Nobody has anything to say, it seems...
Maybe people think the list is perfect as-is.
If you've used stunts from the list, have there been problems?
Do you think my issues sound reasonable?
I'd really rather get people's input before I start making changes. The opinions of others should prevent me from making mistakes or introducing my own biases, in theory.
People likely aren't responding because this is a massive task.
Scavenger: You are an expert in the art of making things quickly out of cannibalized parts. If as part of a Craftsmanship roll made to build or fix something you take apart an object that contains parts appropriate to the thing you are building or fixing, you may make that Craftsmanship roll two time increments faster.
Killer of Many: You have killed a lot of people, but not so many monsters. All of your attacks with Guns inflict two additional stress to Pure Mortals.
Empty Mag Empty Room: (Requires Blaze Away) Sometimes you just have to fire every bullet you have. When you attack with a gun, you may choose to fire every bullet in your gun at once. If you do, each attack you make that exchange gets a +1 bonus.
Torturer: You have the complete lack of mercy that is needed to torture someone properly. You may use your Intimidation skill to inflict mental stress as long as your target is entirely within your power.
I Do What I Want: You don't take no orders from nobody. You have social armour 1 against social attacks phrased as commands.
Certain individuals might also have the
training to accomplish this sort of thing, going
beyond the usual trappings of Intimidation
and into torture, represented by an appropriate
stunt.
@ALurker:Personally I consider that a little too often but I guess that's okay.
Wow, this is a very comprehensive reply. Before I reply to each point, let me specify that I use a limit of roughly 50% for how often a +2 stunt should apply.
Attention!: Not sure if you're aware, but this stunt only works if the guy who's initiative you're copying has this stunt too. Which means that it costs 2 refresh, effectively. It costs 1 refresh to replace one of your own trappings with another one of your own trappings, so I figured an extra refresh would be a fair price for sharing this between players. Thoughts?The thing is that instead of replacing it with one of your own skills, you are replacing it with another person's. The problem comes when one person sacrifices one of their refresh points and sets Alertness as one of their highest skill (if not their highest), in exchange for benefits from the other players, who for one refresh can completely dump alertness.
Notice The Unseen: How often do players roll to notice something magically hidden? I'd expect less than once per session. Is that contrary to your experiences?Good point, my experiences with DnD were leaking over.
Excellent Mount: You are correct. Any ideas for a better Athletics stunt based around being a mount?Maybe something that gives the mount an aspect that can be tagged/invoked by either the mount or rider? I really don't know.
Highly Mobile: Yes, but not any more than the On My Toes or Fleet Of Foot stunts do. A little overlap between stunts and powers is OK.Good point.
Land On Your Feet: Nope. This'll reduce stress from falling by 2 or 3. Compare to a defensive stunt giving +2 to avoid attacks. Given the rarity of falling damage, I actually think that this is probably underpowered.The thing is that it scales upward. Furthermore, compare it to Acrobat which gives it two one shift effect a +1 to surviving a fall and a +1 to dodging ranged attacks.
Five-Fingered Discount: Why? It seems fine to me...It allows you to steal anything that you could buy which doesn't really work. For example stealing a house or an island. Also it should note that depending on the item, stealing things could take significantly longer than buying them with money on hand (which is what resources is a measure of). Buying illegal things is more expensive than legal items and I would think that all stolen items count as illegal (which isn't noted). Second to last, the reason I'm wary of this stunt is that unlike other skills, the resources skill has one very powerful trick (and one benefit that allows it to enhance other skills) which all of its trappings are a variation of. This is unlike other skills which generally can do a host of things. Replacing that one trick with another skill that can also do a whole lot of other things seems rather unbalancing. Finally, stealing something major (or sometimes even minor) is really an action that should have its own scene, whereas this lets that be skipped.
Friends Everywhere: I thought that the penalty was always -2 for Contacts rolls is unfamiliar territory. And I didn't think that a skill being actually impossible to use counted as a penalty. But for the sake of clarity, will rewrite to say that it negates 2 points of penalties only.Nope it specifically says +4 or more (pg 123).
Stubborn Faith: Maybe, not sure. I guess this one's borderline.You will note that it says one or two expendable two-shift effects and you should lean towards one if the application is broad. Most religions dictate pretty much everything in your life (assuming you are doing what it says which most people don't) but consider this stunt on someone like Michael.
Do You Like It? I Made It Myself: What do you mean? Attack trappings aren't that much more valuable then other trappings. That being said, I don't think the thematic justification here is very good. I might change it so that Craftsmanship complements combat skills when fighting with self-made weapons.The problem is that is says to choose ranged or close combat weapons. That allows it to either replace Fists and Weapons (for close combat weapons) or Weapons (for throwing weapons) and Guns. That's a trapping and a half each time. Furthermore, explosives are already part of Craftsmanship so this trapping makes it extremely easy to make so pretty much all your physical attacks are governed by one skill. Finally as you said the fluff just doesn't make sense. I totally agree with the complementing idea though.
Disciplined Body: It's meant to represent the whole "mind over matter" thing that some semi-mystics advocate. Does that seem nonsensical to you?The problem is that ignoring your body doesn't make it any less damaged. But I guess given the relative abstraction of stress that that could fit. However, this would basically turn all Sorcerers/Wizards into tanks as soon as they got one refresh to spend on this stunt.
Gunner: I figure that operating a mounted weapon is very different from operating a normal gun. Am I wrong?Depends what you mean by mounted gun (which this stunt doesn't specify and that is my main problem with it). Operating the main gun of a tank could totally be governed by driving since it is very different from firing a gun. Operating a truck mounted machine gun is pretty much like firing any stationary machine gun (though mobile of course :D) and would thus fall under guns.
Backlash Absorber: Would appreciate a quote, I don't have books on hand.This one is always hard to find so it might take me a while but I'll get back to you with the quote. I've found it several time and then when ever I think of it I have to find it again (you'd think I would learn my lesson and write it down somewhere easy to find).
Fireproof and Spell Resistance: I don't think so. Some people are more resistant to some things than others. Why is that supernatural?There's a difference between being resistant to high levels of heat and being resistant to fire. One is a survivable temperature if miserable and the other is several hundred degrees.
Was That Supposed To Hurt?: This doesn't have to be magical because of the abstract nature of stress. Nonetheless, it needs a slight nerf as part of my general combat stunt modifications.The problem is that you can't be immune to bullets, explosions, fire, lightning, and so on by enduring them without some kind of magic ability, whereas you could dodge them perfectly easily. Note that this is primarily a fluff problem. Also saying that it works because the abstract nature of stress does not work with this power since this is about avoiding being hurt entirely.
The King Still Stands: Seems narrow to me. Players rarely fight alone, and when they do it's often 1v1.I missed the "on your own" bit. My bad.
No Holds Barred Beatdown: Why? It's only better than the standard +2 after you've inflicted a severe consequence, and fights where that happens before you've essentially one are rare. Especially because only very important characters have severe consequence slots.Good point.
Hey, Billy, can you take a stunt or cast a spell or make an item of some kind that gives you armor against the mental stress caused by casting a spell?
Good question! And no, you can’t. Armor just doesn’t help against stress you inflict on yourself.
Was That Supposed To Hurt?: What I was trying to say is that the damage from a bullet could just as easily be represented as the damage from falling down in order to avoid a bullet. So this could be non-supernatural. Not that it matters, given that I intend to make it useless against things that are too lethal to shrug off when I revise it.
Anything that you could not reasonably avoid injury from if it hit (not "hit", really hit) you.
I haven't responded due to one major fact. We aren't writing a rule book. We're compiling ideas for use in other games. My opinion of game balance, and everyone else's is never going to truly mesh. When opinions regarding balance do mesh...you have a great gaming group and should savor that.I'm not sure I get your post, first you were advocating not removing anything at all and then you suggest we remove anything that is bad. You are also advocating for trying to be unbiased while admitting being unbiased is impossible. I'm pretty sure everyone already thinks they are unbiased (or admits they might be biased but also believes they're right) and telling them to be less biased isn't going to help anything. Also, shooting for perfection is exactly how one gets close enough. Finally, I'm not really sure why you're are talking about this thread as if we've been having really heated arguments. So far this thread has been quite civil and productive.
Overpowered: matter of opinion; and varies game to game and how responsible the player is. I tend towards being strict and cautious here...seen way too many people who were way too good at stacking and munchkining. personally my issue is that there is no rule against stunts stacking ...and there should be some guideline or suggested guideline.
Supernatural: easy fix here. Make them powers, swap their location. Or, just leave it as is, let gaming group determine what is too supernatural. I think removing things from the list is a disservice to those who would have liked to see the ideas listed. Most people likely house rule hte hell out of this game...and therefore our lists should be no different.
Too weak: same as above, let groups judge this for themselves.
All of that said... I think two things need to be established here.
1. We need to try to be unbiased when compiling lists...think of it as journalistic integrity to present the lists as facts, not opinions. I'm not saying we can't debate balance or omit things that are just pure OP or crap...but we should try to find a balance.
2. We are never going to truly agree with wording or balance...add in the fact that this is the internet; we'll be going in circles for this forever. Debating and arguing/trolling/flaming is half the fun. We'll only ever establish "close enough".
That said: I'll still be a pain in the ass about game balane as ever and as opinionated as ever...but what I stated above I do believe to be cold, hard fact.
Do You Like It? I Made It Myself: A weapon you made yourself is a weapon you know really well. Pick melee or ranged. Use Craftsmanship to make attacks and manoeuvres with weapons of that type that you personally built from scratch.Just to put in my 2 cents, since i was the one who made this one.
I'm not sure I get your post, first you were advocating not removing anything at all and then you suggest we remove anything that is bad. You are also advocating for trying to be unbiased while admitting being unbiased is impossible. I'm pretty sure everyone already thinks they are unbiased (or admits they might be biased but also believes they're right) and telling them to be less biased isn't going to help anything. Also, shooting for perfection is exactly how one gets close enough. Finally, I'm not really sure why you're are talking about this thread as if we've been having really heated arguments. So far this thread has been quite civil and productive.I think what I want is for people to keep stunts in the list that seem unbalanced and place warning labels on them or something to explain a lack of balance, but to let people use them for inspiration for other stunts in their own games (even bad ideas can inspire good ideas) or use them and throw caustion to the wind. I more or less wish to say that being unbiased is important but theoretically impossible. i just want us to look at it from a point of view that we aren't setting rules, just coming up with nifty mostly balanced ideas. the bad ones (or things percieved as bad shouldn't be removed).
I'm not sure what to do with the overly-supernatural stunts. I like them too much to ditch them, but I don't know where to put them. Not all of them would make good powers.
Just to put in my 2 cents, since i was the one who made this one.You might have meant it that way but that is not what the stunt says. Melee weapons include things that are governed by Fists, which makes it a trapping and a half (or maybe two full, I would have to check). As for ranged bit, you might have meant thrown weapons but you wrote ranged weapons instead, which covers any weapons usable at range including guns.
Mechanical Benefits:
Transfers Close Combat OR Thrown Weapons Trapping from Weapons to Craftsmanship. IF using a Weapon crafted by the wielder.
That's one trapping under a specific circumstance.
Totally rules legal.
I think what I want is for people to keep stunts in the list that seem unbalanced and place warning labels on them or something to explain a lack of balance, but to let people use them for inspiration for other stunts in their own games (even bad ideas can inspire good ideas) or use them and throw caustion to the wind. I more or less wish to say that being unbiased is important but theoretically impossible. i just want us to look at it from a point of view that we aren't setting rules, just coming up with nifty mostly balanced ideas. the bad ones (or things percieved as bad shouldn't be removed).If we don't remove stunts we know are bad, then the entire list begins to look rather shoddy and if the entire list looks shoddy people tend to just write it off. We could certainly make a separate list for stunts that could serve as inspiration but leaving them in the main list is a bad idea.
If we don't remove stunts we know are bad, then the entire list begins to look rather shoddy and if the entire list looks shoddy people tend to just write it off. We could certainly make a separate list for stunts that could serve as inspiration but leaving them in the main list is a bad idea.
You might have meant it that way but that is not what the stunt says. Melee weapons include things that are governed by Fists, which makes it a trapping and a half (or maybe two full, I would have to check). As for ranged bit, you might have meant thrown weapons but you wrote ranged weapons instead, which covers any weapons usable at range including guns.I'm pretty clear on the fact that you misunderstood the description... which is why i wrote a totally fluffless explanation.
Tsunami's proposed rewrite of Do You...etc looks pretty good mechanically, but I do kinda doubt the flavour. Making your own knife wouldn't let you fight with it if you have no skill at knife fighting, would it?
Unless the knife was special somehow...I think that maybe this can be made to work.
I'm pretty clear on the fact that you misunderstood the description... which is why i wrote a totally fluffless explanation.So what you're saying is what the stunt means in plain English is not what it is supposed to mean. Just because you didn't write what you meant doesn't mean you can say it means something entirely different from what it actually says and then claim others misinterpreted it.
Fluff:So the best swordsmith in the world would automatically be the best swordsmen in the world with the swords they made if they had this stunt, even if they had absolutely no skill at wielding any other kind of sword. That doesn't make sense.
Making a good Sword requires you to know what makes a good Sword.
Knowing what makes a good Sword requires a knowledge of how a Sword works.
Knowing how a Sword works requires certain Skill with it.
Sword is just an example here.
It's a bit forced, but then there are a lot of stunts that are like that.
As for the Special Knife. Make it "Weapons you made yourself, for yourself"
So being the best swordsmith in the world would automatically make you the best swordsmen in the world with the swords you made, even if you had absolutely no skill at wielding any other kind of sword. That doesn't make sense.
Also, knowing how a sword works doesn't necessarily require any skill with it, there is a difference between knowledge and ability. However, knowing how a sword works might give you a minor boost wielding it.
Well not without a stunt so not automatically, but a stunt is justification all in itself.It is justification but it is justification that doesn't make sense which is the problem.
What about Craftmanship complementing skill rolls made with weapons you made yourself? Broaden the application to include every possible weapon, but don't switch the skill trappings.
The yellow stunts vary greatly in the level of change that can be expected.
But they don't vary in how eye-bleedingly horrible they look against the page background.Highlighting makes them readable but I agree that a change in color would be nice. Purple would likely be a good choice since it is half way between blue's minor edit and red's delete (not to mention that it is actually readable without highlighting it).
Can you edit the yellow into something - anything - else? :)
About the colour: I could edit it, but it would be a fair bit of work. How big a deal is this? That is to say, would this change whether or not I get feedback?All you need to do is copy the text to a text document, then find and replace =yellow with =purple.
About Wealth Beyond Imagination: My plan was to make the "too expensive to buy normally" restriction meaningful. Something like:Too powerful. If someone has the Lush Lifestyle stunt then this will apply to pretty much every single roll.
Wealth Beyond Imagination: Fluffity fluff fluff. When attempting to buy something with a difficulty to purchase greater than your Resources skill, add two to your Resources skill.
That way, it doesn't help protect you against bad buying rolls on non-huge purchases.
Odds are that this will apply to more than half of all purchases, but since Resources does have some other trappings I figure that it's reasonable. In my experience, those other trappings actually do matter.
Thoughts?
If someone has the Lush Lifestyle stunt then this will apply to pretty much every single roll.
Possibly but then that is 2 stunts (refresh) for a +2 which seems balance by my book, if you allow the stunts to stack at all (which I personally would it not being a combat ability).Lush Lifestyle and WBI aren't the equivalent of +2 to resources for 2 stunts. With Lush Lifestyle, WBI is a +2 for everything rolled and Lush Lifestyle also provides it's own 2 shift effect.
So don't let them stack in your games, insist if someone is going to use WBI it is only when buying something rather than declaring they have something (lush lifestyle effect).That's how it already works. If you are using Lush Lifestyle you don't have to roll for something equal to your resources. Otherwise you are rolling for higher than your resources and get a +2. It is not like you would often be rolling for something that you have absolutely no need to roll for since you can just declare it.
All you need to do is copy the text to a text document, then find and replace =yellow with =purple.
Is there an easy way to find and replace, or do I have to Ctrl-F/delete/Ctrl-V my way through the entire text?Ctrl-C it to a text editor and then use either Ctrl-R or go over to the replace tab after using Ctrl-F (it depends on the editor). Also most editors have a replace button in a menu at the top of the page.
Sportsman: Sports are your life. Pick a sport. You may use Athletics with a +2 bonus to play that sport.That one should probably be in green. One sport is way to specific a circumstance for just a +2, it should be a +3 or +4.
Done.The whole +2 to things that are not illegal doesn't really match Wealth Beyond Imagination's fluff or name, at that point you might as well just call it a new stunt. I would suggest calling it something like Clean and Crisp Dollars Bills. As for whether it is balanced, I'm not sure.
The more I think about my rewrite of Wealth Beyond Imagination, the less I like it. It's just crude and inelegant. I'm not so bothered by ALurker's problem with it, but I still don't like it.
How would people feel about making it into a +2 to buy things that are not illegal?
Green doesn't mean underpowered, it means overly supernatural. Underpowered would be yellow.
I'm actually kind of conflicted about Sportsman. Its usefulness depends so heavily on the campaign its used in. Heck, it could be overpowered in a game where the players are a pro sports team.
Protector: You are an expert at the protection of others. Whenever you use a skill to create a block to protect another character, add two to your roll. (This does not apply to spellcasting).
Traffic Watcher: You really know how to use those rear-view mirrors. Add two to your Alertness skill as long as you are in a car.
Excellent Mount: You are very good at carrying other people. Add two to your Athletics skill while being ridden.
Five-Fingered Discount: Why buy what you can steal? You may use your Burglary skill instead of your Resources skill to “buy” things. Everything “bought” this way has the aspect “Stolen Property”.
Friends Everywhere: Your network of contacts extends around the world. You never receive a penalty to your contacts skill due to an unfamiliar area.
Sanction: Your faith in your boss, be it the archangel Uriel or Colonel Carrington, is absolute. Pick a being. Add one to your Conviction skill when acting on behalf of that being.
Shield Of Dogma: Words are meaningless against your fanatical will. You may use your Conviction skill to defend in social combat.
Data Manipulation: It's easy to fool someone when you have graphs to back you up. Add two to your Deceit skill when you have statistics to back up your lies.
Con Man: You make a living off of lies. Add two to your Deceit skill when using it to get someone to give you money.
Feint: They think thought they had you, but they thought wrong. You may use your Deceit skill to dodge physical attacks.
Wearing An Extremely Trustworthy Face: Some faces are just easy to trust, and as a shapeshifter you have access to many of those. Pick a form other than your natural one. As long as you are in that form and visible to your target, add two to your Deceit skill.
Founded Upon Lies: You are very good at turning innocuous lies into devastating arguments. Whenever you invoke or tag an aspect that you created with a Deceit manoeuvre, add two to your roll in addition to the normal benefits.
Defensive Lies: You can come up with a counterpoint to any point, as long as you don’t worry about honesty. You may use your Deceit skill, unmodified, to defend against everything in social combat.
"Honest" Lawyer: Okay, maybe they don’t exist. But most people would say that you are one, anyway. Add two to your Deceit skill when you are in a legal context.
Defensive Focus: Your incredible focus makes it easy to avoid the clumsy attacks of your enemies. You may use your Discipline skill to defend against attacks from enemies in the same zone.
Reflexive Shield: Magic is the only defence you need. When you are attacked, you may sacrifice your next action to cast a defensive evocation.
I'll Just Ignore You: Counterarguments are a waste of time. You prefer to simply not listen to the people you disagree with. You may use your Discipline skill for the social defence trapping of Rapport.
Bartender's Ear: Like any good bartender, you know how to understand drunk people. Add two to your Empathy skill when dealing with people who are under the influence of alcohol.
Tough as Nails: You don’t seem to feel pain the way normal people do. When an opponent tags or invokes one of your consequences in a physical conflict they only receive +1 to their roll. If they choose to reroll, you may lock down one of his dice and leave him only 3 to reroll.
Was That Supposed To Hurt?: You are TOUGH. You don't avoid attacks, you just take them right. Use your Endurance skill to “dodge” attacks.
Competition Fighting: You are a martial artist, not a fighter. Add one to your Fists skill as long as you aren't in a real fight.
Brutality: Your style of fighting verges upon the sadistic. You may use manoeuvres to inflict consequences. In order to do so, first state the name, level, and type of consequence that you would like to inflict. Then make an ordinary attack with the skill that you are using for the manoeuvre. If that attack hits and inflicts stress equal to or greater than the value of the consequence, then that consequence is inflicted. Extra stress is wasted, as is the entire manoeuvre if it misses or fails to inflict enough stress.
Storm Of Punches: A great warrior fights as well against a thousand enemies as he does against one. You may take a -2 penalty to a Fists attack in order to have that attack affect everyone in the zone (except yourself, of course).
Threats Of Violence: Fear and pain: they’re like best buddies. You always try to keep them together. Add two to your Intimidation skill when targeting someone who you have physically harmed recently.
Clever Wrestling: You've wrestled against incredibly strong things before and you know how to handle it. When in a grapple with something that has a strength power, halve their power bonus to might and round down.
Professional Attitude: You take your job so seriously that it’s hard to believe that you have a life outside of it. Add one to all of your social skills when at work.
Master Of Riddles: Your intelligence lets you run circles around those you talk to. This may take the form of actual riddles, or perhaps just complex logical arguments. You may use your Scholarship skill to make social attacks. Attacks with Scholarship can be defended against with Rapport, Scholarship, and sometimes Empathy.
Pre-Prepared Counterpoint: You’ve heard that argument before, and you know how to defeat it. You may use your Scholarship skill for social defence.
Weapon Focus: You've trained to use a specific type of weapon. Choose a type of weapon. Add one to your weapons skill while wielding that type of weapon.
Weapon Specialization: You know how to attack effectively with a specific type of weapon. Choose a type of weapon. Your attacks with that type of weapon inflict two additional stress.
Weapon Mastery: It's easier to defend yourself when you are using your weapon of choice. Pick a type of weapon. When using that type of weapon to make a defense roll, add two to your Weapons skill.
Mounted Combat: You know how to fight from atop a horse. Add one to your weapons skill while riding an animal.
Brutality: If you ever manage to put your finger on it, I'm listening.I don't know about him but I just realized another two problems with it. It completely violates the you-get-to-choose-your-own-consequences section of the rules and there are a whole host of problems with violating that. It also allows one to inflict mental or social consequences using a physical attack.
It completely violates the you-get-to-choose-your-own-consequences section of the rules and there are a whole host of problems with violating that.
You can see that the stunt is a direct swap of trappings with no limitations beyond the trappings in the first place. I think that mostly skill swapping is fine without a limitation as long as it makes some kind of sense and isn't too supernatural (when it can become a power which does the same thing).
It violates the "choose your own consequences" thing. I'm still not sure why this is a problem.
-It violates the "choose your own consequences" thing. I'm still not sure why this is a problem.Because a smart person would create aspects that compel the other person and give you a lot more of an advantage in combat than a +2 tag. Also see the bit about about player rights. To quote you from the Forcing Realistic Consequences thread "Most people lack consequence tracks partly because they aren't that invested in the fight" and with this stunt you are forcing people to be that invested in the combat no matter if they want to be or not.
-It lets you skip the lower levels of consequence. Not sure exactly why this is a problem.Because normally someone can take multiple lower level consequence instead of a higher level consequence if they don't want to be severely impeded.
-It can inflict extreme consequences. I'm torn on this one. On one hand, you can already do this by taking someone out. On the other hand, extreme consequences should be somewhat sancrosant. Will think about this.Yes, but you have to take someone out to do that, if you give them an extreme consequence in the middle of combat, they might as well already be taken out.
The original idea was to make it possible to deliberately cut a guy's arm off in a fight. I figured it'd be balanced since you pretty much have to take a guy to use it (yes I know I screwed that up by letting it ignore the stress track) which would let you freely inflict consequences anyway.I would suggest you just use Called Shots, it's not perfectly what you want since it's not long term but it is close and not broken. You could even make so Brutality makes it harder to shake off a tag from a called shot.
You can already force consequences on people after taking them out. Even if they weren't invested enough in the fight to take consequences in it. It's dirty pool to stomp a guy's spine in half after beating him in a friendly martial arts competition, but you can totally do it.Yes but people can see when they're going to be taken out and concede before hand. With Brutality the only way to concede before hand is to concede before you get hit.
And it's almost impossible to inflict a consequence that will necessarily be worse than another consequence of the same severity. Compels are in the GM's hands, and they are only broken if he makes them so.If by almost impossible you mean blindingly easy to do then yes. For example a consequence to your primary weapon hand would be worse than one to your off hand, even though they would be the same level.
And a mild and a moderate are actually worse than a severe in the short term, barring compels.Inflicting something as extreme as well an extreme consequence is ripe for all kinds of invoking for effect and compels since quite frankly if they aren't in too much pain to think it would kind of strange. Also, the problem is mainly in the long term, not necessarily the short term since higher consequence take longer to go away.
Also, an extreme consequence impedes a guy no more than a mild, barring compels. So inflicting one doesn't mean you've won.
So I don't take any of those criticisms terribly seriously.
What I do take seriously in the mention of player rights. There's a social contract involved in gaming, and if this violates that then this has gotta go.Called Shots are one of the basic maneuver types. They represent attempts to target attacks at specific parts of a person's body. They allow you to place aspects such as "Hurt Knee" on someone (note these aspects can't be as severe as consequences and the target can roll endurance to shake it off).
I wonder if the playerbase at large feels that it'd be inappropriate to force consequences...
I'm intrigued by this mention of Called Shots. What are those?
PS: It kinda bugs me that you can't deliberately break someone's arm in this game. The guy can always choose to take some other consequence. The only way around this is to take them out, and that shouldn't be a requirement for deliberately injuring someone. Hence the stunt. If someone has a better way to handle this, I'm all ears.
Shield Of Dogma: Was thinking of putting the same restrictions on it as the default Rapport defence. What do you think of that?
Feint: I was thinking of requiring a supplemental action per opponent for each exchange that you want to use this on. That would represent you making an effort to confuse and misdirect them. Would that make it better? What if it had a prerequisite allowing physical blocks with Deceit?
Founded Upon Lies: I don't like this one for a few reasons. One is that aspects are generally equal and should remain that way. Another is that it involves too much bookkeeping. Another is that it might be broken. Another is that it boosts skills other than Deceit. Another is that it can give +2 to attacks. Bottom line, this needs a total rewrite.
Defensive Lies: Was thinking of copying Rapport defence with this one too. Rapport defence is broad, but not quite universal, so it kind of includes its own usage restriction.
Defensive Focus: Yeah, this needs a different restriction. Not sure what sort of restriction, though. Maybe I should just bin it.
Reflexive Shield: I like this one too, but it makes me nervous. Was hoping that someone who had used it would say it was fine.
I'll Just Ignore You: I allow Discipline to defend against Intimidation and some Rapport already. This would expand that to the broadness of Rapport defence, like most of the other social defence stunts on this list. My experience with debating suggests that ignoring someone classily enough can work on an audience.
Tough As Nails: I think the social version from YS only works against tags to boost attacks. So this should be the same.
Clever Wrestling: Yeah, I don't know what I'm going to do with this one.
Mounted Combat: Not a bad idea, but a) my mounted combat rules already allow you to use a Survival attack when running someone down with your horse and b) would rather not transplant multiple skills at once.
Defensive Lies: Was thinking of copying Rapport defence with this one too. Rapport defence is broad, but not quite universal, so it kind of includes its own usage restriction.
I still like my "people who haven't gotten a read on you yet", but if that's too fiddly I don't have a problem with applying the "Rapport defense" solution.
Deceit already allows limited defense through the False Face Forward trapping (against Empathy and Intimidation actions, modified by your Rapport skill; could be interpreted to work against Rapport too.) As such, I think that this stunt should be treated like footwork. Granting it the abilities of a Rapport defense would be perfectly in line with regular guidelines. Putting the "haven't gotten a read on you" requirement on it would make the stunt undercosted.
In case people are curious, here are the mounted combat rules I mentioned: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.msg1050694.html#msg1050694 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.msg1050694.html#msg1050694)
I guess a Deceit-based Dirty Fighter would work, by your description of Dirty Fighter. Where can I find the original Dirty Fighter for comparison?
I think that Clever Wrestler should stay as a penalty. Otherwise, it can either can make being grappled into a good thing. Clever wording could probably fix that, but not elegantly. And it would probably be balanced to make it a flat 2 shifts all the time, if the variable bonus is a problem. So...
Clever Wrestling: You aren't easy to hold down. Treat all grapples that are made against you as though their strength was two shifts lower.
I think I'll probably give Feint a prereq, but before I do so let me ask: can you already make blocks against physical attacks using the Distraction And Misdirection trapping of Deceit?
I've been trying to avoid the problems of the USE MY APEX SKILL TO NOT GET HIT by giving the various physical defense skills interesting and appropriate restrictions. The guy who defends with Endurance is vulnerable to heavy weapons or The Catch, the guy who defends with Weapons is vulnerable to ranged attacks. Another stunt might suffice to remove the limitations, or perhaps not.
Problem is that I can't think of anything interesting and appropriate for Discipline, and that supplemental action thing is all I've got for Deceit.
Shield Of Faith: Your faith protects you from harm, repelling those evil beings that cannot tolerate its power. You may use your Conviction skill instead of your Athletics skill to defend against attacks from characters that have catches related to faith.This is written so that it defends against ranged attacks as well and that makes no sense.
Honestly, anything that produces the old SoF effect needs to be a Power. I really don't care how much you believe something; if there's no mystical something happening, your faith isn't protecting you from gunshots or a pop in the nose. If there is, it's a Power not a Stunt and you're not a Pure Mortal.
PS: @ways and means: No. We've been over this. Powers and stunts are different things. See my previous arguments on this point. Also, USE MY APEX SKILL TO DEFEND is not much less lame as a power.
Conviction as a universal physical defense is actually probably possible without Powers. See the canon stunt Blessed Words. (YS page 150). It lets you block attacks with Conviction. The fluff justification is basically that your saintliness makes people not want to attack you. (Would you punch Gandhi in the face?)
If it's possible to block, it should be possible to defend.
So Conviction Footwork is probably possible. But it should probably require Blessed Words in addition to Shield Of Faith.
Why should Shield Of Faith be limited to melee range? If your faith repels certain creatures within arm's reach, it can probably repel them from 10 feet away too. Or so goes my reasoning.
PS: @ways and means: No. We've been over this. Powers and stunts are different things. See my previous arguments on this point. Also, USE MY APEX SKILL TO DEFEND is not much less lame as a power.
Alright, fine, we can have this debate again.
But not here. This thread has a fairly specific purpose, and I'd rather keep the philosophical debates out of it.
Protector: This could be skinned to work for almost any skill. Might be worth putting a footnote in to such effect. If they want it to work for all skills at once it needs to be one of their aspects and used that way.
Traffic Watcher: Peachy keen, jellybean.
Excellent Mount: Yeah, it was way too broad as written. War Mount is much better.
Weight Training: Looks too broad to me but I don't have any specific reasoning.
Five-Fingered Discount: Looks fine.
You sir beat me to the punch yet again.
What do you see wrong with Weight Training?
Anyway, about Protector: I've actually been considering tagging stunts that could work in other skills. There are a lot of Weapons stunts that'd work in Guns or Fists.
What would people think of little notes at the end of stunt writeups saying (A similar stunt could exist under the X or Y skills.)?
Uncanny Typist might actually be worth adding to the list...I imagine that most Scholarship-based writing rolls would benefit.
People seem to have missed my last post.Shield Of Faith: Your faith protects you from harm, repelling those evil beings that cannot tolerate its power. You may use your Conviction skill instead of your Athletics skill to defend against attacks from characters that have catches related to faith.This is written so that it defends against ranged attacks as well and that makes no sense.
People seem to have missed my last post.
Why should Shield Of Faith be limited to melee range? If your faith repels certain creatures within arm's reach, it can probably repel them from 10 feet away too. Or so goes my reasoning.Not according to the masquerade scene in Grave Peril, the repelling power of Michael's faith was basically limited to melee range when it came to driving creatures back, more than that and they just tended to shy away and beyond a certain point were not effected at all (otherwise the whole ballroom would have basically ground to a halt). Furthermore, faith being able to stop a bullet fired at say a 100 feet away is completely ridiculous.
Not according to the masquerade scene in Grave Peril, the repelling power of Michael's faith was basically limited to melee range when it came to driving creatures back, more than that and they just tended to shy away and beyond a certain point were not effected at all (otherwise the whole ballroom would have basically ground to a halt). Furthermore, faith being able to stop a bullet fired at say a 100 feet away is completely ridiculous.
Shield Of Dogma is pretty similar to I'll Just Ignore You. Is that what you meant?
You might well be right about Disciplined Body, but the stunt is simple and totally in accordance with stunt building guidelines. So I don't want to mess with it too much.
The best solution that occurs to me for that possible problem is to slap a prerequisite on Disciplined Body. That ought to keep the dabbling wizards out.
While Disciplined Body might beat out 1 Refinement for some wizards, I doubt that it and another stunt would beat out 2 Refinements.
Thoughts on what the prereq could be?
Lets not balance stunts against optimized Items Of Power, okay?
Or against powers, for that matter.
A consequence can only be tagged if it was inflicted or discovered by someone else. Do it to yourself while spellcasting and you're home free.
I honestly think that Refinement is stronger than Disciplined Body for the majority of wizards. But is it stronger enough?
Refinement does not grant you stresses or consequences.
Allowing a character to use one skill for everything causes a character to lack depth ..thats boring to me. Also tends to lean toward OP-hood. I think sanctaphrax and I agree that one skill characters can be bad.
I'll grant you that. I just prefer to keep as many skills useful as possible.
There's something about Trained as a Unit that seemed like an attempt to get the benefits of a group-based Aspect without having to worry about getting Compelled. But would requiring a related Aspect (to define what group/Unit you were trained to work in) be too much of a hindrance? I can't see, for example, a Trained Mossad agent being able to gel with a unit of NY S.W.A.T.
Oh, okay.
Well the old version is dead. As you said, it was overpowered.
Any ideas on how to make the new version more worthwhile?
I would make the stunt give a bonus when invoking a teamwork aspects perhaps a +1 if only one player needs the stunt or a +2 if both players need the stunt.^fixed
Oh, okay.
Well, the old version is dead. As you said, it was overpowered.
Any ideas on how to make the new version more worthwhile?
Trained as a Unit: +1 to any skill for the purposes of creating or defending against mauevers,aspects, and/or blocks. In order to gain this bonus the character must be working in tandem with another character with this stunt from the same unit.
One Big Lie: Tell a lie long enough and you begin to believe it. Pick a statement that isn't true. Add two to your Deceit skill when using it to convince someone that that statement is true. Reduce the bonus provided by this stunt to one when it applies to a social or mental attack.
One Big Lie: Tell a lie long enough and you begin to believe it. Pick a statement that isn't true. Add two to your Deceit skill when using it to convince someone that that statement is true. Reduce the bonus provided by this stunt to one when it applies to a social or mental attack.
@Scantaphrax: Well, it just seems odd for it to have reduced effectiveness for attacks when there is a stunt under Deceit that gives a flat +2 to attempts to convince people what you're saying is true if you incorperate some of the truth.
I think effective skill makes more sense than effort not even ambushes reduce your entire roll to zero you have to leave in the luck and fate point modifiers. Its pretty weak as a stunt given that it is twice as easy to increase weapons rating as it is too increase armor but if you want to create a nurfed Endurance defense it works.
weapons and fist are just an attack skill and a weakened defense skill
Well, nobody says you have to take it.
But Storm Of Punches compares very favourably to Blaze Away and Wall Of Death (which are both canonical), so I'm not inclined to buff it.
I suspect that your issue may have more to do with your problems with Fists as a skill than with this stunt.
Fists attacks default to having a weapon rating of 0.Unless modified by Claws, a Strength power, or Natural Weaponry...
Unless modified by Claws, a Strength power, or Natural Weaponry...
I think the good cop and bad cop stunts should be an exception to the standard +1 rules. My reasoning being not only is there a prerequisite stunt, but it is on a different characters sheet. That is a pretty major limiting factor.
Externalized power is a big enough issue to grant the iop rebate.
That's not how it works.Ooops, misread it. :-[
It affects consequences, not things that can be declared. And it gives +2 stress, not +2 to hit.A bonus to stress is functionally increasing the weapon rating and increasing the resultant 'hit'. (Hit being damage not swing.)
More so than other +2 stress stunts?
seem faster.
I could see it being broken if you interpreted it as a +2 to weapons for every consequence tagged
Way Of The Gun was discussed in replies #82, 83, 84, 93, 99, 100, 101, and 102. Have you read those posts? Because if you have, this discussion will be easier and will make more sense.
I agree completely about Prized Possession.
I really dunno what I'm gonna do with the green spellcasting stunts. I really like them, but they're caught halfway between stunt-hood and power-hood.
I really hate the idea of making stunts that mortals can't take. Stunts that mortals have no reason to ever take? Fine. (Though there are such things as common rituals and temporary powers...) But stunts that mortals can't take are not okay.
Anyway, if you have any more ideas for how to deal with them I'm interested.
Thanks much, it's great to hear that.
Sometimes I worry that I'm doing everything wrong but nobody is bothering to point it out.
You may have access to an organization’s resources under certain circumstances; this allows you to roll a different rating than your personal Resources skill. Rolling that way means you’re expending that organization’s resources, not your own.
For example, a consultant for Monoc Securities might decide to acquire a private jet for corporate use. The consultant’s Resources might only be Fair (+2), but in this case the consultant rolls using Monoc’s expense account, rated at Fantastic (+6).
I see both sides of the disagreement about Sponsored Resources.
I propose a compromise solution: mention that, per YS 179, people attached to a Sponsor can already get this benefit, but that using the Stunt makes it a reliable proposition. Maybe recast it as something like "as an employee of an organization, you already have access to their Resources (YS 179), but with this stunt, their faith in you is such that you have a lot more latitude with your requests...[insert rest of text]"
This is not a capability that you can have without a stunt, actually. Using someone else's skill is different from taking Sponsor Debt.The passage I quoted, as I said, says nothing about a stunt, it just says you can do it under certain circumstances. Given that it's in the basic description for the skill itself (not the Stunts section), that seems to say it's something that can be done with the base skill.
Also, Owns A Sword could be a cool stunt if it expanded one's sword-owning beyond the normal level. For example, by letting you have a sword even when it makes no sense for you to have a sword.That'd probably be better as an aspect; in fact, I think the example aspect Always Armed is cited for allowing exactly that, you invoke it to make a declaration that you have a weapon when you shouldn't.
My point wasn't that there's no reason not to buy everything using the organization's resources, my point was that there's no reason to make a character without that capability. You should not be able to make your character stronger by giving him a certain narrative role. In this game at least, there's no right way to play. (Or at least not much of one.)Aspects, and invoking those aspects, can easily make a character stronger, in a given situation, because of their narrative role--that's part of their purpose. That's exactly what I'm proposing here, that you should have an aspect to take advantage of it.
1. The effect of using someone else's money without a stunt is different from the effect of using this stunt.I think that's part of my confusion, because the wording of the stunt basically says that it allows you to use (well, borrow) someone else's money.
3. Aspects are all equal, in theory. So no matter what narrative role you pick, you get equal power out of it. Taking a certain aspect should not be "better" than taking another aspect.In theory, yes, but they're not all similarly applicable. A barbarian warrior with Weapons at 5 and an aspect about their prowess with a weapon in hand can be considered "stronger," in battle, than a barbarian warrior with Weapons at 5, but all his aspects reflecting non-combat abilities.
3. Aspects are all equal, in theory. So no matter what narrative role you pick, you get equal power out of it. Taking a certain aspect should not be "better" than taking another aspect.Aspects matter and they aren't equal in how they affect the narrative. To me that's a Good Thing (TM). Otherwise we could just toss out aspects altogether and simply spend fate points on our "equal power" or bonus.
Huh?
Pretty sure that they're both useless without spellcasting. Worldwalker portals have no real duration, and Glamour wards don't impede visibility as far as I know.
So these end up stepping on the toes of Refinement pretty badly. And they break caps. And they seem so much less interesting/elegant than a Sponsored Magic.
What virtue do you see in them?
Hm. Your loss of enthusiasm is disheartening, even though I was advocating for it.
Not sure what you mean about Channelling: Spirit.
Oh, and the stunts will be collected in the master list thread when this is done. But if you want, I can take 5 minutes to make a dropbox file before then.
Precision Strike guarantees stickiness,This is what Precision strike was meant to do.helps with spin if that rule is in use, and makes it harder to remove the resulting aspect since most people seem to use the maneuver result as the difficulty to counter the maneuver.
Stunts can and do give +2 to entire trappings. It's not even unusual.
The restriction on a stunt bonus can be more or less anything, as long as it prevents the stunt from boosting the skill more than half the time.Except where that flies directly in the face of any reasonable interpretation of the enumerated options, which begin on page 148.
It says so in the Building Mortal Stunts section of YS (page 147). At least, that's the way I read that section.
See above re: example stunts failing to follow the creation guidelines. I was under the impression that this was commonly understood.
Except where that flies directly in the face of any reasonable interpretation of the enumerated options, which begin on page 148.
A broad application of a single trapping being representative of half of all uses of that skill is an anomaly, and that is described as being limited to a +1 bonus.
The only Trappings that I can think of off hand where a moderately restrictive application could exceed half of all uses of that stunt would be in cases such as Fists attacks, a skill that is notably anemic to the point of causing balance issues even in this system.
Sportsman was discussed starting here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29719.msg1265559/topicseen.html#msg1265559). I'm considering ditching it, what do you think?In the absence of a reasonable means to balance this stunt, I see little alternative.
I don't mind if Land On Your Feet provides an unusually large bonus in some cases. I cannot imagine a scenario where resistance to falling damage breaks anything.The problem I see is not an unusually large bonus, but an unusually variable one. A character optimized to make best use of this stunt could conceivably bring in effective bonuses as high as +6 on a relatively regular basis. It is also equally conceivable that a character who does not priororitize athletics but who takes this stunt could reap no benefit whatsoever from using it on a similarly regular basis (as compared to opportunity, not strict frequency).
Spring-Heeled is not strictly better than Mighty Leaps. Mighty Leaps is better when moving past multiple borders at once. And it's useful when mixing jumps into sprint actions. Spring-Heeled lacks those benefits. But I should clear up its wording a bit, now that I look closely.I will reevaluate my position on this stunt when I see the new wording.
I disagree about The §$%& Bastard Will Not Escape. Can't recall a single time this would have been useful in my time playing this game. And I don't mind if the stunt names are a bit aspect-y.I can't recall a single time any of the 'canon' performance stunts would have been worthwhile in my time playing this game. That doesn't mean that I'd advocate substantially increasing their power.
Network Of Informants ties back into what I was saying before.Going to have to be more specific.
I, also, am wary of Religious Contacts. But it's probably not too bad as written. It's pretty narrow, you know?For a game significantly featuring religious organizations, a religiously affiliated character might benefit from this stunt on the vast majority of their contacts rolls.
Soulgaze attacks are rare and not very powerful. A +2 bonus seems fair to me, as an exception.They're generally rare, yes, but only because of their double-edged nature. I'm wary of any stunt that tries to subvert that nature, particularly ones that do so by citing it as cause to be exempted from the standard guidelines.
My impression from reading the canon Doctor stunt is that justifying physical consequence recovery is practically free. Doctor is as good as Scientist even without the recovery justification. And Wizard's Constitution is free anyway. So I figured I could tack it onto Lay On Hands without too much trouble. Although now that I reread it, it can be taken not to give that benefit. Not sure whether to edit.Wizard's Constitution is not a stunt, and should not be used as a comparison in discussions about appropriate stunt benefits.
Bricoleur only boosts Declarations and Assessments.If it didn't apply to all of 'making, breaking, and fixing' (ie. the whole of Craftsmanship) then that would probably be enough of a limitation, too.
Sorry, poor wording on my part. They do not have limiting conditions substantial enough to justify the jump from single trapping to whole (or nearly whole) skill.
Further, upon rereading the 3rd stunt, the benefit given is actually +4 equivalent to 2/3 trappings.Big Pocking Wrench might be a bit weak, but oh well.Big Pocking Wrench's problem isn't being 'a bit weak', but rather 'a bit broad', meaning 'too broad'. To the point of no longer making sense (fixing an integrated circuit with a wrench).There are roughly 103 stunts in YS. I listed 18 of them in my previous post. And there were more marginal examples that I left out.The bullet point guidelines ARE rules text. I would argue that they are the most important part of the rules text, being the most specific.
This is not a few isolated mistakes. This is the dominant paradigm.
The majority of the material on stunts supports my position here. The examples, the rules text, everything except the list of bullet points that gives guidelines for stunt creation.
The beginning of the stunt creation section describes what stunts are capable of doing in very broad terms. Then YS goes on to explain how trapping adding/moving stunts function. Then it goes on to explain in slightly more detailed terms how 'trapping extending' stunts function. Then it lists the effects generally available to such stunts.
[quote author=Sanctaphrax link=topic=29719.msg1381464#msg1381464 date=1334554431Moreover, my position is more sensible from a balance perspective. Not all trappings are created equal, and there are plenty of them that could get a blanket +2 without issue.
PS: 50% is the limit, not the base. I generally aim below that because I know that people will do what they can to use their stunts as much as possible.
In the absence of a reasonable means to balance this stunt, I see little alternative.
The problem I see is not an unusually large bonus, but an unusually variable one. A character optimized to make best use of this stunt could conceivably bring in effective bonuses as high as +6 on a relatively regular basis. It is also equally conceivable that a character who does not priororitize athletics but who takes this stunt could reap no benefit whatsoever from using it on a similarly regular basis (as compared to opportunity, not strict frequency).
I will reevaluate my position on this stunt when I see the new wording.
I can't recall a single time any of the 'canon' performance stunts would have been worthwhile in my time playing this game. That doesn't mean that I'd advocate substantially increasing their power.
Going to have to be more specific.
For a game significantly featuring religious organizations, a religiously affiliated character might benefit from this stunt on the vast majority of their contacts rolls.
They're generally rare, yes, but only because of their double-edged nature. I'm wary of any stunt that tries to subvert that nature, particularly ones that do so by citing it as cause to be exempted from the standard guidelines.
Wizard's Constitution is not a stunt, and should not be used as a comparison in discussions about appropriate stunt benefits.
At the very least, this stunt needs its effects clarified.
If it didn't apply to all of 'making, breaking, and fixing' (ie. the whole of Craftsmanship) then that would probably be enough of a limitation, too.
Big Pocking Wrench's problem isn't being 'a bit weak', but rather 'a bit broad', meaning 'too broad'. To the point of no longer making sense (fixing an integrated circuit with a wrench).
The bullet point guidelines ARE rules text. I would argue that they are the most important part of the rules text, being the most specific.
The beginning of the stunt creation section describes what stunts are capable of doing in very broad terms. Then YS goes on to explain how trapping adding/moving stunts function. Then it goes on to explain in slightly more detailed terms how 'trapping extending' stunts function. Then it lists the effects generally available to such stunts.Moreover, my position is more sensible from a balance perspective. Not all trappings are created equal, and there are plenty of them that could get a blanket +2 without issue.
PS: 50% is the limit, not the base. I generally aim below that because I know that people will do what they can to use their stunts as much as possible.
As I said previously, I am not immovably set against stunts granting bonuses to more than one trapping, or to the whole of a trapping with no meaningful restrction, only against them doing so with no codified and reasoned explanation of when and how they may do so that does not obsolete significant portions of those benefits already codified.
I don't follow. Are you agreeing with me?
I don't see much inconsistency in the list.I certainly do. In the comparative frequency of whole-skill boosting stunts on this list as compared to the YS list, if nothing else.
The stunts universally have whatever arbitrary restriction makes them narrow enough to be acceptable.
I don't think it's possible to protect against people taking bad precedents.
The simple fact is that sometimes it's okay to give +2 a trapping with no condition with no condition and sometimes it isn't. Same goes for conditional whole skill stunts.
People will always write bad stunts. I don't feel as though I can control that. All I can do is write good ones. Or try to, at least.
Benefits can go up for super-narrow conditions or down for broad ones.in light of this:
A stunt gives +2 to a skill under a certain condition. This condition can be anything as long as it applies less than half the time.
Unfortunately, systematic efforts like this one take up a disproportionate amount of my energy, and are often the first to get dropped when I need to prune my relatively frivolous activities.