ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: InFerrumVeritas on June 23, 2011, 12:43:16 AM
-
Can magic be used for special effect attacks (YS326)? Doesn't this make offensive maneuvers sort of pointless (at least for spellcasters)?
I don't see why not. I mean, you can easily say a lightning bolt could be comparable to a tazer, a compression wave deafening as well as dealing a little stress. However, it doesn't exactly seem balanced.
-
The problem, as you pointed out, would be, that nobody would use offensive maneuvers any more. And most evocation attacks are already well above what any normal weapon would do, so a lightning effect spell would probably inflict enough stress to warrant a taserlike consequence (which you can tag for effect to provoke a concession. Plus, you almost always get an attack equal or above twice the weapon rating, because you would always try to cast the spell without backlash or fallout.
If you want a direct taser effect, do a maneuver and then tag it for effect. I don't see the need for additional stress inflicted there. The important part here is, that you can easily create a 6+ shift taser effect (mundane would top at 2 or 3, I think), so you have a much better chance of the aspect to stick.
-
I am with InFerrum here If your shooting lightning at people i kind of makes sense doing physical stress as well as stunning someone.
-
That would be sort of double dipping, and I don't really see the need. And I like people explicitly choosing their action and not create something inbetween to see what might stick.
You either want to taser a target or you want to inflict stress, why would you have to do both?
And I would probably use a mundane taser like that as well. The taser is just the means to put up an aspect. You hit, it sticks, you miss, nothing happens. A mundane maneuver spell, if you will. That is what a taser is for, to stun, not to actually damage a target. Yes, that happens too, but from a story point of view, that should be negligible.
-
The problem, as you pointed out, would be, that nobody would use offensive maneuvers any more. And most evocation attacks are already well above what any normal weapon would do, so a lightning effect spell would probably inflict enough stress to warrant a taserlike consequence (which you can tag for effect to provoke a concession. Plus, you almost always get an attack equal or above twice the weapon rating, because you would always try to cast the spell without backlash or fallout.
If you want a direct taser effect, do a maneuver and then tag it for effect. I don't see the need for additional stress inflicted there. The important part here is, that you can easily create a 6+ shift taser effect (mundane would top at 2 or 3, I think), so you have a much better chance of the aspect to stick.
Well, here's the thing. I've got a caster in the party who has Control 7, Power 3 (up to waist, focused practitioner with Good Lore and a very focused focus item). He wants that control roll to count for something.
I think making the spell be an all or nothing thing (either Weapon Rating or Aspect, not a bit of both), but allowing the attack roll (since a maneuver generally doesn't have to be targeted) to deal stress by the amount it beat the defense by is reasonable.
Still, this would eliminate offensive maneuvers other than in specific situations (much cheaper to affect zone with a maneuver as you can place it on a scene at no additional cost, etc.). Is this a bad thing? Probably.
And I would probably use a mundane taser like that as well. The taser is just the means to put up an aspect. You hit, it sticks, you miss, nothing happens. A mundane maneuver spell, if you will. That is what a taser is for, to stun, not to actually damage a target. Yes, that happens too, but from a story point of view, that should be negligible.
Thing is, the rules say differently. They say to treat as attack (which would deal stress by the amount it exceeds defense roll) and then treat the Weapon Rating as the number of shifts needed to be rolled against to resist aspect (such as Tazed, Caught in Net, etc.).
-
Can magic be used for special effect attacks (YS326)? Doesn't this make offensive maneuvers sort of pointless (at least for spellcasters)?
I don't see why not. I mean, you can easily say a lightning bolt could be comparable to a tazer, a compression wave deafening as well as dealing a little stress. However, it doesn't exactly seem balanced.
It looks like it goes on to say/suggest that you pretty much converts the weapon's rating to the difficulty to ignore/resist the effect instead of the damage if I'm reading this right
In either case, rolls to overcome these
secondary effects are made against the weapon’s
rating; use the rating as the basis for rolling the
opposition—i.e., Weapon:2 = Fair (+2).
I might allow splitting the weapon rating like spray attacks split between damage & effect, but not full rating applying to both. I might also make the attacker suffer from dual defense rolls... An athletic's dodged lightning bolt doesn't get to check against endurance for the stun... especially if they are going for both
-
It looks like it goes on to say/suggest that you pretty much converts the weapon's rating to the difficulty to ignore/resist the effect instead of the damage if I'm reading this rightI might allow splitting the weapon rating like spray attacks split between damage & effect, but not full rating applying to both.
Not what I'm asking or suggesting either. My suggestion would be something like this:
Weapon Rating=# of shifts resisted
Attack Roll-Defense Roll=# of shifts of stress
So a Control 7, Power 3 spell vs. a Superb Defense roll would be: 2 stress, Roll x skill vs. 3 or take Aspect.
If the spell misses, they don't have to worry about rolling against the WR.
-
That's exactly how I read it too, and I don't see an issue with it. You're sacrificing the entire weapon rating of the spell to be able to do this, and as has been pointed out one can deal enough stress to gain a consequence under normal circumstances, so you're kinda not getting as good of a result than you would devoting the whole thing to damage. As far as I can tell it's completely RAW.
-
All you are doing is add stress to a maneuver spell where it just doesn't belong, in my opinion. And you are doubling the number of rolls for each attack.
I do however think, that a maneuver spell should not be resisted against the power of the spell, but against the casters discipline roll. That way, a maneuver spell would always be cast at 3 shifts of power, which should be easy to do for most spellcasters. You would only need additional shifts of power to increase duration, but if you intend to invoke the aspect right away, there would be no need. If you beat the defensive roll by enough shifts, you might even want to use overflow (YS214) to create an additional aspect on the target.
And I don't like the damage part of the mundane taser in YS326 as well. You either want to take your target out with a taser or you want to hurt your target with a gun.
The same goes for a poisoned dagger. Your priority is not to inflict a lot of damage, you want the poison on your weapons to enter the targets body, that is what you are going for. Look at the writeup for claws + venomous. If you have both powers and you attack normally, you inflict stress but don't poison the target. If you want to inject the poison, you do a maneuver, but you don't inflict stress. That is pretty much how I for myself like to handle things like that: either-or, not both.
-
As near as I can tell, the RAW does not allow for creating a damage + aspect spell. It says you need to choose one of (attack, block, maneuver, counterspell), and damage+aspect would be two of those.
That said, I don't see a problem with splitting the allocated power of the spell between two different effects, so long as the target was the same. So, for example, you might have a power 6 spell that was aspect(non-persistent)+weapon:3; the control roll would need to beat the total power, and extra targeting shifts would increase the stress inflicted by the attack. (This, of course, would be a house rule, not RAW.)
That said, I'm not sure that doing so gains much. After all, damage is just a meatier way of applying more lasting and debilitating aspects on a target; by splitting the power, you are reducing the potential consequence inflicted. So why not keep the extra stress and inflict a bigger consequence (or an additional consequence)?
-
I agree with Becq. If you smoke someone with a powerful enough lightning bolt they'll take enough stress and a consequence. You can describe it to your GM and probably get a "stunned" consequence that you can invoke. So you've done damage AND stunned your opponent.
-
As near as I can tell, the RAW does not allow for creating a damage + aspect spell. It says you need to choose one of (attack, block, maneuver, counterspell), and damage+aspect would be two of those.
A "special effect attack" is an attack... to be technical we also allow spray attacks. Same idea.
That said, I don't see a problem with splitting the allocated power of the spell between two different effects, so long as the target was the same. So, for example, you might have a power 6 spell that was aspect(non-persistent)+weapon:3; the control roll would need to beat the total power, and extra targeting shifts would increase the stress inflicted by the attack. (This, of course, would be a house rule, not RAW.)
This is something I would actually have a problem with. With the special effects attack you lose the entire weapon value and I think that that downside makes it a decently balanced action. You get the versatility of being able to do both, but neither very well.
I agree with Becq. If you smoke someone with a powerful enough lightning bolt they'll take enough stress and a consequence. You can describe it to your GM and probably get a "stunned" consequence that you can invoke. So you've done damage AND stunned your opponent.
Yes. That's why an attack or a maneuver alone is better, however if you really need to do both at once I think the special effects attack works well (and by well I mean is balanced and has a chance of doing what you want).
All you are doing is add stress to a maneuver spell where it just doesn't belong, in my opinion. And you are doubling the number of rolls for each attack.
I got nothing on this. You're right, it doubles the number of defense rolls. I'm not terribly upset by that as long as this doesn't become the only thing the player wants to do all the time, but you could always have just one defense and compare it to both values if you wanted.
-
I agree with Becq. If you smoke someone with a powerful enough lightning bolt they'll take enough stress and a consequence. You can describe it to your GM and probably get a "stunned" consequence that you can invoke. So you've done damage AND stunned your opponent.
Except that the DEFENDER (or rather, the defender's player) chooses the consequence, not the attacker('s player).
-
Except that the DEFENDER (or rather, the defender's player) chooses the consequence, not the attacker('s player).
This is true, though it still must be appropriate to the attack and consequence severity. So if someone took a consequence from an electrical discharge attack, the resulting aspect could include scorches and shocks, but couldn't include a punctured lung. All of this assumes, I think, some sort of PvP situation. In a player-vs-NPC situation, I'd like to think that the GM would accomodate the player's requests when reasonable.
But yes, per RAW, if you want to guarantee a particular aspect you need a maneuver, or you need a takeout.
-
This is true, though it still must be appropriate to the attack and consequence severity. So if someone took a consequence from an electrical discharge attack, the resulting aspect could include scorches and shocks, but couldn't include a punctured lung.
Actually, it could.
You see, the bolt of conjured lightning didn't actually strike it's target. Because they jumped out of the way just in time. Unfortunately, given the timeframe in which they had to decide on a course of action, they didn't notice the weakened section of floor, which, when forced suddenly to bear the weight and impact of their diving body, collapsed, along with the next two floors down in similar fashion. The repeated impacts resulted in broken ribs to the wouldn't-be-victim, one of which punctured his lung. But that's fine, because at least he's not crispy.
-
Actually, it could.
You see, the bolt of conjured lightning didn't actually strike it's target. Because they jumped out of the way just in time. Unfortunately, given the timeframe in which they had to decide on a course of action, they didn't notice the weakened section of floor, which, when forced suddenly to bear the weight and impact of their diving body, collapsed, along with the next two floors down in similar fashion. The repeated impacts resulted in broken ribs to the wouldn't-be-victim, one of which punctured his lung. But that's fine, because at least he's not crispy.
I would charge a fate point for that, because it is just too far from the original action, and is is made for the intend of not having a consequence that can be tagged for the effect of being shocked to a taken out. That (to me) makes it a buy out of a future compel and would require a fate point, much like accepting a future compel for increasing a roll.
-
Actually, it could.
You see, the bolt of conjured lightning didn't actually strike it's target. Because they jumped out of the way just in time. Unfortunately, given the timeframe in which they had to decide on a course of action, they didn't notice the weakened section of floor, which, when forced suddenly to bear the weight and impact of their diving body, collapsed, along with the next two floors down in similar fashion. The repeated impacts resulted in broken ribs to the wouldn't-be-victim, one of which punctured his lung. But that's fine, because at least he's not crispy.
This is an interesting point. As an aside, does this mean that someone could take Mythic Toughness (only against rusty nails, probably a +4 or more Catch), and then whenever they take stress claim that they narrowly avoided the attack but fell on a rusty nail (in order to reduce the damage)?
-
This is an interesting point. As an aside, does this mean that someone could take Mythic Toughness (only against rusty nails, probably a +4 or more Catch), and then whenever they take stress claim that they narrowly avoided the attack but fell on a rusty nail (in order to reduce the damage)?
Only if they liked being slapped.
:)
-
Consequence selection is subject to a reasonableness test by the game table as a whole. Whatever your game table (ie. players+GM) collectively find reasonable is thus allowed as a consequence.
@Becq
By the time consequence selection is available (and thus narrative control passes to the defender), stress has already been inflicted.
For instance, that iron sword indirectly causes more stress to the Sidhe Lord who leaps off the cliff to avoid your swing than would a bronze sword because, motivated by his fear and hatred for the Bane, he leaps farther and more recklessly.
-
Or if someone has Immunity to everything but iron, then clearly in that situation perhaps they have to be hit by the sword (or a similar object).
However Tedronai is right, if you read the section on consequences it talks about taking a consequence of "twisted ankle" when being shot at. You clearly aren't taking that consequence because you've been shot, but because you were clumsy in trying to avoid it. This is one of the things that I really like about FATE, that the whole attack/damage mechanics are an abstraction.
-
I would charge a fate point for that, because it is just too far from the original action, and is is made for the intend of not having a consequence that can be tagged for the effect of being shocked to a taken out. That (to me) makes it a buy out of a future compel and would require a fate point, much like accepting a future compel for increasing a roll.
There's just no support for that in the text. If you get shot and take a Consequence, the Consequence doesn't have to be gun-related at all, it can be something like "Twisted Ankle" or "Deafened" or something plausible.
Plus "Taken Out" can't be Compelled or Tagged, at least, not on a PC. And if it could, "Punctured Lung" would be just as easy to Compel as "Tazed."
-
My only issue will the falling through the floor consequence is it gives the defender free zone movement.
-
My only issue will the falling through the floor consequence is it gives the defender free zone movement.
Whether intended as jest or not, it is an excellent point! Something in the same Zone could easily have caused it as well.