ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: computerking on November 08, 2011, 05:33:30 PM
-
It's the return of Noob Questions! No, I have not stopped being a noob, and therefore I have some more questions...
Can a Block against attacks provided by an Enchanted Item be altered into Armor at will, or does it have to be created that way specifically?
What about using 2 of the EI above's Shifts of power to cover your teammates in the Zone? An option, or has to be "built-in"?
Similarly, can an "evocationish" attack EI be split to target multiple enemies?
Could an Item be Enchanted to provide a specific attack "roll" result? (Example, a tie pin that provides a roll result of +6 to Rapport once a Session)
-
Can a Block against attacks provided by an Enchanted Item be altered into Armor at will, or does it have to be created that way specifically?
I think there's some contention about that. The RAW seem to somewhat support being able to decide, when it is brought into the scene, which it provides (Block or Armor). I go with this interpretation. Others may insist that it *always* be a Block, or always Armor.
What about using 2 of the EI above's Shifts of power to cover your teammates in the Zone? An option, or has to be "built-in"?
I'd say that stretches narrative plausibility - I'd want it to be built-in. It could also depend on how the EI is described. Coming up with an EI that could plausibly be widened to protect your allies might conversely have new disadvantages in what one could justify.
Similarly, can an "evocationish" attack EI be split to target multiple enemies?
I'd say... yes.
Could an Item be Enchanted to provide a specific attack "roll" result? (Example, a tie pin that provides a roll result of +6 to Rapport once a Session)
That's actually how they are supposed to function: they don't provide a bonus of any sort - just a static skill. So when you see Harry make his translocation potion, he's actually creating a potion that provides a Thaumaturgical Athletics roll of +6 or so. When that item is used, his Athletics is effectively +6. Similarly, that tie pin would give its user a Rapport roll of +6. If the user had a Rapport of 6 already, using the item would be unnecessary; and a Rapport of 0-whatever would be replaced by the EI's roll of +6.
-
1. Maybe.
2. Probably not.
3. What do you mean? Are you asking if you can make spray attacks?
4. Sort of. EIs can definitely replace skills, but exactly which skills they can replace under which circumstances depends on GM ruling. I personally would not be a fan of a Rapport attack EI.
-
Can a Block against attacks provided by an Enchanted Item be altered into Armor at will, or does it have to be created that way specifically?
The book is unclear. My inclination is to say that an enchanted item must be fully fleshed out and is only capable of doing the one thing, but that's just me.
What about using 2 of the EI above's Shifts of power to cover your teammates in the Zone? An option, or has to be "built-in"?
Definitely built in. The above is a rules reflection and the change could possibly be abstracted I.E. it's still doing the same thing (protecting one person), but with slightly different rules. Extending it to a zone is changing how the spell actually works.
Similarly, can an "evocationish" attack EI be split to target multiple enemies?
This is kinda similar to the first question. Technically a spray attack is a rules difference not a thematic difference. For example a gout of flame or an assault rifle could attack a single person or be sprayed to hit multiple targets. Thematically they are the same thing, but from a rules perspective they are different.
Again my inclination is to say that the item does one thing. I guess the reason I have for it is that the rules are imbalanced if you allow thematic changes to effect the rules. If I design a EI that casts a single blade of air and you design one that shoots out a blast of electricity, then the GM allows you to spray since it makes sense thematically that isn't terribly fair to me. It encourages players to game that idea, and then you lose some decent ideas, just because the player can't justify a spray attack with it.
Could an Item be Enchanted to provide a specific attack "roll" result? (Example, a tie pin that provides a roll result of +6 to Rapport once a Session)
Yes, kinda. When you do that, what you are doing is using the "Solve improbable or impossible problems" section of thaumaturgy. This allows you to use the spell's power instead of a skill roll. This gives you a 6 total, not a +6. No rolling dice, no rapport skill, just 6.
There is one example that screws this idea over. Rashid's ointment. Honestly though I have no idea how they do that by RAW.
-
4. Sort of. EIs can definitely replace skills, but exactly which skills they can replace under which circumstances depends on GM ruling. I personally would not be a fan of a Rapport attack EI.
I can think of a way to do it. It's Lawbreaking, but functional nonetheless.
-
Good. My estimations seem to jibe with you guys (Built-in needs to be required for most variations), and the one thing I was waffleing about (Replacing the roll) was clarified.
Here's another one:
Would Mental illusions (as a magical Maneuver) break the 4th Law? Or does that only happen when Stress & Consequences are incurred?
-
That's going to vary from table to table. My inclination is to say it's very grey, but not quite Lawbreaking.
-
Lawbreaking is a hotly debated topic, of course.
My take is:
If the spellcaster *intends* for the illusion to result in what would be a Lawbreaking effect (target is tricked into walking out of a 12th-story window), it's Lawbreaking, even if the spellcaster didn't directly immolate the target in eldritch fire or telekinetically throw him out that window. Soul stain, and a Warden death sentence if discovered.
If the spellcaster's illusion *accidentally* results in a Lawbreaking effect (you scared your target into running away and he ended up plummeting out a 12-story window) and the spellcaster knows it, saw it, then the spellcaster will suffer the effects of having broken a Law: Soul stain, and a possible Warden death sentence if discovered. If the spellcaster is able to somehow convince the Wardens that it was an accident, the spellcaster will still have to deal with having the frame of reference changed, so there is still fallout.
Other than these two situations, the capacity for illusions to lead to Lawbreaking is going to depend on circumstances: intent/desired outcome, actual outcome, and the methodology used to accomplish a given outcome. Any combination of these could lead to Soul Stain but no Warden attention, Warden attention but no Soul Stain, or something between.
-
I think he was asking about the fourth law, not the first. Basically using magic to make someone believe they are seeing something rather than creating a physical illusion with light or similar.
-
True: First Law is easier than Fourth Law to make examples for as far as intent and outcome - my apologies for going for the low-hanging fruit.
-
Actually now that I think about it you bring up an interesting point. I don't think it's possible to unintentionally break the fourth law (You can't accidentally muck about with someone's mind). So then is the outcome the only thing that matters? If he messes up someone's brain then it's lawbreaking but if it doesn't do much damage then it's not? How do we determine whether he's altered the mind or not?
-
I think the fourth law is broken when the person makes a lasting change to another person's mind.
So while editing someone's mind to make them see something temporarily is defiantly "grey magic" I don't think I would rule it as a broken law until the caster edits that person's mind to always see that thing.
So to me for "mental illusions" it would be:
"Edit his mental pathways to see a vicious dog guarding this door as long as I keep the spell in place." would be okay.
"Edit his mental pathways to always see a vicious dog guarding this door." would be law breaking.
I don't know if that is canon or not - but in play I think it gives a good guideline for your characters to have the active choice to break that law or in other words an active place to declare your character's intent, which in my humble opinion is what makes role-playing the laws interesting.
-
So to me for "mental illusions" it would be:
"Edit his mental pathways to see a vicious dog guarding this door as long as I keep the spell in place." would be okay.
"Edit his mental pathways to always see a vicious dog guarding this door." would be law breaking.
I can back that differentiation.
-
So then mechanically the difference would be a maneuvered aspect (something that will last a scene at most and can be shaken by the target with a counter-maneuver) is non-lawbreaking and consequences (something that remains afterwards, and takes time and effort to remove) are lawbreaking.
There's the answer to your question computerking (provided you agree with any of that since it's all just our opinion anyway).
-
So then mechanically the difference would be a maneuvered aspect (something that will last a scene at most and can be shaken by the target with a counter-maneuver) is non-lawbreaking and consequences (something that remains afterwards, and takes time and effort to remove) are lawbreaking.
That's a really good ruling and justification for it. The water's just so murky on the subject, it's good to have a place to bounce ideas off of people about it.
-
Another one (And this will redefine my Noobishness):
If Armor equals or exceeds an incoming attack's weapon rating, do excess shifts from the attack roll still cause stress?
-
Yup
-
Otherwise punches would never hurt, since the minimum armour value is 0.
-
Yes. Absolutely, positively, yes.
Though the difference between armour and weapon is subtracted from the excess shifts.
So an accuracy 4 weapon 0 attack against defense 0 armour 3 inflicts 1 stress.
-
More Noob-ness...
Could a Necromancer take a person's soul and place it, instead of into their actual body, into a Construct, effectively giving it a fully working body temporarily? If so, would it retain/regain its sentience?
-
Mechanically really any sort of spellcaster could probably do it. I'm not sure if it's technically necromancy unless the person is dead. If they aren't dead it's definitely second lawbreaking though. You'd make your summoning/creation ritual to create whatever golem you want. I think we have a thread around here for that very purpose.
From a thematic standpoint I have no idea. There really is no precedent whatsoever for that kind of thing. Usually a necromancer uses the body because it's an easy link to the soul, however we do have necromancers that don't use the body at all, so it seems to me that there have to be other ways to do it.
-
Not answerable. The rules do not specify what magic is capable of.
-
Could a Necromancer take a person's soul and place it, instead of into their actual body, into a Construct, effectively giving it a fully working body temporarily? If so, would it retain/regain its sentience?
Going from the stories and sidebars, yes and yes. (Bob is the example and the sidebar author.) That said, there is some debate on exactly what Bob was before being bound to a skull. As always, game mechanics / capability are dependent on the table.
-
Going from the stories and sidebars, yes and yes. (Bob is the example and the sidebar author.) That said, there is some debate on exactly what Bob was before being bound to a skull. As always, game mechanics / capability are dependent on the table.
From what I recall Bob has been referred to as a spirit, and thus without a mortal body. Which would imply he would have had to build one for use outside the NeverNever. Also from everything I remember Bob was willing to inhabit the skull in order to avoid the consequences of some action.
That being said I could see it being possible for a spellcaster to do that, but that would be something each group could decide on their own.
-
From what I recall Bob has been referred to as a spirit, and thus without a mortal body. Which would imply he would have had to build one for use outside the NeverNever. Also from everything I remember Bob was willing to inhabit the skull in order to avoid the consequences of some action.
That being said I could see it being possible for a spellcaster to do that, but that would be something each group could decide on their own.
Bob alludes to having taken a Concession rather than being taken out, leading to his dwelling in a skull.
And I do understand the "If the table agrees" caveats, but it kinda ruins the surprise to consult them before someone your players knew was dead starts showing up.
-
And I do understand the "If the table agrees" caveats, but it kinda ruins the surprise to consult them before someone your players knew was dead starts showing up.
Ah, I was under the impression you were asking as a player. If you're the one running the game that tactic is certainly within your domain to okay, just keep in mind the players may want to do it too at a later point.
-
Could single-target "Mesmerism" be represented by a "flavor" of Incite Emotion?
Concept: Hypnotic-eyed Naga, looks you in the eyes and puts a Block against attacking or movement, or places a "Mesmerized" aspect that can be tagged/invoked for effect. It sounds like it could be a kosher reskin of Incite Emotion, but what do you guys think?
Oh, and I'd also like opinions on a similar possible reskin, that represents temporarily causing insanity.
Thanks!
-
Could single-target "Mesmerism" be represented by a "flavor" of Incite Emotion?
Concept: Hypnotic-eyed Naga, looks you in the eyes and puts a Block against attacking or movement, or places a "Mesmerized" aspect that can be tagged/invoked for effect. It sounds like it could be a kosher reskin of Incite Emotion, but what do you guys think?
Oh, and I'd also like opinions on a similar possible reskin, that represents temporarily causing insanity.
I'm wondering if Incite Emotion should or could plausibly be retitled/reskinned as "Incite Effect."
That said, I think both of those things are plausible.
-
The biggest thing that I would worry about with either of those effects is are they more appropriate for maneuvered aspects, or consequences. Mainly the difference being that maneuvered aspects should plausibly be able to be shaken with a few seconds of effort (I.E. a counter-maneuver) and a consequence takes a fair amount of time and effort to remove.
So if you feel like either of those effects could justifiably be removed with a couple second's effort then you're all good.
-
Sure, why not.
No balance problems, no thematic weirdness, no odd corner cases created, go for it.
-
Can a Block be specifically created to stop Maneuvers?
Or does a Standard protective block cover this?
-
Can a Block be specifically created to stop Maneuvers?
Per the book, yes. However putting it in narrative terms can be somewhat difficult. One narrative method I use is phrasing the block as a boost to your awareness allowing you to see and avoid maneuver attempts.
-
Range on Evocation spells: 1 Zone? 2 Zones? Varies per combat? As far as the eye can see?
I may have missed a reference to this in the book.
-
Blocks block maneuvers if the maneuver is in the class of things that the block blocks. So a Weapons block aimed at keeping people away from your friend would stop an attempt to put a DAZED aspect on him with Fists but not an attempt to put an ANNOYED aspect on him with Intimidation.
So blocks do apply to maneuvers, but you probably can't choose maneuvers as what your block blocks.
Does that make sense?
And I think that evocation has range equal to line of sight.
-
And I think that evocation has range equal to line of sight.
I hope so, because I've been very bad about enforcing range modifiers for my Wizards.
-
Yes, evocation is line of sight. Which is often extremely short range in a city.
...you probably can't choose maneuvers as what your block blocks.
See YS210 under "Resolving Blocks". Mechanically two things are important: target ("who it's intended to affect") and what type of action it's trying to prevent ("attack, block, maneuver, move").
Personally, I want the narrative to match the mechanics as much as possible...even to the point of narrative trumping mechanics when it seems appropriate...hence my comment above on putting it in narrative terms. That's just my hang up though.
-
Personally I ignore the range limits in the book as being *way* too short, and just go with what makes sense at the time.
-
That's a bit silly, given that a bunch of punches to the face can be either an attack, a maneuver, or a block depending on the player's whims.
-
OK, case in point:
Wizard McFee and Scion Sleestak are fighting.
McFee puts up an Evocation 5-Shift Spirit Block vs. attacks.
Sleestak says, "Hmm, I brandish my Venomous Claws, roll my poisoning Maneuver, +4."
McFee rolls Athletics, oops, a +0
Does the Block stop the poisoning, or not?
As Umbralux pointed out in RAW, McFee would have to make a special, anti-Maneuver block to prevent that.
Does that make sense, or is Sanctaphrax's concept better?
-
Personally I ignore the range limits in the book as being *way* too short, and just go with what makes sense at the time.
Hmm, the range limit is basically "as-long-as-you-can-see-it-you-can-affect-it-with-Evocation".
... you can’t use evocation to affect anything beyond your line of sight...
-
Sorry, I meant too short for regular weapons.
-
Does the Block stop the poisoning, or not?
As Umbralux pointed out in RAW, McFee would have to make a special, anti-Maneuver block to prevent that.
This is one of those areas where I think the narrative should trump the mechanics. I see the evocation block essentially as a shield so McFee is blocking anything which looks like an attack and the poisoning maneuver logically requires touch of some form which will be subject to the shield (block). On the flip side, pulling the rug out from underneath McFee to put "Off Balance" on him doesn't require contact and wouldn't be subject to the block.
Just my 2 cents.
Edit: Just for clarity, you can block multiple action types from a single target. So if your spirit evocation block was phrased as a "stasis field holding Sleestak in place" it would potentially block anything Sleestak attempted.
-
Edit: Just for clarity, you can block multiple action types from a single target. So if your spirit evocation block was phrased as a "stasis field holding Sleestak in place" it would potentially block anything Sleestak attempted.
And it could conversely be overcome by any skill check the Sleestak thinks to justify.
-
Agreed, that's the major downside to "universal" blocks. :)
-
My concept is definitely better. It makes infinitely more sense.
If you find yourself wanting to have narrative trump mechanics (or vice versa) there's probably something wrong with either narrative or mechanics. In this case, I think it's the mechanics that are problematic.
-
If you find yourself wanting to have narrative trump mechanics (or vice versa) there's probably something wrong with either narrative or mechanics.
In a game where narrative affects mechanics and vice versa? Surprising...but probably a discussion for another thread.
-
Personally I ignore the range limits in the book as being *way* too short, and just go with what makes sense at the time.
It depends on your concept of zones really. Sometimes a zone can be small, but more often than not my table has used them to represent 10-20-30 yards at a time. There was one time we were running around in a large wood, and the GM had a zone barrier on all of the zones to represent the fact that they were a great distance apart (I.E. the zones themselves were very large but the places where the conflict was taking place inside them were small).
-
How would one create a "damage shield"?
Example: a Fire evocation shield that also does damage to the incoming attack (if Fists or Weapons).
-
How would one create a "damage shield"?
Example: a Fire evocation shield that also does damage to the incoming attack (if Fists or Weapons).
I don't think there's really a way to do this under the rules as written (which try very hard to avoid allowing people to get two attacks in an exchange, as having this shield up would). You might be able to argue that modelling the shield as a maneuver (placing a 'Burning Aura' on yourself) might allow you to 'invoke for effect' to inflict a little 'environmental damage' on people attacking you, though this would be expensive fate-wise after the first use.
An alternate idea that isn't a RAW option but is probably not unreasonable is to model a spell as a 'contingent attack'. That is, you cast an attack spell that is delayed, hitting the next person to attack you within the duration of the spell (which would default to 1 exchange unless you spent shifts to increase it). The 'shield' would offer no defensive benefits, however.
-
@UmbraLux:
I maintain that mechanics and narrative affect each other less in this game than in most others.
@computerking:
MAGICAL SELF-ENHANCEMENT [+varies]
Description: Many supernatural abilities can be mimicked through an application of spellcasting. But that requires specialization, of the sort that this power represents.
Musts: A character must possess the Evocation, Channeling, and/or Sponsored Magic powers in order to use this one. Other powers to link this power to are also required.
Skills Affected: Conviction, Discipline, Lore
Effects:
Limited Powers. When you take this power, you must select at least one other supernatural power that you possess. Which powers may be selected with this power is a matter of the GM's discretion. The selected powers are disabled, and the character gets a rebate equal to one-third of the powers' total cost.
Magical Self-Enhancement. This power allows the user to grant themselves access to the selected powers through evocation. Such evocations may be of any element that makes sense, and they may be offensive or defensive. The power required of an evocation that grants powers is equal to the total refresh cost of the granted powers plus the intended duration. The user may extend this effect using the normal rules for the extension of evocation, and they may choose to grant themselves only a few of the selected powers. This also allows them to grant lesser versions of the selected powers. For example, a character who had selected Supernatural Strength and Inhuman Speed with this power may grant themselves Inhuman Strength for 5 exchanges with a 7-shift evocation.
Magical Enhancement [-varies]. This option removes the rebate from Magical Self-Enhancement, making the total cost of the power 0. In exchange, it gives the user the ability to cast power-granting evocations on other characters. Please note that these evocations cannot be zone-wide.
Damage Shield [-1]
Description: For whatever reason, attacking you isn't safe. Maybe you're covered in spikes, or maybe your body flows with 10 000 volts of electricity.
Musts: Nothing in particular.
Effect:
Damage Shield. Whenever a character makes an unarmed attack against you and misses, they take physical stress equal to the number of shifts by which your defence roll exceeds their attack roll. This might also trigger on some maneuvers, if the GM deems it appropriate.
Conductive Damage Shield [-1]. This power works against against all melee attacks, not just unarmed ones.
Reflective Damage Shield [-1]. (Requires Conductive Damage Shield) This power works against all attacks, not just melee ones.
Dangerous Damage Shield [-1]. This power inflicts two additional stress whenever it triggers.
Lethal Damage Shield [-1]. (Requires Dangerous Damage Shield) This power inflicts a further two additional stress when it triggers.
Mutual Damage Shield [-1]. (Requires Dangerous Damage Shield) This power triggers when you are hit as well as when you are missed. Treat the attacker's threshold shifts as negative shifts for the purposes of calculating this power's damage.
-
Are those on the custom powers thread? I really dig Magical self-enhancement, because it allows people to gain powers with magic, but more importantly they're still paying refresh for the powers.
-
@Sanctaphrax: Awesome!
-
Glad you like 'em, these are some of my best work.
Although the balance of the upgrade for Magical Self-Enhancement is questionable.
They're both on the custom power thread, but good luck finding them. There's a reason I've been working on a master list.