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.


Messages - Haru

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 134
16
DFRPG / Re: Ask a simple Question, get a simple Answer!
« on: September 14, 2016, 03:36:40 PM »
Quote from: Ghostfreak on September 14, 2016, 06:10:39 AM
How is sponsored magic out of their jurisdiction?
For one, the reason Taran describes. A sponsor could simply shield your mind from corruption.

But when it comes to the Wardens, they would not only have to deal with you, but with your sponsor as well. Worst case, this would start trouble in the politics of the supernatural community. They could go through the channels of the unseelie accords, but if it's not a mortal wizard, they can't claim jurisdiction over them. The supernatural world is big on stuff like this.
In fact, in some cases, you could interpret a wielder of sponsored magic as the sword of the sponsor. He is no more liable for his actions than a sword would be, at least where supernatural politics are concerned.

But this doesn't mean they are immune to it all. They could well take a lawbreaker stunt without the Wardens being able to touch them.

17
DFRPG / Re: Magic Maneuver Question
« on: September 13, 2016, 05:25:03 PM »
Ah, now. Yes, if someone tries to remove an aspect, that's a maneuver. If you can justify defending the removal of that maneuver, you can roll a defense for it. If you succeed, the aspect remains.

So in the example, Murphy is well within her right to defend against the removal of the aspect, since she's right there.

18
DFRPG / Re: Magic Maneuver Question
« on: September 13, 2016, 05:10:51 PM »
Quote from: rientelfon on September 13, 2016, 05:07:09 PM
As for why the low power, he was using this a rote so it has only a set amount of power in this case it is 3 since he can use it from 1 zone away.
You don't need to spend power for distance. The -2 for a zone is just so you can affect an entire zone rather than just a single target.

Quote
Would this apply to defending a maneuver to keep it against an opponent?
I am not exactly sure what you are asking here. If someone does a maneuver against you, you have the right to defend yourself. If you succeed, the maneuver fails and doesn't create an aspect. You do not get the aspect instead of your attacker.

19
DFRPG / Re: Magic Maneuver Question
« on: September 13, 2016, 04:47:37 PM »
That sounds valid enough. If you do it as a maneuver, it acts as a maneuver. If you do it as a block, it acts as a block.

With a roll like that, it seems it would have been safe enough to increase the power a bit, to make the maneuver more dangerous.

When you get a tie, the aspect is fragile, and it makes sense to reflect that in the wording of the aspect. So if his intention was to put "immobilized" on the target, a fragile aspect could be "slowed down", representing the fact that it isn't quite what he was aiming for.

The spell doesn't exist in a vacuum. What exactly does the spell do? Is it supposed to rip up the ground and catch the target? Then the concrete might actually help the spell (by spending a fate point). Does it entangle the target in vines, in hardened air, with kinetic force? All that determines how someone might be able to free themselves.

You can make a defense action for free against anything directed towards you. Once the maneuver was successful and the aspect is placed, getting rid of it is an action (a maneuver of your own).

20
DFRPG / Re: Ask a simple Question, get a simple Answer!
« on: September 13, 2016, 11:34:20 AM »
Quote from: Ghostfreak on September 12, 2016, 04:38:48 PM
The laws of magic only applies to those who only use magic correct?
That's going to depend on you and your group and how you want to interpret the laws.

To me, there's 2 sides to the laws.

1) The Wardens. If they suspect you broke a law, they will act. It doesn't matter much if you DID break the law, if they suspect you did, you are in trouble. You can probably get away if you can prove innocence or some technicality, but first they will hunt you down.

2) The mental impact. Even if the Wardens don't know what you did or you are out of their jurisdiction (by using sponsored magic, for example), using magic in a certain way will probably have an impact on you, no matter where it comes from. You are wielding the power, you choose what the power is supposed to do, you deem right what the power does, twisting the power this way changes you.
There are ways around it, as well. Your sponsor could insulate you from the effect, for example, but that will come back to bite you in another way for sure.

When you do a spell that can break the law, either or both of those could apply. A Warden might want to talk to you for a spell that didn't affect you mentally, or a spell might affect you that doesn't even make it on the Warden's radar. Or both.

When it comes to using it in play, the important part is always: choose what you think will be fun. Just because someone broke the law doesn't necessarily mean they need to take the lawbreaker stunt, for example. There are other ways to deal with this, especially since the Lawbreaker can often mean the NPCness of a player character.

21
DFRPG / Re: Sponsored Magic Question
« on: August 18, 2016, 06:25:27 PM »
Quote from: Theogony_IX on August 18, 2016, 05:55:06 PM
I would say no, enchanted items must also fit within the sponsors realm of effect.
Agreed.

Though keep in mind that you usually have a sponsor theme rather than a single element. That can usually cover a lot more, so you should usually find something that fits whatever you want to do.

22
DFRPG / Re: Ask a simple Question, get a simple Answer!
« on: August 17, 2016, 07:47:14 PM »
Didn't we have a thread like this a while ago? Maybe we can make this one sticky so people see it?

Anyhow, I usually allow it, even without taking a stunt. In this case, I think it could either be a reworked breath weapons or channeling, either would probably be fine. I've let people generally use alternative skills for magic, as long as it makes sense for them.

Allowing the symbiosis with speed powers might be a bit troubling, but that's something I wouldn't hesitate to veto if it got out of hand.

23
DFRPG / Re: "F=m*a" Custom Stunt/Power
« on: August 10, 2016, 06:38:08 PM »
Most of the time, you can probably just get away with taking claws and calling it something like "flurry of fists". The stunt proposed probably works as well.

If you really want the out and about flash version of superspeed, just take the stealth part of the speed powers and replace it with the additional stress from strength. Yes, that'll make it a custom power, but it should still work rather nicely. And if you want to go for a kaboom kind of character, stealth will probably not be what you want to do anyway.

24
DFRPG / Re: Winter Court and Summer Court Balance of Power
« on: August 05, 2016, 01:28:33 PM »
It doesn't even have to be a knight. There are tons of positions a mortal could fill. We only know of the knight. There might even be positions that can be filled by fae or mortal alike, but having a mortal in that position could have all kinds of effects. Or better yet: having a winter changeling in a summer position and pushing him to choose to be fae, so the summer position will now be in winter's hands.

25
DFRPG / Re: Winter Court and Summer Court Balance of Power
« on: August 04, 2016, 06:32:17 PM »
Steal or destroy the Stone Table.
Get the wild fae to do lots of stuff that will sway large numbers of them to one side if called for a war. Then start a war.

26
DFRPG / Re: Dresden Combat Example
« on: August 03, 2016, 07:20:29 PM »
Quote from: Taran on August 03, 2016, 07:14:47 PM
I'd like to use the fight against Sokar as an example.  (Rising Tides PbP)

The Revenant put up a 10 shift block on Sokar which effectively derailed our attack strategy.

It forced two of us to maneuver and a third person to use a counter-spell (which almost never gets used btw).

I think that made for an interesting fight.  If he'd just put up a maneuver, it wouldn't have affected the fight as profoundly.  It may have derailed one of us, but not all of us.

Not to say that maneuvers can't do that but I'm just pointing out how a block can make a fight more interesting.
Agreed, but in the other way to do this would have allowed him to just use the aspect he'd created as a justification to roll a defense with an effective skill level of 10.

Though maybe the trouble is more with offensive blocks than with defensive ones. Or at least my trouble. Maybe I'll need to sleep on it a bit more.

27
DFRPG / Re: Dresden Combat Example
« on: August 03, 2016, 07:09:27 PM »
Quote from: Sanctaphrax on August 02, 2016, 08:09:26 AM
Take a straight punch to the nose and a turning kick to the thigh. Either can be a totally normal Fists attack, even though they're very different to the character. And either can be a maneuver or even a block, without the character doing anything differently.
Exactly. In other games, you would have to say "I don't hit him, I push him over" or something along those lines to do something different mechanically. In Fate, the same action can be a different mechanic, depending on your intention. Do you want to hurt the other guy? Give yourself the upper hand? Keep him from doing something else? The intent gives you the action, not the action itself.

Quote
Not sure why you'd care whether the action is "against you" or not. What difference does it make?
That argument could be made for maneuvers as well. You can do a maneuver on yourself and nobody gets to defend against it, but if you do a maneuver on someone else they get to defend themselves. It seems reasonable to apply this to blocks.

I think aspects are more interesting than blocks, mainly because they can be both. I like the way of creating an aspect instead of setting up a block, that allows the creator to do an active opposition.

So for example, you want to hit the wizard in the mouth so he can't speak and therefore cast a spell. You do a maneuver to set up the aspect "hit in the mouth" on him, and after that you're allowed to defend against his spellcasting with your fists. Even if you are not the target of the spell. That is pretty close to how blocks work already, but I find this way to be a lot more interesting than a static block.

A block will just stop something from happening, which will then have caused both parties their action without anything really happening. An aspect pushes the action into a different direction, and an active opposition can have a number of different outcomes, depending on how good or bad everyone rolls.

28
DFRPG / Re: Dresden Combat Example
« on: August 02, 2016, 06:42:09 AM »
Quote from: Sanctaphrax on August 02, 2016, 06:24:07 AM
Considering that you effectively defend against a block whenever you act against it, we can do without actual defense rolls for them.
Yes and no. When you get a defense against it, your next action is potentially free of the block and able to do its full potential effect. If the block always gets established, that's not the case. Keep in mind that just because you don't have a block, you can still defend yourself. But yes, it is highly murky at best.

The reasoning would simply be that, since the block is an action taken against you, you get to defend. Yes, it's virtually the same action, but that's not the standpoint Fate argues from. Intent plays a big role. And keeping someone from acting and stopping anyone from harming you is a big difference.

This is one of the many reasons I dislike blocks, they are both boring and don't really work too well. I'm glad Core got rid of them.

29
DFRPG / Re: Evocation Mental Attacks & Thaumaturgy Attack Spells
« on: August 01, 2016, 07:34:02 PM »
Quote from: g33k on August 01, 2016, 04:34:21 PM
On the other hand, an Aspect should be "Something that is True."  Asleep is Asleep.  And "fatigued into exhausted collapse & subsequent unconsciousness" really is NOT "asleep," but is something much worse.  Merely "Asleep" should NOT be filling the Stress (or any other) Track + all/most Consequences.  And the target really isn't "Taken Out" because if you do the wrong thing next, the target may wake up and then the Conflict is back on -- and the no-longer-Asleep target shouldn't have any boxes of any Track filled -- nor any Consequences -- from merely having "fallen asleep."
To me, if a character is able to put another character to sleep in one action, that makes him so much more powerful, the scene ceases to be a conflict. Instead, you can do it as a simple roll. If the character succeeds, the guard is asleep. If the character fails, the guard is alerted and calls for backup. That's the easiest way to deal with situations like this. Once you are in a conflict, safe or die actions are no longer an option.

30
DFRPG / Re: Dresden Combat Example
« on: August 01, 2016, 05:39:45 PM »
Quote from: Amelia Crane on August 01, 2016, 05:34:47 PM
Actually, I don't believe there is any defense against a block roll.  The block is simply established at however many shifts it has.  Then, if the blocked character takes an action that is prevented by the block, they must roll more power than the block. If they do, their action happens with whatever shifts bypass the block. If they do not, their action is negated.  YS210.
True, and that's how I handled it until we had the kerfuffle with Jeffrey and the block vs. block problem. I asked the question in the DFRPG G+ group and Fred Hicks answered, basically saying that assuming you don't get a defense roll when someone does something against you seems wrong.

So while you can't defend against a block roll someone does on themselves, you can defend against a block that someone does against you. At least that's how I'm going to play it from here on out.

Quote from: rientelfon on August 01, 2016, 05:03:08 PM
Very interesting, this is probably what I should have done upon reflection. The characters have discovered a plot by the Winter Court to seize power against the Summer Court and the Wizard has been investigating into how they are doing this. He has determined correctly how the balance has been tipped and was planning on setting things correctly, at least from what he figured was the way to solve the problem. The WK was unaware that his methods were not going to work, but he figured he knew too much to be left alive since this could easily ruin their plans.
Quote
#12: Discount the 1st thing that comes to mind. And the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th – get the obvious out of the way. Surprise yourself.
http://io9.gizmodo.com/5916970/the-22-rules-of-storytelling-according-to-pixar

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 134