ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: InFerrumVeritas on February 21, 2012, 10:41:35 PM
-
So, the more I think about it, the more I think Evocation's accuracy is broken. The fact that control bonuses apply to the attack rolls means that wizards are capable of being more accurate than the best snipers. A mundane character can, if they're very lucky, achieve Epic attacks regularly (without fate points or aspects), but a practitioner can laugh at those numbers rather early on.
So, is this a problem in my head or just at my table, or is it one you've experienced as well?
I've got a couple of fixes I'm considering.
1: Control bonuses only apply to control, not to targeting rolls. You still use the same roll, but apply different bonuses.
2: I like the idea of coming up with a "Combat Specialization" stunt. It would give a bonus that had to follow a pyramid. There would be four types of bonuses. Accuracy (applies to attack rolls), Defense (applies to defense rolls and some blocks), Versatility (applies to maneuvers and some blocks), and Damage (applies to Weapon Rating). Then, it'd be broken down into skills applied to instead of elements: Weapons, Fists, and Guns/Athletics (since you don't defend with Guns).
Combat Specialization [-1]
Description: You are especially skilled in combat.
Effect: Gain two specialization bonuses. For each bonus, select one of the following skills (Weapons, Fists, Guns, Athletics), and one of the following, Accuracy (applies to attack rolls), Defense (applies to defense rolls and some blocks), Versatility (applies to maneuvers and some blocks), and Damage (applies to Weapon Rating). You may take this multiple times, but the bonuses must follow a pyramid, like skills. Your maximum bonus for a particular skill is limited by your skill rank in that skill.
What do you think of any of this?
-
So, is this a problem in my head or just at my table, or is it one you've experienced as well?
I agree, that's one issue. It's not the biggest in my opinion.
Wizards simply have too many ways of increasing effectiveness.- Targeting (and Control) increases with Discipline.
- Weapon power (or other spell effect) increases with Conviction.
- Both power and targeting may be increased through Refinement (Specialties and Foci) which are limited by Lore and, in the case of Specialties, a pyramid.
Targeting is really the only one with a direct melee or ranged equivalent. Foci are roughly equivalent to using a weapon but tend to reach numbers no hand held weapon will (though costing refresh instead of resources is a small mitigation). Specialties may be roughly equitable with Strength powers for melee (though ranged weapons don't have an equivalent). But Conviction has no ranged or melee equivalent.
With all of the rough equivalents the magic version is better. In addition, the mage adds Conviction to his effect's power - something without an equivalent. In return, the mage gets a limited number of uses based on mental stress and consequences. Mental stress is really the only limiting factor which provides some balance.
I've got a couple of fixes I'm considering.
1: Control bonuses only apply to control, not to targeting rolls. You still use the same roll, but apply different bonuses.
My worry with this is time...every die roll you add slows the game down. (As a side note, I'd really like to figure out a way to get rid of opposed rolls in fate for exactly this reason.)
Beyond the speed issue, you'll have to figure out how to apply bonuses. Aspect use is probably easy, just pick the roll you want to bump up. Specialties and foci are more questionable. Have you planned how they'll apply?
2: I like the idea of coming up with a "Combat Specialization" stunt. It would give a bonus that had to follow a pyramid. There would be four types of bonuses. Accuracy (applies to attack rolls), Defense (applies to defense rolls and some blocks), Versatility (applies to maneuvers and some blocks), and Damage (applies to Weapon Rating). Then, it'd be broken down into skills applied to instead of elements: Weapons, Fists, and Guns/Athletics (since you don't defend with Guns).
Combat Specialization [-1]
Description: You are especially skilled in combat.
Effect: Gain two specialization bonuses. For each bonus, select one of the following skills (Weapons, Fists, Guns, Athletics), and one of the following, Accuracy (applies to attack rolls), Defense (applies to defense rolls and some blocks), Versatility (applies to maneuvers and some blocks), and Damage (applies to Weapon Rating). You may take this multiple times, but the bonuses must follow a pyramid, like skills. Your maximum bonus for a particular skill is limited by your skill rank in that skill.
What do you think of any of this?
The stunt sounds a bit complex. I'd suggest dropping it to offense and defense as foci are categorized. I'd also be tempted to use it within a skill rather than across several. I.E. Revolvers, Semi-auto Pistols, Rifles, and Shotguns rather than Weapons, Fists, & Guns. That's mostly for flavor though...it would allow more mechanical differentiation between weapons.
It does escalate damage capabilities - which makes me a bit wary. But it would be worth a test drive.
-
If it is really a problem allowing powers like Sacred Guardian (add mental stress to attack) for weapon character it gets rid of the difference in accuracy but doesn't weaken magic power.
-
Combat Specialization v2 [-1]
Skills Affected: Athletics, Fists, Guns, Weapons
Effect: You get two specializations. For each, choose one of the affected skills and a bonus to either offense or defense when using that skill. The bonus must follow a pyramid, like skills do. You may take this stunt more than once.
Example: +1 to Offensive Weapons, +1 Defensive Athletics, +2 to Offensive Guns would cost 2 refresh.
@ways and means: I'm looking for something for pure mortals to take too.
-
I like that better, not as complicated. One more item to add came to mind - what are the limits? (A Lore equivalent for limiting the max bonus.) Alertness perhaps? Lore is also the magical perception skill, so that creates some symmetry. Athletics or Endurance also work but give more of a synergistic bonus. Scholarship or Survival might work...but would be harder to justify.
-
I like that better, not as complicated. One more item to add came to mind - what are the limits? (A Lore equivalent for limiting the max bonus.) Alertness perhaps? Lore is also the magical perception skill, so that creates some symmetry. Athletics or Endurance also work but give more of a synergistic bonus. Scholarship or Survival might work...but would be harder to justify.
Hmm, good question. I like the idea of limiting it to Alertness.
-
1: Control bonuses only apply to control, not to targeting rolls. You still use the same roll, but apply different bonuses.
This strikes me as reasonable, though I'd make it slightly more flexible by allowing the player to divide their control bonuses among the two "rolls". So if you have +2 fire control, and you roll a 5 on your discipline roll to cast a fire spell, you could treat that as 7 control and 5 targeting, or 5 control and 7 targeting, or 6 both (depending on how much power you needed to control). This would give you the option of casting smaller attacks with greater accuracy.
Example: +1 to Offensive Weapons, +1 Defensive Athletics, +2 to Offensive Guns would cost 2 refresh.
So ... this would let you get a +2 to pretty much most of the Guns skill for -1 refresh (assuming, of course, that you had already bought a refresh worth of this stunt applied to other categories)? Compare this to, say, "Pin Them Down" (YS153) -- or more generally, to the stunt creation guidelines on YS148 -- and I think my objection becomes clear. I understand that you are trying to attain parity between the bonuses a spellcaster can get and those a mundane can get, but I think that your first option does better.
I can also see the argument "but a spellcaster can get two +1s for a refresh" -- and that's not an unfair argument. Then again, mundane attacks do not require -7 refresh worth of prerequisites before having access to more than a single refinement, nor do mundane attacks require a stress box per attack.
-
@InFerrumVeritas: Once you've used it in play, I'd really like to hear how it worked out. :)
Becq does have a good point. If it ends up pushing the balance of power too far the other way, you might try reigning it in by making the bonus cost something to use. Stress or fate points are the most obvious candidates. Applying an aspect for you to tag / compel is another. ("Yes, I'm willing to Attack Without Hesitation to get the bonus this scene.")
Don't know if such limitations will be needed, but it's worth having an idea or two planned.
-
I'd like to preface my opinion with the following:
I DO think Wizards are unblanced compared to the rest of the character options. I also think magic users over all are unbalanced compared to those who do not cast spells. In fact the way the system currently works any character with magic is going to be more versatile and in some (perhaps most) cases more effective than those without.
I found the same issue with both Star Wars roleplaying systems. Adding the ability to use the Force to any character was simply better than not having Force Powers. Period. Yes Jedi were more effective than a random Force user, but the situation is similar.
Jedi = Wizards
Other Force users = other magic users.
Any character you can justify Force powers (SWRPG) or spells (DFRPG) for will simply be better with them than without.
Preface over------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the work required to fix the issues in both games require so much in the way of house rules; you might as well be starting from scratchon developement or playing another game altogether.
I simply accept the fact that Star Wars is skewed towards the Force. Dresden Files RPG is skewed towards the protagonist of the novels...a spell caster. (Wizard) I encourage fellow players to enjoy the other playable options from a role playing experience. If a player only wants efficiency... well the path is clear.
Enough naysaying from me though. I do think the proposal for Combat Specialization may help. Carry on. :)
-
Well, I'm looking to make it so that the maximum a character can get on an attack is roughly equal. I think it's ridiculous that Wizards can be more accurate than even the best trained sniper/swordsman/etc. I'm okay with magic being more powerful (Weapon Rating) and versatile, but not more accurate.
So, what I'd like to do is to make it so that the characters have the same chances. I know this isn't balanced against other stunts, but I think those are too weak. I'm looking to have restrictions (the pyramid). A wizard can get pretty massive accuracy bonuses with JUST evocation (theoretically +5 right off the bat if they pin themselves down to a single route and have a high enough lore). I'm looking to make that a bit more fair for other characters.
I'll have to play it and see. I'll post the results.
-
You seriously have suspension of disbelief problems with the accuracy of magic?
...Given that magic is totally impossible and imaginary, calling its mechanics unrealistic seems weird.
But that's beside the point. Onto the topic:
For the purpose of this thread, let's assume that magic really is clearly stronger than everything else.
I really don't like your proposed solution. It makes stunts totally obsolete, which sucks flavour out of characters. You could achieve the same effect just by making stunts stack and by letting people pick really weak restrictions.
But honestly, I think that solving overpowered magic by boosting combat skills is a bad idea. It would be better to reduce the power of spellcasting, which you can do in at least a dozen easy ways without damaging the game. Suggestions, off the top of my head:
-Your first suggestion.
-Just charge more Refresh.
-Increase the tax on zone attacks.
-Remove the free specializations/focus slots from spellcasting powers.
-Make elements a harsh restriction rather than a mild one.
-Do not allow focus slots from one power to be spent on another.
-Eliminate foci from the game.
-Make foci size limits a bigger deal.
-Increase the stress cost.
-Eliminate rotes.
-Allow only one focus per spell.
-Apply the cap of +Lore to the whole spell, not to individual elements.
-etc.
-
-Remove the free specializations/focus slots from spellcasting powers.
This alone has gone a long way to making spellcasting much more palatable in the games I run.
-
It seems like you can match the accuracy and damage of a wizard with mythic strength and a really big weapon for less refresh and no 'each attack I make costs me stun' issue.
Orichalcum Grand Daiklaive
12ft and a half ton of gold dense, diamond hard and mono-filament sharp supernatural metal enchanted such that the wielder is more the strong enough to put it through your tank with a casual swing.
Is what it is: WR 4 (battlefield weapon by any reckoning), doubles as an invulnerable tower shield
+2 Discount
-6 Mythic Strength
So, you get the base WR of 4, +3 for mythic strength and +3 to hit from might modifying weapons (you are swinging around this huge thing that takes might just to lift), and it doesn't eat stress to use. For the same refresh (ignoring the +2 for the moment) the Wizard isn't a wizard yet and the Evoker while ahead on targeting (+7 hit, 5+2 wr), has capped out on foci, has hit diminishing returns on specialization, eats stress for each attack and needs two extra skills.
Plus, an IOP doesn't help the Evoker much so the Daiklaive user has two extra fate points to help counteract the evokers +4 to hit... and can invest the other two skills in going first and not being heard approaching.
-
I'm not sure that the Strength powers directly help your attack rolls like that. It doesn't make sense that it's going to be easier to hit with something that needs the Strength just to lift than a smaller, lighter weapon. You're already getting the benefit from the power with the +6 to stress.
And having something big enough to serve as Weapon:4 and a tower shield isn't exactly convenient. If he runs into the wizard in any environment where he's not going to be able to carry around a ton of metal (read: pretty much anywhere public), the wizard's going to win.
-
It seems like you can match the accuracy and damage of a wizard with mythic strength and a really big weapon for less refresh and no 'each attack I make costs me stun' issue.
Can't match the damage - not even with a ridiculous weapon. :)
Additionally, I play Dresden Files as urban fantasy...not anime or Exalted. Twelve foot swords don't really fit no matter what they're made of. YMMV.
-
Weapons don't have to be ridiculously oversized to qualify, though. You could just give yourself a "Sword of Eta Carinae", which grants ... oh, say +4 to Weapons (some of the skills of the mythic swordmaster who created the blade were imparted to it and therefore to its wielder: -4 refresh) and +10 stress on a hit (the magic its enchanted with causes the blade's edge to spacially coexist with the heart of the blue hypergiant star Eta Carinae: -5 refresh) on top of its baseline abilities.
So, for the same -7 refresh it costs to play a baseline wizard, a character could be flinging out attacks with 9 weapon skill and weapon +12 or so. Oh, and without paying stress for each attack, too. Oh, the wizard will pass this up with enough refresh, you say? Well, it turns out that these are only the basic abilities imparted by the weapon; with use even greater capabilities can be unlocked (ie, more refresh spent on boosting the sword's capabilities).
Note: Yes, this is a ridiculous IoP. No, it shouldn't be used. My point is that cheese is not restricted to wizardry.
-
Can't match the damage - not even with a ridiculous weapon. :)
Of a Wizard, spending equal refresh? Certainly. Of an Evoker? After they hit cap on foci and diminishing returns on specialization? Eventually, and I'm still not killing myself doing it.
Additionally, I play Dresden Files as urban fantasy...not anime or Exalted. Twelve foot swords don't really fit no matter what they're made of. YMMV.
Ahh, and there we go, it's not so much a mechanical issue with the Wizard, it's more of an issue that the Wizard/Evoker themes safely justify a level of mechanical focus that is difficult to match inside the other themes you accept.
The pure Thaumaturgist, for making things dead, ends up being matched by the sniper, mechanically: build up a large number of tags before your target even knows they are a target and finish it with one pop, only need to really worry about very prepared targets and your own prep going bad.
Also of note, at a 5 slot foci we are in the full up staff category for size.
All that said, I like Exalted flavoring in my urban fantasy, Fate Stay Night was quite entertaining, it's right in line with the side of Mythic heroes from out of the past that the various Scions bring in.
-
Speaking as a relative newbie here, but it seems to me that the main issue is what Refinement allows a Wizard (or magic users in general) to do. What if we allowed Non-magic types to take Refinements for non-magical/magical purposes? (representing highly specialized equipment or an enchanted item they hocked off a wizard friend) Or simply altered the kind of perks Refinement allowed?
-
What exactly do you mean?
That sounds a bit like InFerrumVeritas' second proposal.
-
From what I understand, Refinement allows a magic user to endlessly stack bonuses to their magical powers. Sometimes it's a large chunk of bonuses for specific things (Focus Items) and sometimes it's a broader but more restrained bonus (Specializations). It's basically Stunts for Magic that give you perks in specific situations. (Having a focus/using your favorite element)
My first suggestion would let non-magic users take a level of Refinement to either A: gain an enchanted item (likely nothing greater than 3 for power/frequency), or B: gain access to "advanced equipment" that act like Focus Items for mundane skills.
My second suggestion would be to simply reduce the level of power a Refinement gives you. Perhaps only allowing a +1 Shift, or only 1 Enchanted Item.
-
Refinement isn't quite endlessly stacking bonuses. Specializations need to follow a standard pyramid, and are distinct between Evocation and Thaumaturgy. Foci cap out at your Lore + your Craft Foci Specialization. Due to the pyramid, specializations suffer from rather dramatic diminishing returns, where as it takes only one refresh to go from +1 to +2/+1, it takes another two for each +1/+1 up to +5/+4 (at 7 refresh in specialization) . Foci go up quite a bit faster but due to the offense/defense split, end up covering an even narrower space, then they too hit diminishing returns as they hit your lore and you need Thaumaturgy and Foci Specializations... which suffer from diminishing returns themselves.
Add this to it taking a bunch of refresh to have access at all and throw it against most other attack trappings that don't have explicit 'this is how you stack them to make them really powerful at the cost of lots of refresh guidelines' and wizards look nasty, which is thematically intended, but can be matched under default mechanics, which do have ways of boosting the other attack trappings squirreled away under other powers.
All that said, you could probably get away with a general stunt mechanic that, for a refresh gave you 2 points to put into boosting particular mundane trappings with the caveat that the bonuses for a thematic set of trappings need to follow their own pyramid.
-
Weapons don't have to be ridiculously oversized to qualify, though. You could just give yourself a "Sword of Eta Carinae", which grants ... oh, say +4 to Weapons (some of the skills of the mythic swordmaster who created the blade were imparted to it and therefore to its wielder: -4 refresh) and +10 stress on a hit (the magic its enchanted with causes the blade's edge to spacially coexist with the heart of the blue hypergiant star Eta Carinae: -5 refresh) on top of its baseline abilities.
True, and I've considered simply boosting weapon damage across the board. Don't really like the escalation of power. :/
Of a Wizard, spending equal refresh? Certainly. Of an Evoker? After they hit cap on foci and diminishing returns on specialization? Eventually, and I'm still not killing myself doing it.
It's possible by adding pure stress but Might doesn't add to attack as shown in that weapon.
Ahh, and there we go, it's not so much a mechanical issue with the Wizard, it's more of an issue that the Wizard/Evoker themes safely justify a level of mechanical focus that is difficult to match inside the other themes you accept.
It's not that simple. First, military history is a hobby of mine. "Ten pound swords" make me either laugh or get sarcastic - depending on whether they appear in fiction or are attributed to reality. Second, I'm trying to play "Dresden Files". Sure I'll change some things, intentionally or not. But 12' swords? In the city? Or even in a car?
@JayTee: InFerrumVeritas' "Combat Specialization" stunt is pretty close to a direct translation of Refinement to mundane combat. My guess is it will work...but it is an escalation. Now everyone needs either Refinement or Combat Spec.
-----
Refinements aren't really what makes evokers overpowered in my opinion. Granted, it does contribute. But the real issue is skills. Casters are the only group who can add two skills to the effective damage equation. And skills are (relatively) easy to raise.
A house rule such as GryMor seemed to have in the Daiklave might be better than duplicating refinements. Add Might to melee and Alertness to ranged perhaps? Don't know...but at least a second skill would put them back on equivalent footing.
My preference is to encourage casters use stress on things other than attacks. Defensive magic, reactive blocks, counterspells, etc. It's not a "nerf" but does use stress up on things other than 10 shift attacks. It also helps that the players aren't trying to break the game. ;)
-
The more I think about it, the more I'd rather just not apply the control bonus to the attack roll.
My biggest thing is, I'm in a situation where most of my group is attacking at great-fantastic. My wizard's pulling off legendary+ attacks (due to focusing on a single element). So I'm stuck with monsters that I know either will be impossible for almost everyone to hit, or that he'll always hit.
I've disarmed his foci, I've had enemies counterspell, etc. I would rather the accuracy limits on wizards be the same as mortals. Rather than escalate, I'll scale it back. Wizards can throw around as much spell power as they want, but they'll only use their discipline (+ a single stunt, like everyone else) to target.
-
I've found that removing the control bonus to attack rolls was all that was needed to balance Wizards. Evocation's potential damage is balanced by the stress and refresh costs.
-
I like that a large number of people here are against escalation. Power bloat in games always bothers me.
(On the other hand, after a certain amount of refresh, people might be really interested in being able to excel something that's "technically" capped. Cross that bridge when you come to it, though, imo.)
I've found that removing the control bonus to attack rolls was all that was needed to balance Wizards. Evocation's potential damage is balanced by the stress and refresh costs.
This seems like it would be sufficient to me.
-
I've found that removing the control bonus to attack rolls was all that was needed to balance Wizards. Evocation's potential damage is balanced by the stress and refresh costs.
So if a gunfighter gets 2 extra shifts on a target with a weapon:3 attack, they get 5 shifts of effect.
If a spellcaster gets 2 extra shifts on a target with a weapon:3 spell, they get 3 shifts of effect.
The justification being that a spellcaster can actually throw around much higher weapon:x effects than any other mortal.
-
So if a gunfighter gets 2 extra shifts on a target with a weapon:3 attack, they get 5 shifts of effect.
If a spellcaster gets 2 extra shifts on a target with a weapon:3 spell, they get 3 shifts of effect.
The justification being that a spellcaster can actually throw around much higher weapon:x effects than any other mortal.
I think what he means is, say you have a gunfighter and a wizard shooting at someone.
The gunfighter's Guns skill is Superb, and he ends up rolling a +1, meaning his attack roll is +6.
The wizard's Discipline is also Superb, but he's also got Specializations and a focus item, so his control roll is from 7 to start with. He also rolls a +1, and ends up with a +8 control roll.
With this houserule, the Wizard and Gunfighter's targeting rolls will be equal, rather than letting the wizard put everything he's got into control bonuses and consistently attacking with unerring accuracy.
-
So if a gunfighter gets 2 extra shifts on a target with a weapon:3 attack, they get 5 shifts of effect.
If a spellcaster gets 2 extra shifts on a target with a weapon:3 spell, they get 3 shifts of effect.
The justification being that a spellcaster can actually throw around much higher weapon:x effects than any other mortal.
Not exactly. Only if the spellcaster's extra shifts were from refinement or focus items.
If the gunfighter rolls a 5 on guns skill, with weapon: 3, against a target with a defense roll of 3 and no armor, that's 5 shifts of effect.
If a spellcaster rolls a 5 on discipline (sans specialization & focus item bonuses), with a weapon: 3 rote, against that same target - that's still 5 shifts of effect.
If the spellcaster in that second example has another +4 discipline from specialization & focus item control bonuses... she'd still get just 5 shifts of effect. The extra control allows more power without taking backlash or fallout, but doesn't improve accuracy.
-
In the party I'm running there are 4 spellcasters. 3 Focused Practitioners and a Wizard. to Limit them from going way over the top I introduced them to a White Council Warden in the city we are playing in who's job is to deal with the new magic users that pop up. His name is Jeremia Johnson. He is a scary man who follows the white councils rules with a iron hand and steel sword. Every magic user in my party is terrified of him and with good reason. To keep my magic users from going way over the top i place the combat situations and many other things in the view of people who are in the dark and the white council is constantly listening to the mutterings of the general populace. Seeing as magic is not to be discovered this makes my magic users think twice about casting that gigantic fireball to nuke the uber ghoul with a human guise. They have to make sure to spend some of there shifts to make it seem like they didnt cast a spell. You can use in game situations to balance mage characters very easily.
-
The extra control allows more power without taking backlash or fallout, but doesn't improve accuracy.
Bingo. Works like a charm in my experience. Not only does it balance combat effectiveness it also encourages the wizardy types to do things like maneuver, assess, and declare rather than relying on their Legendary+2 attack rolls.
-
I've found that removing the control bonus to attack rolls was all that was needed to balance Wizards. Evocation's potential damage is balanced by the stress and refresh costs.
This is brilliant, I love simple solutions to complex problems! Considering how I'll be trying my hand at a caster for the first time soon, I'm going to try this and see how it works!
-
A house rule such as GryMor seemed to have in the Daiklave might be better than duplicating refinements. Add Might to melee and Alertness to ranged perhaps? Don't know...but at least a second skill would put them back on equivalent footing.
It wasn't intended as a house rule, merely the natural outcome of the standard complimentary skills rules when using a weapon long and heavy enough to the point where it should be actively advantageous to hitting things with it if you are strong enough to maneuver it adroitly. The Grand Daiklave example was, to some extent, the full magical weaponization of the telephone pole's grand sweeping strikes that occupy a rather large volume of space over the course of their swing. Mechanically, a weapon large enough that if your might is greater than your weaponry, it compliments your weaponry skill when using it coupled with the auto +3 without comparison granted by mythic strength's Supreme Strength effect.
-
It wasn't intended as a house rule, merely the natural outcome of the standard complimentary skills rules when using a weapon long and heavy enough to the point where it should be actively advantageous to hitting things with it if you are strong enough to maneuver it adroitly. The Grand Daiklave example was, to some extent, the full magical weaponization of the telephone pole's grand sweeping strikes that occupy a rather large volume of space over the course of their swing. Mechanically, a weapon large enough that if your might is greater than your weaponry, it compliments your weaponry skill when using it coupled with the auto +3 without comparison granted by mythic strength's Supreme Strength effect.
That makes very little sense. The benefit of any of the Strength powers as far as weapons attacks go is in the extra shifts of stress added to the weapon roll.
Otherwise you're saying that someone is able to swing a huge, slow, impractical weapon more accurately than they'd be able to swing something that a normal human can manage to.
-
Otherwise you're saying that someone is able to swing a huge, slow, impractical weapon more accurately than they'd be able to swing something that a normal human can manage to.
If you can actually swing it at all, I think I'd have an easier time getting out of the way of or parrying or blocking a longsword than a telephone pole, so yes, I think sufficiently strong individuals can be 'more accurate' with a very large weapon than they can be with a normal sized weapon.
Dropping out of the supernatural powers case for a moment, do you think you would have an easier time avoiding a might 4 weapons 0 person throwing a table at you than having that same person throwing a dagger?
-
The problem with simply dropping control bonuses from the attack roll is that now spells become less accurate than weaponry -- after all, you can get stunts to increase an attack roll with a mundane weapon or the defense roll against mundane and magic attacks alike, but you just eliminated the only bonus to spellcasting accuracy. Given that spells cost stress even when they miss, this seems like it would end up making evocation a liability in higher-refresh games. Unless you create stunts that add to spellcasting accuracy, in which case you just came full circle and shouldn't have made the change to begin with.
I'm still leaning toward the option I suggested earlier: allow the spellcaster to split his control bonus between the two applications of the defense roll. That way the control bonus can perform either function ... but not both at once.
-
Regardless of opinions, having Might effect combat accuracy is not RAW. Thus it is a house rule.
A house rule GryMor is more than free to use. I wouldn't use it often. I get the idea most folks wouldn't.
The might bonus when being used to compliment a skill (including a combat skill) should only grant a +1 bonus in any case.
Neither Inhuman, Supernatural, nor Mythic Strength specifically enhance accuracy in combat, they enhance stress dealt and lifting rolls. Ergo, thye simply add to Might, which can only compliment a skill by the aforementioned +1.
Ultimately the point is moot in this case. It still doesn't balance the game's combat. It only balances people with huge strengths and magic. It doesn't help speedsters (unless you allow thrown objects to be effected by athletics and the Speed powers...[yet another house rule]). Nothing that is dependent upon powers or IoP's - etc. help Mortals.
Balance by definition has to be even across the board in some fashion.
It also doesn't address the concern of escalation. Which; even if escalation doesn't bother you brings up an issue all by itself. Mortals are fragile since they cannot have the toughnesses etc. Therefore, when everything has either:
A) high mundane/magical armor
B) toughness/recovery/immunity
C) magical blocks
The distance between the supernatural and True Mortals widens substantially.
-
It wasn't intended as a house rule, merely the natural outcome of the standard complimentary skills rules when using a weapon long and heavy enough to the point where it should be actively advantageous to hitting things with it if you are strong enough to maneuver it adroitly.
That's not how complimentary skills work. They give either a +1 or -1 depending on whether the secondary skill is higher or lower than the primary. See YS213, second paragraph.
-----
Becq has a good point on targeting. That solution also seems a bit complex - though I may simply not be understanding it fully. (I thought devonapple's example was correct...until people said otherwise.)
I wonder what taking Conviction out of attacks would do. The caster would have to rely on targeting (Discipline), specializations, and foci for damage. Seems much closer to weapon use's skill + weapon + stunts. Wouldn't need to change maneuvers or blocks, Discipline and Conviction don't combine for those. Have to think about it more.
-
That's not how complimentary skills work. They give either a +1 or -1 depending on whether the secondary skill is higher or lower than the primary. See YS213, second paragraph.
Correct, and that is the rule in play, except, the strength powers modify that rule for Might complimenting other skills, and in the case of Mythic Strength, the change that +1 to a +3.
-
If you can actually swing it at all, I think I'd have an easier time getting out of the way of or parrying or blocking a longsword than a telephone pole, so yes, I think sufficiently strong individuals can be 'more accurate' with a very large weapon than they can be with a normal sized weapon.
Dropping out of the supernatural powers case for a moment, do you think you would have an easier time avoiding a might 4 weapons 0 person throwing a table at you than having that same person throwing a dagger?
In what case is it ever easier to swing something that takes much, much more strength to lift than a normal object?
It boils down to this: Which is easier for you to swing? A baseball bat, or a tree branch? Even if you have supernatural strength, it's still going to take more effort just lifting the tree branch than the baseball bat. It's simple physics: Larger, heavier objects take more effort to move, particularly with dexterity and accuracy, than lighter, smaller objects. Applying the strength bonus in the way you're suggesting means that someone is quicker, more dextrous, and more accurate swinging around a ton of metal than they are swinging a baseball bat, when the exact opposite should be true.
-
Allowing Might to modify any skill that might mite effect is perfectly raw as is the strength powers increased bonus when might modifies something.
"Supreme Strength. Whenever using your
Might to modify (page 214) another skill, it
always provides a +3 regardless of the actual
comparison of your Might score to the skill
in question." Your Story
As too whether might can modify weapons combat there is no rule prohibiting it, some logical reasons why it should apply in certain occasions (strength meaning you can swing a heavier sword faster etc) and some balance reason why GM's don't like it. It isn't a matter of house rules its a matter of interpretation of the RAW and what suits your table.
-
Correct, and that is the rule in play, except, the strength powers modify that rule for Might complimenting other skills, and in the case of Mythic Strength, the change that +1 to a +3.
The Strength powers already tell you exactly how much they add to melee combat. See Hammer Blows, Lethal Blows, and Devastating Blows. It's not going to stack with a separate trapping of the same power.
-
In what case is it ever easier to swing something that takes much, much more strength to lift than a normal object?
My opinion on Might modifying (some) attack rolls has slid from "of course not" to "undecided". Here's why:
1) The rules seem at the least vague on the subject, and possibly support the "accurate telephone pole" theory. After all, the rules state:
In combat, Might can help you with particular applications of Fists and Weapons: if physical force is a very significant element at play, Might will modify (page 214) the primary skill.
And it's hard to argue that physical force isn't significant when attacking someone with a telephone pole.
2) Maybe it does make sense that it's easier to hit with unwieldy objects. After all, which is easier to dodge; a police baton or a telephone pole? So maybe it's less a matter of increasing accuracy, and more a matter of decreasing defense options. Remember that modifiers that represent taking advantage of an opponent's weaknesses (tagging an opponent's consequence, for example) grant a bonus to "accuracy".
I think that as long as you DON'T increase the weapon rating of the object as well (which would grant a double bonus), it works. So, for example:
Person A hits you with a pole arm. He gets his normal weapon skill and adds weapon:3.
Person B hits you with a ploe arm, but has Mythic Strength. He gets his normal weapon skill and adds weapon:9 (which includes the +6 stress from Mythic Strength).
Person C hits you with a telephone pole, which requires Mythic Strength (and which he has). He gets his normal weapon skill modified by +3 per Mythic Strength's Supreme Strength (or at least this interpretation thereof), and adds weapon:9 to the result (which again includes the +6 stress from Mythic Strength). Note that the telephone pole was statted only as a "pole arm" rated at weapon:3 -- but that also required Mythic Strength to wield, therefore allowing the modification. So it's going to do more stress, but that stress is also going to be harder to dodge.
-
To me, C looks like Might should be restricting Weapons. Not complementing.
-
I am just as guilty of thread drift and derailment as anyone, but if we want to debate this superstrength accuracy thing and such can we move it to a new thread.
EDIT: creating the new thread in hopes people use it.
I'd really like to see if balancing evocation is possible. I honestly don't think it is. however, waxing philosophical about accurately swinging telephone poles doesn't really create a balance across the board.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
house rule
noun
a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players.
Thus an interpretation that only applies to some is a house rule.
-
To me, C looks like Might should be restricting Weapons. Not complementing.
Well, the rules (YS135, qoted above) do indicate that Might modifies in cases like this, which means either complement or restrict depending on relative values. Though in the particular example of using an oversized weapon, the only choices are "you have enough strength, so modify means a bonus" or "you don't have enough strength, so the object is too heavy to use as a weapon".
-
Attempting a nudge in this direction: Don't worry I won't get annoying with it, just offering an option as clearly as possible.
http://http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31179.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,31179.0.html)
Strength etc. discussion.
EDIT: FIXED!
-
Link's broken, Silverblaze. You should remove one of those http://s.
Another link. (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,28706.0.html)
PS: I don't think that magic is broken. It's really strong, but not that strong. I'm considering making a thread for this argument.