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 - wyvern

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 40
31
DFRPG / Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
« on: July 23, 2015, 03:34:50 PM »
Quote from: Quantus on July 23, 2015, 02:06:58 PM
Nah, success or failure of the effect happens after.  They still gathered up their own life force and threw it at the enemy, leaving none to keep their body alive.  The fact that they threw it and missed doesnt mean they get it back any more than you can get a bullet back after you fire and miss the target.
Except that the person blocking this is a necromancer.  I could totally buy a kemmlerite necromancer being able to block a death curse by preventing the guy throwing it from dying.  A block, on the person who's trying to throw a death curse, is definitely before they're gathering up their life force; it interferes at the 'throw life force' stage, not the 'at target' stage.  In the same way, someone who's under an explosives damping spell can try to shoot a gun, but - unless they beat the block - the gun doesn't fire and they don't lose the bullet.

32
DFRPG / Re: Help my bad guy!
« on: July 08, 2015, 08:30:33 PM »
To be honest, I wouldn't let that work, for the following two reasons:

1: Black Court weaknesses.  I read this as being unable to cross thresholds without invitation - mundane running water is, after all, just another type of threshold.  Magical running water, though?  Not a threshold, not a problem.

2: I don't think you can conjure up a proper magic-blocking circle using magic.  Admittedly, there's nowhere in the books saying you can't... but consider how many times that sort of thing would've been useful to Harry ("Oh, look, monster of the week, let me burn a circle around it and then it'll be harmless"), and yet neither he nor any other wizard ever does it.  Even Shagnasty physically draws a circle around himself when he needs one.

So, that'd be my rulings on the matter.  Even if you decide to rule differently than I would on number one, the sorcerer should still have all his magic and be able to counterspell or otherwise retaliate regardless of the running-water-circle trick.  Of course, it is a pretty clever notion; if I had a player try that, I'd offer them a compel, to the tune of: "You think this should work, and the vampire's playing along hoping he can lure you in close and then suckerpunch you.  Buy off the compel to realize he's faking it, and you can get him to waste time trying to trick you.  Or accept the compel and be up a fate point."

33
DFRPG / Re: Notes on Optimization
« on: June 29, 2015, 07:18:16 PM »
Quote from: DFJunkie on June 29, 2015, 03:48:18 AM
Athletics is so useful that I think "Achieve the highest Athletics/Dodge modifier your build and concept will permit" should have its own entry.  Toward the top.  Getting killed is highly detrimental to character development.
On the other hand, getting killed in DFRPG is very difficult - the available consequences (including extreme) can soak a truly absurd amount of stress, anything short of a one-hit kill leads to concession rather than character death, and even in cases where the player chooses not to concede, the books make it clear that death should not be the default result of a take-out.

That said, high defense skills are a very good optimization tool; athletics isn't the only option, and having good social defenses is also important.  Mental defenses are less so, though; there are very few things that can directly attack mental defenses, and in many cases it's not unreasonable to build a character whose default reaction to mental combat is to concede immediately before the fight can leave them with too many consequences.

34
DFRPG / Re: Fighting While Hidden
« on: June 29, 2015, 06:59:58 PM »
Well... it depends on how you're hiding, really.  If you're hidden by a veil and standing in the open, then sure, defense zero or reveal your location against an AoE attack.

If, by contrast, you're hiding in a foxhole or blind you built, or are otherwise physically concealed... that should help against area attacks as well.  I'd probably modify the rules for area attacks as follows:

1: You can use your hidden-ness strength to defend against area attacks if you invoke an appropriate aspect for effect - this can be by spending a fate point to make a declaration, or by using the free tag on an aspect you already established.  In this case, follow the same rules as for non-area attacks: if you get hit, you become Not Hidden; if you aren't hit, you remain at whatever level of hiding-ness you previously were.  One such invoke-for-effect will allow you to defend in this way until you become Not Hidden or the situation otherwise changes to remove the aspect you were using (i.e. if you used a free tag on a fragile aspect, this one defense is all you get out of it).

2: If you choose not to dodge (relying on veil strength, or taking the zero base defense against a ranged attack), and you spend a fate point to re-roll your defense, you may also re-choose whether or not to dodge.  (This is mostly there to allow for those dramatic dive-for-cover moments when you thought you could stand and take it and then discovered that no, actually, your opponent got a +4 on the dice and taking a mediocre defense against an area attack just won't cut it.)

3: Aside from the option in number two above, you need to choose whether or not to dodge before your opponent rolls their attack.

35
DFRPG / Re: The legality of a True Shapeshifter PC and how to work with accidental spotlight
« on: June 08, 2015, 04:33:27 PM »
Nonsense.  If you look at OW, even most of the actual fae only get a +3 rebate - and when you read the books, you find out why.  Consider, for example, the Gruffs.  Harry had to go do some research to find out that they were fae.  That's a clear example of a +1 researchability.

And again, True Shapeshifting plays into this a lot.  It's the same reason you can't get a +2 IoP rebate from a katana if it grants you glamours - the powers you've got by default make it easy to conceal, even if it normally wouldn't be.

36
DFRPG / Re: The legality of a True Shapeshifter PC and how to work with accidental spotlight
« on: June 08, 2015, 02:32:09 PM »
Quote from: Kennifus Prime on June 07, 2015, 06:04:55 AM
The Catch is Cold Iron as he is a Changeling with Fetch heritage. Since he is protected from everything except something specific he gets a +0. Then, since The Catch is something anyone could reasonably access (cold iron) he gets a +2. And finally, since pretty much anyone with knowledge of the supernatural would know a child of fae is weak to cold iron he gets another +2.
This is actually only a +2 catch for him - the researchability factor is a zero, not a +2.  Why?  Oh, sure, everyone knows that a child of the fae is weak to cold iron.  But does everyone instantly know he's a child of the fae?  You'd have to actually know him as an individual to get that part.

Edit: This is compounded by True Shapeshifting, of course.  Someone without that might reasonably merit a +1 for researchability, if there were some definite (if perhaps obscure) signs of what they were.  But when you can look like anything, it becomes very very hard to justify even a +1 for catch researchability; a clever shapeshifter would deliberately look like some type of creature with a different vulnerability.

37
DFRPG / Re: Mental Toughness question
« on: May 18, 2015, 06:18:51 PM »
My personal ruling would be that the armor doesn't reduce casting stress, but the extra stress boxes are usable.  ...Which is kinda annoying, since my ruling for physical toughness / recovery powers is that self-inflicted stress from casting always counts as the catch and neither armor nor stress boxes would apply.  But since the mental toughness powers are explicitly supposed to represent better spellcasting, the stress boxes at least have to usable.

38
DFRPG / Re: White Court: Virgin to Vampire. Any kill or feeding only?
« on: May 15, 2015, 12:01:29 AM »
Actually, we know the other way around: it's feeding sufficiently that triggers the transformation, not killing.  This comes up in... I think it's one of the Bigfoot short stories?

39
DFRPG / Re: running consequences
« on: April 17, 2015, 07:42:28 PM »
Quote from: Taran on April 17, 2015, 07:18:37 PM
Saying, "this isn't worth a severe" after telling your player his character is going to die seems kind of silly.  That tells me the player isn't invested in his character.  At that point I might ask the player, "are you not enjoying this game?"
Um... those were two different examples.  Note how the death-is-on-the-line example is the wendigo, not the troll.  And yeah, if death *is* on the line, then the player should take the consequence, always.  If death isn't on the line, then having the PC die after not taking the consequence is not appropriate.

Quote from: Mr. Death on April 17, 2015, 07:11:59 PM
A concession must, by definition, take place before a roll that would take out the target. If you've been hit for 9 shifts, and are waffling on whether to take the consequences or be taken out, a concession is not on the table. You can only choose at that point whether you take the consequence and keep fighting or be taken out. And if it's the latter, the attacker chooses what happens. Now, should the GM be lenient and negotiate anyway?
But in this context, a nine shift attack is not a take-out, since the PC can keep fighting (albeit at a cost), which means a concession is legal.  And sure, the GM can choose to not negotiate, and force the player to choose between taking consequences or taking what's behind door #2, sight unseen.  As with any concession, it's a negotiation - and if one side chooses not to negotiate, then so be it; take those consequences and move on.

40
DFRPG / Re: running consequences
« on: April 17, 2015, 06:45:03 PM »
It's a concession, not a take-out, because the player still has choices and narrative control.  Please note that I'm explicitly basing this discussion on the point in time where the player is deciding if the fight is worth a severe consequence or not; that is the point where they can negotiate with the GM for what's going to happen if they don't take the consequence.  And negotiating what happens is a concession, not a take-out.

Now, the GM can - as in your wendigo example - say "This thing is going to kill and eat you if you let it", and at that point the PC has to take the consequence.  However, that's explicitly mentioned in the rulebook as upping the stakes from a normal fight, as well as being something that the GM should note at the start of a battle, not partway through.

Alternatively, the player can say "Eh, I trust you to do something interesting with it, and I don't think this fight is worth a severe consequence; I'll just get taken out by this troll."  Which is fine, too, but again, if you as a GM use that to kill a PC... no, I'm going to have to stick with "That's completely inappropriate".

41
DFRPG / Re: running consequences
« on: April 17, 2015, 05:42:52 PM »
Quote from: Taran on April 17, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
The boulder does 9 stress.  This takes you out since you can only take 3 stress.  The Troll can choose the take out - maybe he kills you.  Maybe he chooses to pin you under the rock. whatever.
Disagree here - this isn't a take out, since the results are still in the realm of player choice.  You can take a severe broken leg (as you mentioned later) and keep fighting (or concede on your turn before the troll can hit you again), or you can negotiate for some other result of similar overall value to having taken a severe; were I a GM, I might offer an alternative of "You're pinned under a rock, and pick up a moderate consequence of bruised ribs - you're out of this fight, and getting you un-pinned will take a significant amount of effort from your allies."  Killing a PC in this instance, however, is completely inappropriate.  Another good option for a concession here would be something like "You dodge, trip, and find a fairly deep hole in the ground the hard way.  You're a bit battered by the fall - minor consequence of "bruised and battered" - and it sounds like there's something else breathing down here... Figure out what you want to do; I'll get back to you once I'm done running the scene with the ogre and the wizard."

Quote from: Taran on April 17, 2015, 02:13:56 PM
Note, if the troll didn't use the free tag, the troll could offer this same compel and you wouldn't get a FP for accepting, though you'd still have to pay a FP to turn it down.
There's one part of this that's just wrong: the player does still get the fate point for accepting.  Doesn't matter that it was a free tag - that only triggers the compel.  Much like if another PC were to try and compel an aspect on your sheet - they only trigger the compel; the GM handles it from there like any other compel.

42
DFRPG / Re: Stats for NagaAiravata?
« on: March 31, 2015, 09:59:58 PM »
The Naga is definitely plot device level*.  I'd tend to assume she presents a Great challenge in social situations - or more if it's something she seriously cares about, like maintaining the accords.  (As in, getting her to talk requires rolling against intimidate at great... but getting her to, say, break the curse herself, would need rolls somewhere above legendary.)  If it comes to physical combat, she just wins; negotiate a reasonable concession** and move on.

_____
* For characters at refresh levels of, say, 14 or lower.  Sanctaphrax would want stats for her, since she'd probably be around PC-level in his Enduring The Apocalypse game.
** Perhaps the PC is overcome by her sheer presence and flees - and she decides it's not worth her time to pursue; cue the PC running headlong into some other bad situation, or spending the next few hours holed up somewhere curled into a ball.  Perhaps her interests in maintaining balance forbid her from killing even in self defense, and the foolish PC ends up mauled and mangled but not deceased.  Perhaps she has some future use for that character, and contents herself with placing a geas upon them.  Figure something out that works for your players; but if Dresden considers fighting her to be worse than useless, it should be a safe bet that your PCs won't fare any better.

43
DFRPG / Re: Breath Weapon questions
« on: March 20, 2015, 05:50:48 PM »
Oh, right.  One possibly-important addendum: While I would, in games I was running, allow strength powers to add to breath weapon damage, I would never assume that was going to work in a game run by someone else.  Ask about it, sure, but I wouldn't be bothered if they decided to rule differently.  (Though I would, in that case, avoid taking both breath weapon and strength powers, no matter how thematically appropriate the combination might be.  Theme's nice, but so's mechanical effectiveness, and it's easy enough to justify, say, channeling, or maybe even an outright sponsored magic instead of breath weapon.)

44
DFRPG / Re: Breath Weapon questions
« on: March 19, 2015, 11:13:12 PM »
I would always allow strength powers to boost breath weapon damage, always.  (Though I'd consider allowing a cheaper upgrade that only boosted breath weapon damage if it didn't make sense for the character to also be super-strong.  But that wouldn't stack with benefits from super strength.)
I would not allow breath weapon to make a character count as armed for purposes of defense, though gaining that status would be within the scope of a mortal stunt.
I would also, given appropriate aspects, allow a breath weapon power to operate off of fists or guns skill without needing extra refresh to be spent.

Mostly the reasoning is that breath weapon is meant as a flexible power for any sort of innate ranged attack, from actual draconic fire breath, to a master conjurer's ability to call up a handful of ectoplasmic throwing knives whenever she needs some.  Strength powers obviously should benefit the latter application.  And it's my opinion that a thematic change (conjured knives to blast of flame) shouldn't have the level of game-mechanical impact that losing access to strength boost would represent.

Of course, the other part of my reasoning is simply that breath weapon is a fairly weak power, generally not worth the two refresh.  For the same price you could get channeling, which allows fewer attacks but is much stronger & has an actual upgrade path.  Or you could get inhuman strength and throw pebbles at people for the same damage output; sure, that won't work if you're in a clean white room with nothing on you, but the breath weapon won't work if you're in a circle, and either way you're probably getting a fate point for your troubles.

Also, Lawgiver: Breath weapon is explicitly not an AoE!  It's a single target attack or maneuver.  Allowing it to be AoE would be a major upgrade to the power as written.

45
DFRPG / Re: How long would it take to open and close a Way a physical conflict?
« on: March 18, 2015, 05:07:02 PM »
Quote from: Taran on March 18, 2015, 03:31:58 PM
The rules for opening ways is thaumaturgy...so it depends how long your group thinks thaumaturgy takes.  Some groups play it that anything equal or below your lore can be cast as fast as evocation, while others think thaumaturgy always takes more time.
Just for reference, the Paranet Papers book has some clarifications on how long thaumaturgy is supposed to take, including (optional) rules for trying to work a ritual during combat.  Short summary: must be equal or less than your lore in complexity before you can even try, requires several rounds of setup (or a large pile of fate points and applicable aspects), during which any damage interrupts the process (and you can't even dodge!), and once that's done you can follow the normal rules for drawing power as outlined in the original book.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 40