ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ways and means on June 22, 2011, 11:20:13 AM
-
I have trying to build the most munchkinny incite emotion build too see if it could compete with a Speced Wizard Build this is what I have so far, it isn't quit the speced necromancy build but it can compete with anything other than that. If anyone has any examples of more extreme submeged character builds please fill me in.
Name: Lewis Stevens (Submerged)
High Concept: Scion of Chaos
Trouble: Many Enemies
Aspects: Infuriating Arrogance, Twisted Sense of Humour, Black Hearted Retch, Impulse Control Issues, Child of Chaos
Skills: +5: Intimidate, Atheletics
+4: Discipline, Convcition
+3: Alertness, Performance
+2: Contacts, Resources, Endurance
+1: Scholarship, Lore, Investigation, Surivival, Presence
Powers:
Incite Anger [-4] Range, Potent and Lasting
Incite Crowd [-1] You may use Incite Emotion against multiple targets simultaneously, as per the Spray Attack rules, splitting effort between targets, or, for a -2 penalty, against everyone in the zone you occupy, excluding yourself if you wish. The benefit of this upgrade cannot be used in conjunction with the benefit of At Range.
Emotion Vampire (Rage/Anger) [-1]
Feeding Dependancy (Rage/ Anger) [+1] Affecting
Physical Immunity [-8]
Catch of only against the attacks of people or creatures who are enraged at him (an aspect mentioning him is necessary) [+5]
Stunts:
Infuriate: Scaring people isn’t your forte; seriously pissing them off, on the other hand, is right up your alley. Gain +2 to any roll when deliberately trying to get someone angry with you (a social or mental attack or a maneuver with such a goal). Any consequences (such as grudges) or temporary aspects that result must name you as the source and target of the anger.
Refresh Modifier [-9]
Total Refresh [+1]
-
sill not even close to a wizard.
Wizards first of all defend against that kind of attack with discipline, which means even if the vampire starts combat with the wizard, he/she will probably not take any consequences and could avoid a maneuver aspect.
Then the wizard could 1 shot this vampire.
So.... not a very munhkin-y build.
-
sill not even close to a wizard.
Wizards first of all defend against that kind of attack with discipline, which means even if the vampire starts combat with the wizard, he/she will probably not take any consequences and could avoid a maneuver aspect.
Then the wizard could 1 shot this vampire.
So.... not a very munhkin-y build.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Incite Emotion add +2 to the relevant skill when being used for a maneuver? Combined with the stunt, that puts the Intimidate attack at +9. Even with a Superb Discipline, a wizard's going to have a hell of a time avoiding a maneuver put in place by this vampire. I was under the impression that wizards got ridiculous by layering specializations and focus items to achieve ridiculous control rolls, none of which would apply on the Discipline roll to defend against Incite Emotion.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Incite Emotion add +2 to the relevant skill when being used for a maneuver?
That's right, and even if he attacks instead of maneuvers, that +2 from the stunt* combined with the weapon 4 from lasting and potent makes the odds of landing a consequence pretty good.
*Said stunt is complete BS and should never be allowed.
-
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Incite Emotion add +2 to the relevant skill when being used for a maneuver? Combined with the stunt, that puts the Intimidate attack at +9. Even with a Superb Discipline, a wizard's going to have a hell of a time avoiding a maneuver put in place by this vampire. I was under the impression that wizards got ridiculous by layering specializations and focus items to achieve ridiculous control rolls, none of which would apply on the Discipline roll to defend against Incite Emotion.
A defense roll + 1 or 2 fate chips is really not that bad for one defense and 1 one shot.
The weakness of the character written above is that he is a glass cannon. Without getting the drop on someone and getting off that first maneuver, he is all glass and no cannon.
A /bad/ sniper could take him out in one shot.
-
It's a clever build. Not totally certain if that stunt would really be valid by RAW for use with Incite Emotion, though. Also, I'd probably never allow this build as a GM, simply because it's so clearly abusive of the rules.
That said, whether or not it stands up to an Evocation-specialized Wizard or Focused Practitioner pretty much comes down to rocket tag. If Mr. Rage succeeds on his initial maneuver, he's invincible (sort of). Of course, the wizard still has a much more versatile set of powers. For example, an earth mage could just open up a pit under this guy and seal him in.
-
It's a clever build. Not totally certain if that stunt would really be valid by RAW for use with Incite Emotion, though. Also, I'd probably never allow this build as a GM, simply because it's so clearly abusive of the rules.
That said, whether or not it stands up to an Evocation-specialized Wizard or Focused Practitioner pretty much comes down to rocket tag. If Mr. Rage succeeds on his initial maneuver, he's invincible (sort of). Of course, the wizard still has a much more versatile set of powers. For example, an earth mage could just open up a pit under this guy and seal him in.
An air mage could just steal his air.
A spirit mage could attack his mind directly.
So... yeah. If we want to see min/maxed characters, we should let Belial666 take a crack at it. :P
-
Well this guy and a wizard are likely to only have about one fate point each when the square off, so using fate to boost their rolls is a wash. Now if this guy faces a pure mortal with a shotgun, he's in trouble.
-
Well this guy and a wizard are likely to only have about one fate point each when the square off, so using fate to boost their rolls is a wash. Now if this guy faces a pure mortal with a shotgun, he's in trouble.
A wizard only has 1 fate point if they play with a crappy GM who never compels.
-
A wizard only has 1 fate point if they play with a crappy GM who never compels.
I don't think that's being fair to the nature of the proposed duel. If we assume that the wizard had enough time to rack up some fate points above his base refresh, why wouldn't the vampire have done the same?
I would echo the sentiment of rocket tag. He who goes first, wins. I don't think that there's any real chance, given equal fate point access, that any wizard could avoid an attack by this character, and this character would obviously get rolled by an appropriately cheesy wizard if the situation were reversed.
-
I don't think that's being fair to the nature of the proposed duel. If we assume that the wizard had enough time to rack up some fate points above his base refresh, why wouldn't the vampire have done the same?
I would echo the sentiment of rocket tag. He who goes first, wins. I don't think that there's any real chance, given equal fate point access, that any wizard could avoid an attack by this character, and this character would obviously get rolled by an appropriately cheesy wizard if the situation were reversed.
Depending on the game, the wizard could use a reactive evocation spirit block against vampire mojo too. I would allow it.
-
Depending on the game, the wizard could use a reactive evocation spirit block against vampire mojo too. I would allow it.
Yes, if the game in question uses house-rules that substantially increase the power of practitioners, then this guy is screwed (unless it also uses house-rules that comparably increase his power).
-
He needs a stunt where he uses his Intimidate as a defense to be truly abusive. Although, that Physical immunity is right up there with the munchkinism!
Why take spray on incite instead of Zone?
Also, if you are looking for abusive bonuses, you need Marked by Power for the +1 to social attacks to those who recognize him.
The big problem he has is simply getting off the first shot. A wizard will be able to veil themselves, or shield, or magically transport themselves.
I would go with a night-terror combo. High stealth, cloak of shadows, jump out of the darkness and go "boo!"
-
Oh, and this might be a minor issue, but that Physical immunity power will cause a LOT of hunger stress. As an 8 strength attack against your 4 discipline.
-
With the +5 catch, it would only be a 3-point power.
-
Oh, and this might be a minor issue, but that Physical immunity power will cause a LOT of hunger stress. As an 8 strength attack against your 4 discipline.
Something tells me this guy wouldn't be too worried about over feeding on people.
-
It's a clever build. Not totally certain if that stunt would really be valid by RAW for use with Incite Emotion, though. Also, I'd probably never allow this build as a GM, simply because it's so clearly abusive of the rules.
That said, whether or not it stands up to an Evocation-specialized Wizard or Focused Practitioner pretty much comes down to rocket tag. If Mr. Rage succeeds on his initial maneuver, he's invincible (sort of). Of course, the wizard still has a much more versatile set of powers. For example, an earth mage could just open up a pit under this guy and seal him in.
The stunts directly from the core book I didn't make it up for the build. A stunt which gives a +2 to mental attacks aimed at enraging people seems to almost be meant for incite emotion, there are very few ways to do mental damage so I have to assume the stunt was made knowing that it would probably be used with incite emotion.
"Gain +2 to any roll when deliberately trying to get someone angry with you".
The reason the build is munchkiny IMO is that it uses physical immunity to directly remove the only real penalty of this stunt which is that using it will lead to you getting attacked a lot but then you could argue that if you let anyone live you are also going to deal with the grudges that your actions cause.
This is definatly the best aggro build becuase the character could compel for effect his enemies to attack only him leaving the rest of the party unmolested.
-
It reminds me of the old Magic: the Gathering trick of placing Lure and Regeneration on a Thicket Basilisk.
-
With the +5 catch, it would only be a 3-point power.
No, because when a vampire uses recovery or toughness, it still triggers feeding dependancy based on the power, not based on the refresh cost.
-
No, because when a vampire uses recovery or toughness, it still triggers feeding dependancy based on the power, not based on the refresh cost.
It does? Where does it say that in the text?
-
This manifests as
an attack with a strength equal to the total
refresh cost of the abilities you used
Toughness, Recovery, and Immunity are written in such a way as to actually be separate powers from The Catch.
So, at best, it could be argued that if someone bypasses your Toughness power (Immunity included) via your Catch, that you could claim the rebate in your Feeding Dependency roll.
-
I would disagree with that interpretation of it, since The Catch is inherently useless without a corresponding toughness power.
-
And yet that's how it's written.
Toughness abilities require you to define the
circumstances under which the ability is effective—
this is represented by a stunt attached
to your toughness abilities called the Catch,
defined below.
Houserule as you will.
-
And yet that's how it's written.
Houserule as you will.
Since it's defining the circumstances under which they're effective, rather than ineffective, the catch stunt gets used whenever your abilities actually work.
-
Since it's defining the circumstances under which they're effective, rather than ineffective, the catch stunt gets used whenever your abilities actually work.
Unfortunately, that's not actually how The Catch is written.
The Catch. You must specify something that
bypasses your Toughness abilities.
-
Toughness, Recovery, and Immunity are written in such a way as to actually be separate powers from The Catch.
So, at best, it could be argued that if someone bypasses your Toughness power (Immunity included) via your Catch, that you could claim the rebate in your Feeding Dependency roll.
Since both are always on, you're comparing every hit against the Catch...it's still there whether in play or not as is the toughness power. Deciding otherwise leaves you with the absurdity of having a bonus to your hunger roll if the only damage you took was Catch qualified. "I was almost killed by the Cross wielding lunatic so I get a +3 to my Hunger roll..."
If you're really tied to RAW, remember YS308 - "...intent precedes mechanics."
-
I really fall on the side where the Catch does reduce what you have to resist for feeding damage, but, looking over the inline example in Feeding Dependency, I gotta say there are reasons to go with Tedronai's interpretation.
For example, if you used Inhuman Strength and Inhuman Toughness in the scene, that’s a total of 4 refresh, so you’d be rolling your Discipline to meet or beat a target of 4.
Seeing as Feeding Dependency itself attaches to powers in the same way that the Catch does to Toughness powers and there's no argument over whether it reduces the amount of refresh you resist against, I'd actually think that it works the same way for Toughness. Once again, in the inline example, it didn't use the whole Toughness suite as the refresh total - it only used your specific powers within it that were used.
I'd say a hit through your Catch means you don't use whatever Toughness power, so really it's reducing the threshold by the total amount of your Toughness powers. However, if you were hit - even once - by an attack that your Toughness power was effective against, then you would have to resist against it's full value.
LIKE I SAID, I personally tend towards the Catch reduces, but it's pretty open to interpretation.
-
If you're really tied to RAW, remember YS308 - "...intent precedes mechanics."
I've made no argument as to the appropriateness of the RAW in this case, and would be quite sympathetic to houserules allowing The Catch to reduce the hunger attack. Houseruling such things is well embraced by the system. Just remember that that's what it is.
-
But when you use Physical immunity, you are using the full 8 points of its effect. If it blocks a 6 weapon attack or just a 1 weapon attack, it is still completely blocking the attack.
Yes, if someone uses the Catch, you don't activate the feeding dependency. But if you ARE using the power you are using the full 8 points of it.
-
Yes. My point was you use both toughness power and the catch every time.
Whether the catch is met or not, you check it. Whether damage is affected by toughness or not, you check it. Consider it a box in a flow chart or an attribute check in a script. It's done every time. Unless of course you're simply randomly deciding when toughness and catch apply.
Whether or not they're separate powers is moot.
-
I suspect the real solution is to not allow anyone to tie Physical Immunity (no matter the Catch) to a Feeding Dependency.
-
I suspect the real solution is to not allow anyone to tie Physical Immunity (no matter the Catch) to a Feeding Dependency.
Then what about regular recover/toughness powers? The same issue would apply to them.
-
It's not entirely clear whether or not the Catch reduces the feeding dependency hit. However, I would rule that it does not, and feel that the following support this interpretation:
1) The example given in Feeding Dependency is "For example, if you used Inhuman Strength and Inhuman Toughness in the scene, that’s a total of 4 refresh". It doesn't even consider what the Catch for that Toughness power is.
2) How would you handle a case in which you have, say, Inhuman Toughness, Inhuman Recovery, and a +3 Catch attached to the two? If you only use Toughness, do you take a 1 point hit or a 0 point hit? Or if I have Supernatural or Mythic Toughness, but voluntarily downgrade it to below the Catch value?
3) Powers in the book seem to always be referred to as Power [-?], even when simply mentioning the power. This implies that the power and the value are associated.
I did find a good counter-argument, by the way. It seems that every other [+?] power in the game uses words like "you regain ? refresh". The Catch, uniquely, uses words like "discount on the total cost" and "reduce the total cost".
-
It reminds me of the old Magic: the Gathering trick of placing Lure and Regeneration on a Thicket Basilisk.
And if you're playing with a blue/green deck, you enchant the little bugger with Flight, and sit back and enjoy the show.
-
2) How would you handle a case in which you have, say, Inhuman Toughness, Inhuman Recovery, and a +3 Catch attached to the two? If you only use Toughness, do you take a 1 point hit or a 0 point hit? Or if I have Supernatural or Mythic Toughness, but voluntarily downgrade it to below the Catch value?
I would say 1-point - treating the whole suite of toughness powers that you have as one power is one way to rationalize it - the other is to say that, like many other things, you can't reduce the cost of a power to 0 for any particular application. Now, granted, that means if you use both, you're still only resisting a 1-point, but that's how power reduction works, really.