target can roll a defense roll as per the usual options from Playing the Game (page 200).
Can veils be used instead of stealth for an ambushing roll?
And I've already said how to make it work. Just use the standard block rules. There ya go. People highly trained in weapons, for instance, can have their training overcome the fear (though it would still reduce their effectiveness). It does make sense when you think about it
Yeah, I don't think Earth Stomp would be very balanced as written, unless you could also dodge it. Frankly, I don't understand how it wouldn't be dodgeable. The problem with a spell like that is that if you let such a thing in, then a player is can just make bunch of things with odd things to resist.
I think the best way to prevent the problem you are suggesting is to play with a mature group of players who wouldn't try to take advantage of the system too much by making crazy spells that target Scholarship or whatever. Also it would be important to have a GM who is confident enough to resist them if they try it. In my original proposal I picked Discipline because it makes complete sense given the context. However, I agree that having the confidence that comes with training with a weapon could provide resistance too. So I will go with the second version of the spell which is a zone block against attacks that can be resisted by whatever skill the target is attacking with.
You hide badly because you have no hide skill. You have a veil up. They try to detect you and fail because of the veil. Ambush away!
Note that there are no rules for staying hidden after you attack. Well, you could potentially attack one round, hide the next, attack one round, hide the next. If they never pierce the veil, that would work. They'd have a chance to hit you so it doesn't help you that much.