ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: blackstaff67 on March 22, 2016, 04:07:14 PM
-
Looking for the thread that "nerfs" wizards by limiting the damage bonus for spells to their Discipline bonus or something like that? I'm coming to swing around in that direction.
-
- Don't let focus items increase targeting. They only increase control.
- Limit total foci bonuses to Lore for a given power. So, for evocation, if your Lore is 5, ALL your foci cannot total to more than 5. If you want to increase it, you have to take foci specializations.
- remove crafting foci. But keep crafting specializations.
- damage over 'X' is considered lethal - or at least considered a compel.
-
Thank you!
-
So,, if I wanted to increase my targeting, assuming I have a point of refresh to spare, I take a point in Refinement. Assuming I have a +1 Power in Fire magic (for evocation purposes), I can take a +1 to Control in Fire and a +1 somewhere else. Right?
-
So,, if I wanted to increase my targeting, assuming I have a point of refresh to spare, I take a point in Refinement. Assuming I have a +1 Power in Fire magic (for evocation purposes), I can take a +1 to Control in Fire and a +1 somewhere else. Right?
I'm not sure what you mean.
By RAW, every refinement you take in control also boosts targeting.
If you remove that, it only helps for control.
Ex:
Discipline : 4
Conviction: 4
You can draw up 4 shifts of power. If you have a control foci of +2 and a power foci of +1,
You can draw 5 shifts of power and control with an effective discipline of 6.
But your targeting is based on your discipline of +4.
If you want to boost that, you have to use stunts like anyone else does for regular weapons.
-
- damage over 'X' is considered lethal - or at least considered a compel.
I definitely run with this one for taking out opponents and accidental hexing of nearby electronics.
If one of my Wizards throws 7 Shifts of Power into an Evocation then they're frying nearby computers, cell phones, etc. I usually just have this happen as most often it's story flavor only. But in the event it causes an actual hindrance I'd do it as a Compel.
On the same token, if a PC hits an opponent with a Weapon: 7 (Not even counting Stress for Targeting VS Defense rolls.) and takes the opponent out, then I'm not letting them choose to keep the opponent alive. Considering Weapon: 4 is "'Battlefield'” weaponry, explosives" I'd say that's reasonable.
-
On the same token, if a PC hits an opponent with a Weapon: 7 (Not even counting Stress for Targeting VS Defense rolls.) and takes the opponent out, then I'm not letting them choose to keep the opponent alive.
You're either breaking the rules or changing them, then. To quote the lead system developer:
A Word on Killing
Consider that the game rules do not, in fact, allow for an accidental or emergent result that kills someone.
The only way you can kill someone is to take them out in a conflict and then declare you killed them. As the player who wins the conflict, you absolutely can always declare that when you throw magic at a mortal or off-limits being, that you put them in the hospital, knock them out long enough for you to achieve your goals, etc. If you're going to kill someone, it's a willful player choice to put that drama into the game.
(Though, theoretically, the GM could also propose it as a compel if you have "Anger Management Problems" or whatever as an aspect. Or, someone could take you out in a mental conflict and declare that you lose your shit and roast a guy. Whatever. The point is, the dice are never going to tell you that you killed someone. Someone at the table is choosing to bring it into play.)
So whenever you're talking about a First Law violation in your game, keep in mind that there's going to have to be, by default, some sort of consensus about crossing that line.
In any case, I don't see much point to the houserule. The Laws are a bad way to correct game balance issues at the best of times, and that approach does little to limit the control-focused casters that are optimal for blasting anyway.
As for the main topic, I think the most important thing you can do to keep spellcasting in check is to not interpret ambiguities in its favour. When the rules are vague, don't pick the interpretation that makes Wizards stronger. And the first three rules Taran posted are good too.
-
I don't see a problem with doing it as a house rule. If the player knows in advance the. It is fine. I don't think you could spring that kind of thing on a player though.
Since you can always choose to use less power, it's still player choice to kill someone.
If you nerf control accuracy items, then a wizard won't bother maxing out control because you'll be throwing around a lot of low shift attacks.
Power and control are still useful for maneuvers and blocks.
If a GM wants to be unpleasant, they could have an NPC concede where the concession is death. But since the table has to agree to concessions, you still wouldn't be able to stick Lawbreaker on a Wizard.
-
It's certainly a house rule and one all the players knew about going into the game.
Most times it's not a big deal as they don't fight a ton of mortals, but on occasion it does lead to interesting situations where they have to pull punches or take alternative methods to take the target out.
-
On the same token, if a PC hits an opponent with a Weapon: 7 (Not even counting Stress for Targeting VS Defense rolls.) and takes the opponent out, then I'm not letting them choose to keep the opponent alive. Considering Weapon: 4 is "'Battlefield'” weaponry, explosives" I'd say that's reasonable.
I'd say even if you're changing the rules, the above is a little harsh as blanket result. Some special effects are more potentially lethal than others. A Weapon:7 Fireball might be fair for the above but killing someone hit with a Weapon:7 spell which takes someone out by covering them in webbing (leaving the mouth and nose uncovered) or knocking them out through intense sensory overload would't make sense.
-
I'd say even if you're changing the rules, the above is a little harsh as blanket result. Some special effects are more potentially lethal than others. A Weapon:7 Fireball might be fair for the above but killing someone hit with a Weapon:7 spell which takes someone out by covering them in webbing (leaving the mouth and nose uncovered) or knocking them out through intense sensory overload would't make sense.
Ah, I should have clarified, the spells in question are always destructive forces. If they were casting webbing or something like that then that's a different case. Then again I'd think that would be a block more so than a Stress/Consequence dealing attack. But yes, in every instance where this has come up in our games it's been something that's hard to RP as not being death.
-
Ah, I should have clarified, the spells in question are always destructive forces. If they were casting webbing or something like that then that's a different case. Then again I'd think that would be a block more so than a Stress/Consequence dealing attack. But yes, in every instance where this has come up in our games it's been something that's hard to RP as not being death.
What about a Weapon:7 sleep spell from an accomplished biomancer wizard?
-
What about a Weapon:7 sleep spell from an accomplished biomancer wizard?
This reminds me of my NON LETHAL TAKE-OUT GAME (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,44259.msg2132607.html#msg2132607)
-
What about a Weapon:7 sleep spell from an accomplished biomancer wizard?
Isn't a Sleep spell done via Thaumaturgy and/or as a Block? Thus it wouldn't really have a Weapon Rating?
This reminds me of my NON LETHAL TAKE-OUT GAME (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,44259.msg2132607.html#msg2132607)
Just read through that. I love that Thread. lol
-
Isn't a Sleep spell done via Thaumaturgy and/or as a Block? Thus it wouldn't really have a Weapon Rating?
If you want it to take your target out, it can very well be a weapon.
If you're worried that wizards might be too powerful with their spells, I've got the son of Thor in my game who can deal out weapon:7 hits with an effective skill rating of 6 without any magic. At least wizards are somewhat limited by taking casting stress. ;)
-
If you nerf control accuracy items, then a wizard won't bother maxing out control because you'll be throwing around a lot of low shift attacks.
Using it in concert with that other houserule does make it work better. I still don't like it much, though; it infringes on the narrative authority of the players and it doesn't actually do much to make magic weaker. Like I always say, the Laws aren't a good balancing factor.
-
Isn't a Sleep spell done via Thaumaturgy and/or as a Block? Thus it wouldn't really have a Weapon Rating?
Molly uses a sleep spell as an Evocation in Ghost Story.
-
Using it in concert with that other houserule does make it work better. I still don't like it much, though; it infringes on the narrative authority of the players and it doesn't actually do much to make magic weaker. Like I always say, the Laws aren't a good balancing factor.
I'm looking to do this due to the make-up of my group: two wizards/focused Practitioners, a home-brewed Jade Court Vampire (martial artist--Fists of Fury!), a were-Temple Dog and a vanilla mortal ex-Marine. Mind you, in last session, both wizards got hit pretty hard and took tough consequences...
-
Also, while it doesn't directly target a wizard's being stronger than the rest of the party, don't forget narrative balance. Wizards are a walking glass cannon -- enemies are likely to try to take 'advantage' of that by hitting them by surprise, then focusing their firepower on the wizard to burn him down. That's going to force the wizard to direct a certain degree of his power to defensive purposes.
-
I don't find wizards to be glass cannons at all. Maybe that's true in d&d but not in Dresden.
If you equip your wizard with suitably powerful defensive items, they won't get hurt much.
-
I don't find wizards to be glass cannons at all. Maybe that's true in d&d but not in Dresden.
If you equip your wizard with suitably powerful defensive items, they won't get hurt much.
This. I have no problem with this because I emphasize free will in my games and that includes the ability to make poor choices. The wizards in my game hadn't bothered with potent defensive enchanted items and it cost them dearly in the most recent fight.
I also give my players credit for common sense and I presume they have the ability to learn.
-
How long has this game been going on? Are you sure that the game needs a re balance? If you still feel it does the easiest way to nerf wizards, is to alter the length of a scene. You barely change the rules at all, but if a scene lasts like half a session, and it takes that long for them to erase stress, they will very quickly learn that to conserve resourses is now a must, and they will learn to approach problems in other ways, perhaps magic is not always the best option as it is suddenly not something that can be leaned on boundlessly.
If you do do this, do nothing else to magic, or you will quickly have players who a: hate you, b: want to change characters mid game. All because you added house rules to an ongoing game.
Tread with extreme caution if you wish to keep your players.
-
How long has this game been going on? Are you sure that the game needs a re balance? If you still feel it does the easiest way to nerf wizards, is to alter the length of a scene. You barely change the rules at all, but if a scene lasts like half a session, and it takes that long for them to erase stress, they will very quickly learn that to conserve resourses is now a must, and they will learn to approach problems in other ways, perhaps magic is not always the best option as it is suddenly not something that can be leaned on boundlessly.
If you do do this, do nothing else to magic, or you will quickly have players who a: hate you, b: want to change characters mid game. All because you added house rules to an ongoing game.
Tread with extreme caution if you wish to keep your players.
Six full sessions. Next session will see the group's first Significant Milestone. As the entire group is still getting a grasp on the rules, I feel it's still relatively early in the campaign where I can do this. I anticipate no real objections.
-
Oh, by all means. Hell once I switched to a new rules set mid campaign including a few very serious houserules. I should note that this did lose me a player though. I should note that I don't regret my decision, though I do regret how I handled it. Personally I left things without fixing them for too long, and the player that left was actually a huge problem, and part of the reason I didn't change things right away. This does not appear to be the case with you, that's very good, and fiddling with rules is part of the GM's job.
My point however is to not go overboard. In my opinion it would be fine to nerf focuses (people will stop using them very much, but that's fine), or do what I suggested and force stress to last longer in some way. However doing both would be over board. Doing both and nerfing specialization in the same way, would be far too much. One thing to remember is that wizard is a massive investment, and if you take away everything that makes -7 refresh (and a few other things) worthwhile then you may get resentment.
If you do want to implement many nerfs then I would recommend implementing them one at a time, let a story play out and see what happens, see how one nerf plays, then if you still feel more is necessary, implement another, until satisfied. This way you can also gauge if your houserules are affecting the fun of the players most directly affected.
Anywho sorry if I came across strong, this is just something that I've seen, I've done, I've been on the receiving end, and it can really affect some people. It's really good that it's only six sessions in.
-
In my opinion it would be fine to nerf focuses (people will stop using them very much, but that's fine)
Why would nerfing foci stop people from using them? They still provide bonuses.
We did it in our game and I have 3 focus items that boost my spellcasting. The difference is it doesn't double my spellcasting power/control.
-
I don't find wizards to be glass cannons at all. Maybe that's true in d&d but not in Dresden.
If you equip your wizard with suitably powerful defensive items, they won't get hurt much.
That's a big if, though. Wizards who are bad at crafting can be genuinely glass-jawed.
Anyway, I've seen a few games where a wizard ends up way stronger than the other PCs because of differences in optimization. It's possible that the problem here is more optimized character vs non-optimized character than wizard vs non-wizard. You might be able to mitigate or solve the problem with a few tweaks to the sheets of the non-wizards.
Not saying you shouldn't houserule; that'd be ridiculously hypocritical of me. But it's worth looking at other options too.
-
I don't find wizards to be glass cannons at all. Maybe that's true in d&d but not in Dresden.
If you equip your wizard with suitably powerful defensive items, they won't get hurt much.
And if you're equipped with powerful defensive items, you can't have as many powerful offensive (or utility) items. Or, as I stated above, just have the enemy attack the wizard by surprise. Rolling at 0s on defense, with no enchanted item options, is... pretty nasty in general, and doubly so for a wizard.
-
And if you're equipped with powerful defensive items, you can't have as many powerful offensive (or utility) items. Or, as I stated above, just have the enemy attack the wizard by surprise. Rolling at 0s on defense, with no enchanted item options, is... pretty nasty in general, and doubly so for a wizard.
yeah, sorry, I missed that part in your last post where you'd mentioned 'power into defense removes power from offense' bit.
I'm not sure Ambush is a good balancing factor. Ambushes can kill anyone, pretty much. In fact wizards, provided they've built a 'block against attacks' enchanted item, are probably best suited to survive an ambush. They get ambushed, their item gets triggered as a defense. Meanwhile, their party is all defending at 0. And, unless, they have toughness, they're not any better equipped than the wizard.
But I see what you're saying: wizards can be dangerous - take them out first. I tend to be defensively focused with every wizard I play. I just figured most people were like that. I find that I have plenty of oomph left over to obliterate the opposition. Just, maybe, not with the same frequency as an offensively focused wizard.
-
yeah, sorry, I missed that part in your last post where you'd mentioned 'power into defense removes power from offense' bit.
I'm not sure Ambush is a good balancing factor. Ambushes can kill anyone, pretty much. In fact wizards, provided they've built a 'block against attacks' enchanted item, are probably best suited to survive an ambush. They get ambushed, their item gets triggered as a defense. Meanwhile, their party is all defending at 0. And, unless, they have toughness, they're not any better equipped than the wizard.
But I see what you're saying: wizards can be dangerous - take them out first. I tend to be defensively focused with every wizard I play. I just figured most people were like that. I find that I have plenty of oomph left over to obliterate the opposition. Just, maybe, not with the same frequency as an offensively focused wizard.
Yeah, I never fail to make a wizard with at least one defensive enchanted item a la 'Harry's Duster' or the like in play--enchanted shoes that bestow a one or two-shot Athletics is also good. I wouldn't make a Warden PC/NPC without at least one such item.
-
I had a wizard PC in one group who had a set of boosts that were set to create a defensive aspect, granting a burst of speed he could tag for dodging.
Personally, I'm of the camp that highly encourages compels to limit wizards' power, because that's a lot of what limits Harry in the books.
-
I'm not sure Ambush is a good balancing factor. Ambushes can kill anyone, pretty much. In fact wizards, provided they've built a 'block against attacks' enchanted item, are probably best suited to survive an ambush. They get ambushed, their item gets triggered as a defense. Meanwhile, their party is all defending at 0. And, unless, they have toughness, they're not any better equipped than the wizard.
Hrm... never really thought about it, but I typically assumed you'd need to be able to react to use an EI. You have a point, that some shouldn't need that though.
That said, part of the point of my comment is that Wizards -- more than any other 'class' in the game -- are narratively best attacked from Ambush. In the books, it's repeatedly pointed out that taking a wizard on face to face is just plain stupid. You take them out by flanking them, surprising them, and outmaneuvering them.
-
You could argue that only armour held as a defensive item would trigger on defence, since Enchanted Items usually require an action to activate. That goes counter to what was printed in Paranet Papers, however, so do what you will.
-
That reminds me, removing the reflexive activation option on defensive enchanted items is a very good way to weaken Wizards.
That said, part of the point of my comment is that Wizards -- more than any other 'class' in the game -- are narratively best attacked from Ambush. In the books, it's repeatedly pointed out that taking a wizard on face to face is just plain stupid. You take them out by flanking them, surprising them, and outmaneuvering them.
Mechanically speaking, I haven't found this to be noticeably truer for Wizards than for anyone else.
-
Mechanically speaking, I haven't found this to be noticeably truer for Wizards than for anyone else.
That... surprises me. Wizards are able to throw up insane block values and become effectively immune in a fight with relative ease, for example. Combine that with throwing out insanely high weapon values with incredible accuracy, and they are pretty nasty customers. Doubly so for dedicated crafters, who benefit 'doubly' from refinements/focus items thanks to not needing both power and control. A wizard whose given a few rounds to get his defenses in place is a wizard who has become nigh-invincible.
Example: Weapons 4, Discipline 4, Conviction 5 wizard with a +2/+2 defensive focus. Cast a defensive spell using your fourth stress box, you can summon up 10 shifts of power total. You need to roll +4 to control all of it, or take stress as backlash. Second round, use your third stress slot to summon up 9 shifts of power to extend your spell. You are now 'immune' to attacks that don't reach at least 10, which requires a +4 if the enemy has a skill cap of 6 and has filled that with their offensive power, and that lasts for 9 rounds. Spend 8 of those rounds attacking with a sword with virtual impunity, and reinforce your shield as needed with your two remaining mental stress boxes. Or just use your awesome offensive power to force a few consequences on the enemy first, making it easier to wear them down with the sword.
-
I think what he is saying is that ambushes are nasty to pretty much everyone equally. If you get ambushed, you are screwed and it doesn't much matter who you are.
And crafters are the best suited to defend against ambushes so, in my personal experience, ambushing a crafter is completely futile.
Regarding your example, a wizard who is spending rounds putting up blocks and extending them is not attacking, which makes them less deadly despite being temporarily invincible.
I'd just ignore the wizard for 8 rounds and focus on his buddies. Or do maneuvers for 8 exchanges, then, on the 8th tag all the maneuvers. And to make the example fair, let's give the opponent equal refresh to the wizard. Athletics 4, supernatural speed, mundane armour etc... Toughness and recovery. The wizard isn't nearly as useful anymore attacking with that sword. Hell, or just have the guy go full defense until the duration of the spell runs out.
The guy is dodging at +8.
Now, ambush both these characters. They are both dodging at +0. The wizard probably has a block item and the other guy has toughness. The crafter laughs and laughs and laughs.
Edit: I'm taking this post from another thread to accentuate a point:
Yeah, I had a game once where the party bruiser was rolling from 14 with alarming regularity.
That group really took to the whole teamwork and maneuvering thing. It was pretty spectacular.
So, by round 3 the bruiser hits the wizard with a +13 attack (by attacking at +7 and tagging 3 aspects), and obliterates the wizard's shield. Now the wizard has no shield and has used up his 3rd and 4th mental box, taken backlash and has yet to do anything useful in the fight (except, maybe soak up some action from his opposition).
-
Some good points.
-
Yeah, I haven't found shield spells terribly useful. Using enchanted item defenses seems like a better bet.
A really good Crafter can have that +10 defense without spending any actions or any mental stress. And it won't fold after being hit.
-
I think at least up to Submerged level, highly optimized physical characters can compete quite well with highly optimized wizards in combat.
For example:
Changeling
Superb Weapons
Superb Athletics
Good+ Endurance
Stunt - Swordsman: +1 on attacks with large swords [-1]
Supernatural Speed [-4]
Supernatural Toughness [-4]
The Catch: cold iron [+3]
Item of Power: Highland Claymore, Weapon:3 [+2]
True Aim [-1]
Inhuman Strength [-2]
Total Refresh Cost: -7; Remaining Refresh: 3
That gives you Epic attacks at Weapon:5, Epic defense, and 8 physical stress boxes+Armor:2 against non-iron/steel attacks. And you still have 2 "free" refresh to add a ranged attack to the sword, or something.
EDIT:
Molly uses a sleep spell as an Evocation in Ghost Story.
The Gatekeeper does it too in Turn Coat.
-
What is true aim?
Edit:
N/M, found it. It's one of the sub powers of the Sword of the Cross, granting +1 weapons when 'swung with keeping with it's purpose'.