ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Taran on June 14, 2013, 03:47:39 AM
-
O.k...I want to put a block against movement on an opponent with evocation. Say I use earth magic and mire him in the ground...cool. I do 6 shifts of power, control the spell and done. Easy. the spell lasts one exchange.
Say I want to do the same thing with thaumaturgy. I have a link to the same guy, I put 12 shifts of power into the block and then I put more shifts in to make it last a human life-time.
Now the guy is mired to the ground for the rest of his life until he manages to beat the block (using athletics or might or even craftsmanship to hammer his way out). THen the spell dissipates. Right? Is this legal?
-
Sounds fine to me.
Guy will probably get free in a few hours, though, since friends can do maneuvers to help him escape and he can take extra time to boost his escape attempt.
-
...and if he has no friends or if you've, say, locked him in another dimension well...sucks to be that guy!
-
Sounds fine to me.
Guy will probably get free in a few hours, though, since friends can do maneuvers to help him escape and he can take extra time to boost his escape attempt.
Thaumatugic block question part 2
I make a divination spell that warns me of danger a few seconds in advance. It kind of works like spidey sense. It's modelled as a block against attacks.
12 shifts and lasts 1 year. Legal?
-
I'd model it as a block against surprise attacks, so when the slugging has started it's not helping anymore.
-
I guess what I'm asking is if thaumaturgy can do regular blocks with long durations.
If so, it seems to me most wizards would have one or more of these semi-permanent defences up.
Like using psychomancy to put up a mental wall against mental intrusions/attacks, which would just be a block against attacks.
How powerful a thaumaturgic block would you permit a starting character(in total shifts) and how many of these defences?
What about Npc's?
-
Im not as conversant with the Thaumaturgical rules as I should be. Whats it say about getting a spell to last through that many sunrises? In the stories it would take quite a bit to make any defense or curse last that long, without binding it to a specific bloodline.
-
By default 1 scene.
Then add shifts for each step up the time chart. 1year is like 5-7 extra shifts, I think.
-
I'd call shenanigans. For one, that's more like a permanent power, and it should be bought like that. We had a similar discussion a short while back.
Second, remember what is said about wards time and time again in the novels. They need something to be built upon, preferably a threshold. The stronger the threshold you have to work with, the more you can attach to it. But what are you going to attach this personal shield to? Your ward at home? Ok, the ward stays at home. It is a cool description of how it works, but it stays there. Put it on a bracelet? Wait, there is a rule for that: enchanted items.
So no, I would not say it is legal. And even if the argument can be made, that it is by the book, I would still not allow this in any game I ran. You either handwave all the preparation steps, in which case it is highly overpowered, or you play a few sessions about the character getting his "I'm invincible" shield on, which does not really seem to me like an interesting thing to do, and even if it is, it should be reflected as a power of some sort or another. If it is something special, like a heat shield because he needs to get to the ground of a live volcano, that's a different story.
-
Essentially-permanent (eg. lifetime defensive blocks) effects should be paid for with essentially-permanent resources (eg. refresh and/or skill pts).
As for the offensive version of the same concept, that sounds more like a taken-out result ("can't move for the next decade" sounds like they're no longer in the conflict, to me) than a temporary impediment.
-
I'm confused by the position that, something that is essentially transitory despite the duration (like a Thaumaturgy block), should be paid with by Refresh when a wizard has paid Refresh for Thaumaturgy. Disallowing a concept because of a GM's sense of balance is one thing, but saying to a wizard player "you can't do a thing within your bought Powers without buying more Powers" is...? How is that justified?
-
Essentially-permanent (eg. lifetime defensive blocks) effects should be paid for with essentially-permanent resources (eg. refresh and/or skill pts).
As for the offensive version of the same concept, that sounds more like a taken-out result ("can't move for the next decade" sounds like they're no longer in the conflict, to me) than a temporary impediment.
It's not a taken out result. The duration is one decade, but he might escape in a few hours.
I'm having a hard time trying to adjudicate this kind of thing.
-
@Taran
Despite the duration, said character can still penetrate the block with appropriate skills/rolls. If a wizard wanted to,say, turn someone to stone, that would utilize Aspects/Consequences. Depends on how much power said wizard can bring together which way they'd go in such a scenario.
-
To me there are two issues with it. The first is consistency with the setting, as described in the novels (and this blatantly violates the magical mechanics as written) but that may or may not be a huge concern at your table. The second is game balance, and to me the issue is that the duration is so ridiculously long that it starts stepping on the toes of other mechanics that are already in place. Personally I blame that on the Time Chart mechanic, near as I can tell, since it is very clear in the novels that no spell can withstand more than a few sunrises without being anchored to either a threshold or a bloodline.
And to your specific point, it really is not "transitory" within the context of any game I can imagine running, unless you plan to have losts of time-jumps or NN slides that would make a 1 Year thing relevant. The offensive earth binding, at that point, is basically a lasting Curse. The perception defense is described is actually exactly like an enchanted item that appears in the novels, and even those are not technically "Permanent" in the way that full on IoP's are. But I dont think the argument being made was an all-or-nothing thing, it is just that when a loophole in Thaumaturgy starts bypassing the established requirements for a comparable effect, you should either make them pay a comparable cost to those other mechanic as written, or else place some sort of compensating requirement on it to maintain balance. The other option is make the cost something that has to be maintained, so that the caster's capabilities are permanently reduced so long as the effect is in place. Then the primary benefit is not that you are getting a "semi-permanent" spell without paying any of the normal more lasting fees for such a thing, you are just juicing your spell with extra shifts so that you do not have to repeat the casting each scene, but since there is power sacrifice to it that lasts as long as you maintain the defense, there is still a reason for the character to choose to end the spell and eliminate the continuous drain on his or her resources.
-
@Quantus
Interesting point about the Time Chart mechanic. That really is just a mechanical representation of narration though right? In most cases where a spell is really long last there is going to be a reason given by a GM/player justifying it right?
A block can still be dissipated, reduced to nothing. The duration just allows it to exist until such an event occurs. I'm not sure how a spell like that would warrant more explanation than Thaumaturgy plus a narrative justification other than because of a GM's own personal balancing preferences. Especially when talking about costing Refresh.
-
I'm confused by the position that, something that is essentially transitory despite the duration (like a Thaumaturgy block), should be paid with by Refresh when a wizard has paid Refresh for Thaumaturgy. Disallowing a concept because of a GM's sense of balance is one thing, but saying to a wizard player "you can't do a thing within your bought Powers without buying more Powers" is...? How is that justified?
A wizard that shapeshifts using Thaumaturgy such that they gain claws, wings, and significantly enhanced regenerative capabilities pays for those effects as though they were powers.
This is the same concept.
It's not a taken out result. The duration is one decade, but he might escape in a few hours.
I'm having a hard time trying to adjudicate this kind of thing.
And when you knock a character out, they may wake up in a few hours. That doesn't make that a block, either.
Unless the time scale of the conflict is sufficient that 'a few hours' out of commission would not constitute defeat, then you've achieved a taken-out result by default.
-
Maybe I just want to keep the guy where he is until the gang can get there and fight him...because he's a slippery one...or maybe I need more back-up...
Meanwhile the guy has time to try to escape...
I see your point, though, where something is just so hopeless as to constitute a take-out. Taking someone out with Thaumaturgy is much more expensive then just blocking them from a single action.
-
@Tedronai
I'm not seeing it. The block is created per the RAW, it can be broken down by those same rules. Temporarily trading one set of powers for another in your shape-shifting examples seems a bit like apples to oranges to me.
-
I'm confused by the position that, something that is essentially transitory despite the duration (like a Thaumaturgy block), should be paid with by Refresh when a wizard has paid Refresh for Thaumaturgy. Disallowing a concept because of a GM's sense of balance is one thing, but saying to a wizard player "you can't do a thing within your bought Powers without buying more Powers" is...? How is that justified?
Well, where do you draw the line? By the novels, transforming into a werewolf is a spell, so Harry could do it. By the rules, you can use free invokes on aspects to pay for temporary powers. Push the power of that spell high enough to last a few human lifetimes, and you have a wizard with werewolf powers for ever. Do that a couple of times and he has all the powers in the book and more, while he has the same refresh rate as other characters. If you want something that is an integral part of the character (and a shield that lasts that long should count as such), just pay for it (by taking toughness for example).
And it is sort of an arms race that leads you nowhere. I generally apply the rule that whatever the players can do, NPCs can do as well. So why not have an opposing wizard who has a similarly prepared anti-shield-spell ready, and your shield goes poof anyway. Ok, you make a bigger shield, I make a bigger anti-shield, you make a bigger shield.... and so forth. Why not just get on with the actual wizards duel already? Get into the juicy bits.
And part of the rules is the narrative justification. Granted, that will vary drastically from one person to the next, but to me, a spell that powerful (I mean, we are talking about laughing at a grenade that is exploding in your hand) should have some narrative justification, something that it is linked to, something it can draw its power from for all that time, and so forth. Creating a spell like that, would be a quest all by itself, which should take a really long time. And even then, I would use this as a justification to take a power, not give a permanent shield.
Long story short: mechanically it is absolutely possible, yes. In terms of what I consider an exiting story to play out, not very much.
Players who want something like this are usually those who take all the defensive powers they can get anyway, in my experience. Make the character bulletproof, so to speak. However, in Fate I don't really see the necessity for this, because you can talk about the lethality and deal with it accordingly. Your player doesn't want his character to die from physical wounds? Done. There is no need to make him mechanically bulletproof.
-
@Haru
Ah...now that is fair. Narrative justification and not breaking anyone's fun should be key. That of course includes not setting out to intentionally "break the game". I'm still not on board with taking extra powers to justify something the existing powers can do, but the rest seems very fair.
-
@Haru
Ah...now that is fair. Narrative justification and not breaking anyone's fun should be key. That of course includes not setting out to intentionally "break the game". I'm still not on board with taking extra powers to justify something the existing powers can do, but the rest seems very fair.
See bolded: I think this was something recommended by the game designers.
-
A long term spell payed for with refresh is to me the same thing as transforming and gaining claws etc, or performing a spell to boost your strength by getting one of the Strength powers. The spell is the justification to be able to buy it, either temporarily (with FP for a scene) or permanently (w Refresh).
To me, the fact that the time chart goes as high as it does isn't in itself allowing a spell to persist that long without something to bind it to. The time chart is there for a lot of other things aswell, not just magic. Each appliction has its own limits in what is possible. Just like I wouldn't let a mundane Research roll put shifts toward Reduced Time past an arbitrary limit based on the specific case, I wouldn't allow shifts to persistence of a spell past a couple of days without justification (such as something to anchor it to).
-
@Taran
Interesting...reference for KNOWLEDGE? I'd be curious to read the justification on that.
@Cadd
My issue with that is that you've already paid Refresh to buy a Power that now only becomes the justification to buy other powers? Doesn't seem right to me.
#Time Chart/Persistence
Of course. But I think at this point part of the debate is that even WITH the appropriate powers and narrative justification certain uses of magic are being segregated with "no, you can't have that without paying more for it". Again, that doesn't seem right to the players that have paid that Refresh already.
-
@Cadd
My issue with that is that you've already paid Refresh to buy a Power that now only becomes the justification to buy other powers? Doesn't seem right to me.
Yeah, just like Beast Change works as justification to buy Claws, Inhuman Strength etc for a shapeshifter.
-
@Cadd
Powers which one could model with magic as transitory benefits. I see what you mean now though.
-
@Taran
Interesting...reference for KNOWLEDGE? I'd be curious to read the justification on that.
You know.... I know a guy who knows a guy...
It would be somewhere where Iago posted...I don't remember at all and can't even know how to start to find it.
I agree with Cadd about the justification. If I'm playing a mortal or someone of True Faith it really doesn't make sense to have shape-shifting abilities or to even get them temporarily. Meanwhile, someone like, Injun Joe, who's a wizard now has that justification.
He casts a big-assed spell and now he can shape-shift (he bought the powers)
-
Disallowing a concept because of a GM's sense of balance is one thing, but saying to a wizard player "you can't do a thing within your bought Powers without buying more Powers" is...? How is that justified?
That sort of long-duration personal block is not a thing that Thaumaturgy can do.
So it's not a thing within a Wizard's bought Powers.
-
That sort of long-duration personal block is not a thing that Thaumaturgy can do.
So it's not a thing within a Wizard's bought Powers.
I'm just confused over the distinction.
My first example was perfectly legit for thaumaturgy. It was a long-term block against movement.
Why is a long-term block against attacks not ?
-
@Taran
Gotcha...I'll take a look around when I have have the time.
-
I'm just confused over the distinction.
My first example was perfectly legit for thaumaturgy. It was a long-term block against movement.
Why is a long-term block against attacks not ?
Because it's unfair.
I could come up with a bunch of justifications, but ultimately the reason is mechanical fairness.
Thaumaturgy's capabilities are very vague. It's up to us to define them in a way that makes Thaumaturgy balanced.
-
@Sanctaphrax
Balanced...to whom?
-
Not sure I understand your question. What are you getting at?
(My answer would be "people who play DFRPG" but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.)
-
I'm just confused over the distinction.
My first example was perfectly legit for thaumaturgy. It was a long-term block against movement.
Why is a long-term block against attacks not ?
I'm with Tedronai here, I would not do this as a block but a taken out result. You are basically putting a lasting effect on the target, blocks only work so far for that. There is a reason why you want to put a block on the target, you probably want to keep him from doing something, or you want to leave him to die. Both of the times, take him out and you can describe how that happens. It's much cleaner than doing it with a block.
In fact, I'm glad Core got rid of blocks altogether.
-
@Sacntaphrax
Indeed you're correct. That was meant "from whom's perspective". Yours? Mine? Is there some universal agreement on this matter? Is there going to be? As you point out, the RAW can be vague and open to interpretation, so we can't exactly use that as the gospel here.
I'm going to stop right there because I feel like this is headed into rocky shoals. Thanks for sharing though!
@Haru
Have you read Core? I had heard from somewhere, probably one of the Core re-write threads, that Aspects are/can be utilized more heavily in areas such as these. Also too I believe they added a mechanic for more flexible use of Aspects...something about Conditions or some such? Care to weigh in?
-
@Haru
Have you read Core? I had heard from somewhere, probably one of the Core re-write threads, that Aspects are/can be utilized more heavily in areas such as these. Also too I believe they added a mechanic for more flexible use of Aspects...something about Conditions or some such? Care to weigh in?
That's done by what is called "active opposition". It is sort of like a ramped up defense roll. You can do "Create Advantage" actions in Core, sort of what is now called a maneuver. You either create an aspect by that or get a free invoke on an existing aspect.
Now let's say you run away from someone and in the process you create the aspect "blocked door". You choose to make that an obstacle that your pursuer has to overcome by the means of an overcome action. The GM decides on the difficulty of that overcome roll. That's passive opposition. As long as your pursuer does not beat the obstacle with a reasonable skill (might to push open the door, for example), he can not follow you.
Now the same situation, but you pass one of your allies who is laying down cover fire by creating an advantage by the same name. The aspect now justifies him to roll active opposition each time someone tries to overcome the aspect with an overcome action. Instead of a fixed difficulty, the character can roll his shooting skill to see if he can keep the pursuers away. Since it is a roll, he is also allowed to invoke aspects on it to increase it.
Now you can do something similar for a magic shield. You use your magic skill to create the advantage "magic shield", or you decide beforehand, that your high concept of "wizard private eye" is enough of a justification, and then you can use your magic skill to defend against physical attacks. I like the first option better, because it coincides with Harry's "I readied my shield bracelet" mantra at the beginning of so many conflicts.
The justifying advantage can be overcome itself. Like Mavra did with the flamethrowers, for example. And once the aspect is gone, you can no longer use it to justify your active opposition, unless you can reestablish it again.
One of the authors did a pretty long piece on that, if you are interested:
http://www.faterpg.com/2013/richards-guide-to-blocks-and-obstacles-in-fate-core/#more-137
-
@Haru
Huh...that's very interesting. Could these mechanics be incorporated into the current state of the game easily? It seems like it could resolve a lot of things in discussion here.
-
Pretty sure, yes. I already did that as a one time experiment, even before Core came out, because the player and I both disliked the way blocks worked. In Shadowrun, there is the concept of sustained spells, where you can concentrate on prolonging a spell but receive a penalty of -2 to all actions as long as you keep the spell up. We did that with a shield spell and that spell allowed him to roll discipline for defense. I would no longer include the penalty, but keep the rest as is.
In general, switching from the trappings of DF to the 4 actions of Core can be done without a fuss. You wouldn't need to change anything else, I think.
-
@Haru
I'll have to look into that in some more depth. I think that is one change that has enough quality of life merit to it to warrant a bit of conversion. Thanks for the info!
-
@Sacntaphrax
Indeed you're correct. That was meant "from whom's perspective". Yours? Mine? Is there some universal agreement on this matter?
On this particular issue I think agreement is probably pretty universal. Just about everyone calls shenanigans when someone uses a ritual to give themself a 16-shift shield for the rest of their life.
This issue is a bit unusual, though. Most balance questions are more debatable.
Balance can to a certain extent be demonstrated objectively through math, but there's still plenty of room for debate most of the time. It's like a statistical variable...there's a mean, but each measurement will differ from the mean somewhat. If you want to know the true shape of the distribution, you should take multiple measurements and you should ensure that each measurement is as accurate as possible.
I'm with Tedronai here, I would not do this as a block but a taken out result. You are basically putting a lasting effect on the target, blocks only work so far for that. There is a reason why you want to put a block on the target, you probably want to keep him from doing something, or you want to leave him to die. Both of the times, take him out and you can describe how that happens. It's much cleaner than doing it with a block.
In fact, I'm glad Core got rid of blocks altogether.
This isn't necessarily a lasting effect. It could be broken in a couple of minutes, if someone really strong or magically capable comes around.
And I was really unimpressed with what Core did with blocks.
-
This isn't necessarily a lasting effect. It could be broken in a couple of minutes, if someone really strong or magically capable comes around.
Truths are truths until something changes them; "unless someone comes to save you" isn't at all an unreasonable caveat to apply to a Taken-Out result.
-
Okay. Now suppose the strong/magical person is the target. The effect could be 100% successful and yet very temporary.
-
This isn't necessarily a lasting effect. It could be broken in a couple of minutes, if someone really strong or magically capable comes around.
And if you are left to die as a taken out result, someone could come around and rescue you still. But I would incorporate that into the taken out result. Or better yet: make it a concession. Yes, the guy is rescued, but too late to get in the way of your most recent plan. I feel that's a much more elegant way to handle this. You are trying to block this guy for a reason, so cut out the middle man and get to the reason.
And I was really unimpressed with what Core did with blocks.
I never liked how they worked, so I am really glad about the change. But that's personal preference, I guess.
-
And if you are left to die as a taken out result, someone could come around and rescue you still. But I would incorporate that into the taken out result. Or better yet: make it a concession. Yes, the guy is rescued, but too late to get in the way of your most recent plan. I feel that's a much more elegant way to handle this. You are trying to block this guy for a reason, so cut out the middle man and get to the reason.
You can't concede in response to being taken out, so it's not a concession.
And being rescued by someone else is only a valid way to get out of a take-out effect if the take-out-er says it is. We know what it takes to rescue someone from a block, because we have numbers for that. If this were a take-out, we would not know anything of the sort.
Plus, what I said to Tedronai.
I know you can do this sort of thing with attacks and take-out negotiation, but trying to force an effect designed as a block into the mold of an attack is anything but elegant. You should try to avoid that kind of round-peg nonsense.
-
It never should have been 'designed' as a block in the first place.
The fact that it's narrated as preventing action rather than inflicting harm has no bearing on the fact that the intended result is to remove a character from the conflict. That is the effect of a Taken-Out result.
This is the same concept that models the summoning of Chauncy based on the difficulty to acquire the desired information rather than the difficulty to call forth, contain, and subsequently negotiate with the demon.
-
I don't see how preventing someone from movement is a take-out result.
They can still attack/defend/ call for reinforcements etc...
And it's purpose might not be to remove them from a conflict, it might be to FORCE them into a conflict.
The only thing they CAN'T do is run away. Which would be the point of doing a thaumaturgic "lock-down" on a target.
And if you're going to spend all that time doing it with thaumaturgy, then you might not be near the target...so then you have to get to them and they can take that time to maneuver (every exchange) to build up enough tags to escape.
The exciting build up to the fight, then is "can we get to him before he escapes?" The "getting there" might end up more exciting than the fight itself.
Yeah...definitely not a take out result in my mind.
Anyways, that particular spell aside, are you saying thaumatury can't do blocks then? only wards?
-
It never should have been 'designed' as a block in the first place.
The fact that it's narrated as preventing action rather than inflicting harm has no bearing on the fact that the intended result is to remove a character from the conflict. That is the effect of a Taken-Out result.
The subject of the block isn't taken out of the conflict and can still act, though, if the block is strong enough, they would be well advised to act in ways not covered by the block, possibly building up enough assessments, maneuvers and declarations to get themselves out or at least continuing to influence the conflict, albeit in a circumscribed manner.
A simple zone barrier could have the same impact in the right circumstances, delaying the conflict until it could be overcome, that is no reason to model it as a zone attack.
-
...the intended result is to remove a character from the conflict.
Is it?
I didn't think so.
-
I guess since Dresden is a flexible system you just have to adjudicate every spell the same way you adjudicate any custom power or stunt.
Is it fair? Is it balanced? Does it maintain the desired fiction/narration.
My feeling is permanent combat related blocks are not balanced while others may be.
Can someone give me a link where it's mentioned by a developer that one should buy powers to replicate long term thaum effects.
-
See bolded: I think this was something recommended by the game designers.
Hey! I know where this can be found! I have it bookmarked because its valuable in understanding how the magic system was designed and intended to be used. These are old posts from threads talking about the game before it was released.
This is Thaumaturgic Shapeshifting (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,17367.msg784710.html#msg784710)
This is Thaumaturgic Skill Boosts (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php?topic=36700.0)
-
Awesome. Thanks Troy, that first link clears a lot up.
-
what if the block had a time of instant? lets say you had a block against mental attacks you are looking at a 10 shift to get it to last a day that's a pretty hefty ritual.
-
actually rereading the rules thaumaturgy cant do blocks only wards and wards are immobile. evocation is the only thing that can provide a block or enchanted items (yes crafting is thaumaturgy but can act as evocation) so the metal block would have to be some type of item/potion.
-
actually rereading the rules thaumaturgy cant do blocks only wards and wards are immobile. evocation is the only thing that can provide a block or enchanted items (yes crafting is thaumaturgy but can act as evocation) so the metal block would have to be some type of item/potion.
Actually, it is perfectly legal to raise a Thaum. ward against mental attacks, assuming you have time/resources.
-
If you are behind a ward/threshold, you will be protected from mental attacks.
If you have items that block mental attacks, those will protect you.
You could raise a spirit evocation block against mental attacks but that would be short lived
You could do a 'quick' thaum ritual (like how Harry protected himself against Elaine's mind fog). Which would last for the whole scene. But you'd be stuck in a circle.
-
If you are behind a ward/threshold, you will be protected from mental attacks.
Based on Harry's recollection of the events in "Grave Peril," that's not always a sure thing--though I'm at a loss how to adjudicate it myself.
That said, I understand your point. I might be nit-picking here were I to say that barring special circumstances, the above normally applies.
-
It's never a sure thing. It just acts as a block. If the attack was higher than the block you'll still take damage.
Or, if the attacker is inside the threshold with you, use the threshold rules.