91
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 08, 2012, 08:37:20 PM »
*I figured but wanted some opinions on it. Could cost narrower things at -10 if needed.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
92
DFRPG / Neutralize!
« on: August 08, 2012, 01:28:30 PM »Lots of stuff to discuss here...
Lots of questions to be addressed...
Have at it...
I've seen many genre's "hacked" into this system, including superheroes.
A large part of superhero games can be loss of powers temporarily. In some cases this comes from containment cells ( which can be represented by a high threshold ). In some cases it is the presence of an item or being. (Something that carries a threshold with it - only having an effect on certain beings powers).
How would you model someone (Marvel's: Scrambler) or something (gadget) that neutralizes powers?
I'm looking for a way to weaponize a threshold. Maybe a new power; maybe a new way of using an old game mechanic.
Ideas?
Along this same line of thinking: Some superheroes are simply immune to having powers neutralized (due to narrative or some other strange factor). For purposes of this thread we are going to assume the whole "too powerful to be neutralized is not the reason for this immunity).
How does one model an immunity to thresholds? (other than the new power/rewrite I created and Sanctphrax helped to heavily edit along with the rest of the community) Compel/tag/invoke an aspect? Is there any reason to create or reskin a power for this phenomenon?
(If using the Immunity power: how much should immunity to thresholds cost in refresh?)
Also, is it possible to create a power additive? (at least for this superhero genre)
Example: neutralize immunity - this power is immune to the effects of thresholds/neutralize (- ? refresh)
Each power that was immune would cost -X refresh.
What could/should such a cost be?
Could a normal DFRPG game set in normal setting benefit from a power like this?
93
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 08, 2012, 01:17:16 PM »
This power is designed to replace Physical immunity -
IMMUNITY [-varies]
Description: You are completely immune to some form of harm.
Note: The cost examples provided here are intended for the hypothetical average game. In unusual games, they may need to be adjusted. In some rare cases, it may qualify as a Compel when this Power does not apply.
Skills Affected: Many.
Effects:
Immunity. Pick a type of stress. You are immune to that type of stress. This may prevent certain maneuvers and blocks from functioning, at the GM's discretion.
Variable Cost. The cost of this Power depends on the type of stress selected.
•Completely trivial immunities, like drunk-ness or bad smells, are free.
•Very narrow ones, like monkey wrenches or seduction attempts or falling damage, cost 1 Refresh.
•Narrow immunities like poison or acid or magically induced despair cost 2 Refresh.
•Immunity to a single common thing, like metal weaponry or explosions or fear, costs 3 Refresh.
•Immunity to a broad group of things, like the physical attacks of the undead or mental magic, costs 4 Refresh.
•Immunity to an extremely broad group of things, like all magic (including indirect spells) or all unarmed attacks, costs 5 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) except something very common, like the attacks of women, costs 6 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) except something unusual, like the attacks of immortal beings, costs 7 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) with a small loophole, like the attacks of genderless beings, costs 8 Refresh.
•Immunity to all mental stress costs 9 Refresh
Immunity to all physical stress costs 22 Refresh.
•Immunity to both costs 30 Refresh.
Sanctaphrax will of course add some notes as needed.
-physical immunity in this case means nothing at all damages the character accept for thingsl ike ACAEBG,Soulfire (which reduces protection ot mythic toughness), sacred guardian, holy touch (where applicable)
-in some cases immunity to manuevers will be implied and vary from table to table, based on the narrative of the immunity.
-ACAEBG
-TINS
Something I'd advise that likely won't be in hte notes of the power but very well could be, depending upon Sanctaphrzes notes: if PC's are allowed to have Physical Immunity (-22) or Perfect immunity (-30) effects that bypass all protection should possibly be more common. However, the costs should maybe be lowered to reflect this.
Sanctaphrax: one last thing ; you can add or not. Things that are immune to all physical damage except things like kryptonite, or dwarven weapons, or blood of the gods.... do we have a cost for that or should we add a category for such a thing?
IMMUNITY [-varies]
Description: You are completely immune to some form of harm.
Note: The cost examples provided here are intended for the hypothetical average game. In unusual games, they may need to be adjusted. In some rare cases, it may qualify as a Compel when this Power does not apply.
Skills Affected: Many.
Effects:
Immunity. Pick a type of stress. You are immune to that type of stress. This may prevent certain maneuvers and blocks from functioning, at the GM's discretion.
Variable Cost. The cost of this Power depends on the type of stress selected.
•Completely trivial immunities, like drunk-ness or bad smells, are free.
•Very narrow ones, like monkey wrenches or seduction attempts or falling damage, cost 1 Refresh.
•Narrow immunities like poison or acid or magically induced despair cost 2 Refresh.
•Immunity to a single common thing, like metal weaponry or explosions or fear, costs 3 Refresh.
•Immunity to a broad group of things, like the physical attacks of the undead or mental magic, costs 4 Refresh.
•Immunity to an extremely broad group of things, like all magic (including indirect spells) or all unarmed attacks, costs 5 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) except something very common, like the attacks of women, costs 6 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) except something unusual, like the attacks of immortal beings, costs 7 Refresh.
•Immunity to everything (on a single stress track) with a small loophole, like the attacks of genderless beings, costs 8 Refresh.
•Immunity to all mental stress costs 9 Refresh
Immunity to all physical stress costs 22 Refresh.
•Immunity to both costs 30 Refresh.
Sanctaphrax will of course add some notes as needed.
-physical immunity in this case means nothing at all damages the character accept for thingsl ike ACAEBG,Soulfire (which reduces protection ot mythic toughness), sacred guardian, holy touch (where applicable)
-in some cases immunity to manuevers will be implied and vary from table to table, based on the narrative of the immunity.
-ACAEBG
-TINS
Something I'd advise that likely won't be in hte notes of the power but very well could be, depending upon Sanctaphrzes notes: if PC's are allowed to have Physical Immunity (-22) or Perfect immunity (-30) effects that bypass all protection should possibly be more common. However, the costs should maybe be lowered to reflect this.
Sanctaphrax: one last thing ; you can add or not. Things that are immune to all physical damage except things like kryptonite, or dwarven weapons, or blood of the gods.... do we have a cost for that or should we add a category for such a thing?
94
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 08, 2012, 02:25:52 AM »
I'll do that.
Likely sometime tomorrow. I have an early morning, so I'll be crashing soon.
I'll be using your ...formatting so when you move it to the other thread you have to do less work.
Likely sometime tomorrow. I have an early morning, so I'll be crashing soon.
I'll be using your ...formatting so when you move it to the other thread you have to do less work.
95
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 05, 2012, 07:59:18 PM »
I also felt that 16 was too low.
I think we need to calculate full physical immunity and calculate full physical and mental immunity.
It should not cost the same as adding them togther.
I think -22 sounds good for full physical immunity.
For full physical and mental close to -30.
These are fairly arbitrary numbers at present because I am very busy today.
Maybe a nice mix of the two we could find costing to be near -25 refresh.
The TINS/ACAEBG are a seperate issue. Groups will have to decide that on their own. i think if the two immunity powers are allowed at all and if they are allowed to be used in tandem the power cost should be near double.
Then a PC will basically never have such a combination.
This post was hasty and I'll admit sloppy, but the basic ideas are sound and basically in agreement with your own.
I think we need to calculate full physical immunity and calculate full physical and mental immunity.
It should not cost the same as adding them togther.
I think -22 sounds good for full physical immunity.
For full physical and mental close to -30.
These are fairly arbitrary numbers at present because I am very busy today.
Maybe a nice mix of the two we could find costing to be near -25 refresh.
The TINS/ACAEBG are a seperate issue. Groups will have to decide that on their own. i think if the two immunity powers are allowed at all and if they are allowed to be used in tandem the power cost should be near double.
Then a PC will basically never have such a combination.
This post was hasty and I'll admit sloppy, but the basic ideas are sound and basically in agreement with your own.
96
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 05, 2012, 06:17:41 PM »
I deem it well and done. I like Becq's idea. It may work well, but for everyone's sanity I suggest we simply create the power as is.
When hte power is done and posted tothe master list.
We can sit here as good forumites and postulate how to make becq's idea work. We may even decide we like it better.
When hte power is done and posted tothe master list.
We can sit here as good forumites and postulate how to make becq's idea work. We may even decide we like it better.
97
DFRPG / Re: Buffy or Slayer-like Character?
« on: August 01, 2012, 01:19:46 PM »That's not true. Did the Alphas have to pay a price for their power?
No, they just had to learn how to use their magical potential.
If you want to have a human direct her magical potential towards being strong and fast and tough, you can. Just take an appropriate high concept and whatever Powers seem reasonable.
I've made characters like this before, though I'd have trouble finding one with an actual backstory. Most of the characters I've made are generic.
Agreed for the most part. it seems minor talents are pretty much free from power for a price. Seems more like, more power = more cost. Which applies to everything in life really.
Caveats being:
(click to show/hide)
98
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 01, 2012, 01:15:37 PM »I don't understand how that solves anything, but whatever. If that's what you wanna do, I'm cool with that.
No, I was against your method of applying Catches because it was atrociously sloppy.
Gotta appreciate your honesty. Blunt isn't bad. Don't get me wrong.
I just wish I didn't get called an asshole when I was that honest.
So you think you can stand to deal with such an atrociously sloppy person long enough to settle on a cost for full invincibility to one stress track and then the cost for two full stress tracks so we can be done with this?
99
DFRPG Resource Collection / Re: Custom Powers Master List (Work In Progress)
« on: August 01, 2012, 01:12:05 PM »
How do you wanna test it?
100
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 01, 2012, 01:42:50 AM »O.k...so I might be out of my depth here but I'd like to offer some input.
As tedronai said, a loophole is just another word for a catch so it's already included in the power. I like the idea of tying the Immunity Power(not necessarily the catch) to an aspect or high concept for a few reasons:
1. There are already many powers that have that as a pre-requisite
2. It would limit ridiculous "catches" because the power/catch would have to make sense for the character
3. Tying it to an aspect lets you use compels/fate points for the purpose of maneuvers.
So if someone tries to pin you, but you're immune to fists, you could spend a fate point to say you're immune to that sort of maneuver. Or maybe the GM says you don't need pay...whatever. The point is the aspect can dictate whether a maneuver may or may not work.
I think the main argument, unless I'm reading it wrong, is about immunity with no loopholes. Once again, if you tie it to an aspect, creative players/GM's can use compels to find ways to bypass invincibility(at least temporarily) by way of fate points, even if the enemy has no true catch.
Sorry if I've already repeated something that's already been written...I admit that I skimmed a good portion of the middle part of the thead.
I...uh...find your post compelling and I like it.
This works for me.
I think it pleases me and for the most part fixes most of my worries.
101
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: July 31, 2012, 04:41:59 PM »
I could have sworn you were against catches on full invincibility because then the power didn't make people truly invincible.
So let me ask you one more question:
If I remove the +0 from the Catch... just said this:
A Catch related to your high concept or the source of your invulnerability, may be required in some games to have full invincibility.
Would that have been more palatable?
Examples may include: Kryptonite for the "Last Son of Krypton" ; The Noose for "Nicodemus Archleone" ; Weaponized Silver Denarius "Scion of Judas", etc.
The rebate of course could vary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will say this though. My point was to eliminate the need for Catches from Immunity. I think that is why I have issue with Full Invincibility. I'll give it some serious thought. So long as enough manuevers and powers will still effect the individual with immunity (-16 or more)...I may be ok with it. I really need to just take some time to think about it. how I;d deal with it as a GM, a player, and ally...a lone foe vs that PC/NPC etc.
So let me ask you one more question:
If I remove the +0 from the Catch... just said this:
A Catch related to your high concept or the source of your invulnerability, may be required in some games to have full invincibility.
Would that have been more palatable?
Examples may include: Kryptonite for the "Last Son of Krypton" ; The Noose for "Nicodemus Archleone" ; Weaponized Silver Denarius "Scion of Judas", etc.
The rebate of course could vary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I will say this though. My point was to eliminate the need for Catches from Immunity. I think that is why I have issue with Full Invincibility. I'll give it some serious thought. So long as enough manuevers and powers will still effect the individual with immunity (-16 or more)...I may be ok with it. I really need to just take some time to think about it. how I;d deal with it as a GM, a player, and ally...a lone foe vs that PC/NPC etc.
102
DFRPG Resource Collection / Re: Custom Powers Master List (Work In Progress)
« on: July 30, 2012, 07:55:02 PM »No, the rule is "once per roll" I believe. Currently you can use the same aspect on multiple different defense rolls or on both offense and defense if it makes sense. A once per exchange rule would eliminate that.
I thought it was once per roll.
Yeah, I still see the same issue as before then.
However, I've been making this arguement for what seems close to a year or more. I'm betting those that agree already won't use multiple actions and those who disagree just want me to shut up.
103
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: July 30, 2012, 07:52:47 PM »
We have established that the following will still work?
ACAEBG, Sacred Guardian, Holy Touch (if applicable), Soulfire, Social stuff....
Also would immunity to manuevers be allowed with -16 immunity ? That seems a bit much.
Since then you could not chain up and dump in concrete etc. I'm assuming maneuvers are required to get that done.
ACAEBG, Sacred Guardian, Holy Touch (if applicable), Soulfire, Social stuff....
Also would immunity to manuevers be allowed with -16 immunity ? That seems a bit much.
Since then you could not chain up and dump in concrete etc. I'm assuming maneuvers are required to get that done.
104
DFRPG Resource Collection / Re: Custom Powers Master List (Work In Progress)
« on: July 30, 2012, 05:52:32 PM »Isn't that already a standard rule?
Is it? That would impact my opinion of multiple actions quite a bit.
105
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: July 30, 2012, 05:51:12 PM »
'k
Not going to get rude or frustrated. I'm not.
I'm going to explain my position, again. I'm going to ignore your veiled remark about my reading comprehension.
A +0 Catch tied to high concept will work well in many games. It really will. In games where it won't work, they'll ignore the optional rule anyhow. You'd ignore it...in order to WIN making a character concept yes? Others would too.
People who think the invincibility needs a nerf will likely find a use for the +0 Catch. It doesn't have to be equal to nic's noose or transgendered squid ink. People who want the thematic feel of one thing still being able to hurt the bad guy will use it just fine. I agree +0 catches are not created equal. That was why I said tie it to high concept. Most high concepts will preclude allowing transgendered squid ink or ...bullets made from the earwax of a 10 000 year old shark-moose from Spain who's never known the touch of the sun but who is exposed to moonlight every night between 12:03 and 12:05 while being massaged personally by Uriel and Mab and Fred the Australian garbage truck driver.
I think an optional rule can be used as a compromise just fine. Optional by definition means not required. That way...the power as you see fit exists. The power as I see fit exists. Both parties get what they want in some way.
What is there to understand about each other's view point?
You do not want a Catch.
I do.
That is what it boils down to at the very core.
"Whether you want full immunity to be possible is actually not related to this argument. It's irrelevant. It's another issue."
- Yes and no. I'll agree it does not address the catch value system. It does however, matter in one very relevant way. Without requiring a catch...
A) I don't think the power should exist at all B) The cost of the catch is irrelevant, since no catch would be required without a power to attach it to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside: this conversation has devolved far from a rewrite about Physical Immunity. This thread was created to rewrite what already exists, we were on the right track. Now we are just arguing the highest end of the power and can't seem to agree.
I'm getting tired of it. So very tired of it... I just don't want to give up and let a power I suggested be rewritten; be rewritten in a fashion I disagree with.
Could you or anyone else possibly suggest another compromise?
Not going to get rude or frustrated. I'm not.
I'm going to explain my position, again. I'm going to ignore your veiled remark about my reading comprehension.
A +0 Catch tied to high concept will work well in many games. It really will. In games where it won't work, they'll ignore the optional rule anyhow. You'd ignore it...in order to WIN making a character concept yes? Others would too.
People who think the invincibility needs a nerf will likely find a use for the +0 Catch. It doesn't have to be equal to nic's noose or transgendered squid ink. People who want the thematic feel of one thing still being able to hurt the bad guy will use it just fine. I agree +0 catches are not created equal. That was why I said tie it to high concept. Most high concepts will preclude allowing transgendered squid ink or ...bullets made from the earwax of a 10 000 year old shark-moose from Spain who's never known the touch of the sun but who is exposed to moonlight every night between 12:03 and 12:05 while being massaged personally by Uriel and Mab and Fred the Australian garbage truck driver.
I think an optional rule can be used as a compromise just fine. Optional by definition means not required. That way...the power as you see fit exists. The power as I see fit exists. Both parties get what they want in some way.
What is there to understand about each other's view point?
You do not want a Catch.
I do.
That is what it boils down to at the very core.
"Whether you want full immunity to be possible is actually not related to this argument. It's irrelevant. It's another issue."
- Yes and no. I'll agree it does not address the catch value system. It does however, matter in one very relevant way. Without requiring a catch...
A) I don't think the power should exist at all B) The cost of the catch is irrelevant, since no catch would be required without a power to attach it to.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an aside: this conversation has devolved far from a rewrite about Physical Immunity. This thread was created to rewrite what already exists, we were on the right track. Now we are just arguing the highest end of the power and can't seem to agree.
I'm getting tired of it. So very tired of it... I just don't want to give up and let a power I suggested be rewritten; be rewritten in a fashion I disagree with.
Could you or anyone else possibly suggest another compromise?