ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: jb.teller4 on August 01, 2011, 07:43:33 PM
-
I apologize if this has already been addressed (I tried searching and didn't find anything, but it might just be that my search-fu is weak or I just wasn't thinking of the right search criteria).
In the Dresden Files campaign I finished a couple months ago (here (http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/welcome-to-las-vegas)), one of the characters was a wizard built to do tons of evocation damage. That was fine. But in play he consistently did obscene amounts of damage with Evocation (upwards of 20 stress on more than one occasion) and it felt broken. After talking about it for a bit, it came down to the fact that every fate point he spent on his casting roll effectively became +4 damage, instead of just +2 damage.
Has anyone else run into this? I explain in detail below what was happening, as well as the house rule I made for the rest of that campaign. I'm curious if either someone can point out where we were making a mistake or else comment on the house rule I made and/or what they've done in the same situation.
What Was Happening: The Discipline roll used in casting serves two functions -- controlling the spell and hitting the target. Therefore, any invocation or tag that is used on the casting roll gives a +2 to both. If you plan on invoking and/or tagging on the roll, then you can up the Power of the spell (as long as you can afford the Mental Stress), which increases the damage of the Evocation attack. The +2 from the invoke/tag also adds to your targeting roll, which adds damage 1-for-1 if you exceed their defense roll.
Now, this player loves to be compelled and often has a decent pile of fate points, despite being a low-refresh wizard (also, he tended to save his fate points for fights for expressly this purpose). So when he got into an important fight, he'd plan on pouring at least 3 fate points into the first spell he cast (and he used an Enchanted Item for his main defense, so he was able to jump straight to the blasting).
The amount of damage he would do was unbelievable (he wiped out at least one tough opponent with Supernatural Toughness completely in one hit). He had a Superb (+5) Conviction, which increased to +7 Power for offensive Evocation in his favored element with specializations and focus items. He would plan on taking a Minor consequence and fill in his last Stress box (expecting, usually accurately, to one-shot them), so he'd set the Power of the first spell at 14. Meanwhile, he had a Superb (+5) Discipline, increased to +8 Control with specializations and focus items. He'd then spend 3 fate points on invocations for +6 to his roll (he might spend a little more or less after he saw his roll and the enemy's defense roll), which was enough to control the 14 Power spell unless he rolled really badly (and even a terrible roll only meant a couple shifts of failure). So, on several occasions, he rolled 14+ on his attack roll (so no enemy ever even came close to dodging) and then he did around 14 (targeting roll) +14 (spell Power) - (the opponent's defense roll) - (armor). Even a good dodge combined with good armor let tons of damage through. I know he did over 20 stress of damage at least twice in the campaign. Even if he didn't kill them, they were so fried with Consequences that they were finished off quickly by the rest of the party.
House Rule: It's very possible that I was doing something wrong above or that the book addresses this issue, but if it does I couldn't find it. So I made the following house rule for the rest of the campaign:
- Any invokes or tags used for Evocation casting had to be applied to Control or Targeting, not both.
The logic I gave was that it was effectively two rolls combined for speed and simplicity and that applying the invocation to both was getting double the bonus (and conversely, only getting to apply the invocation to one wasn't in any way being "robbed"). The player was cool with this. It significantly lowered how much damage he did, but he was still the heaviest hitter in the group. It did add a little complexity and he had to keep track of which side he had chosen for any invocations or tags, but it wasn't bad.
(Note: The player intentionally set his character up to be a frighteningly powerful loose-cannon type and was quite cheerfully open about the fact that he was pushing the system and power-gaming as much as he could. Having a Superb (+5) in both Conviction and Discipline and then focusing his specializations and focus items into offensive Evocation were just two examples.)
Anyway, thoughts? comments?
-John B.
-
Yes, you were playing by the rules as written.
Yes, casters can do god-awful amounts of damage.
Yes, that house rule is a valid, mild nerf to channeling/evocation. If the players are cool with it, and it improves your game, keep it.
EDIT: A similar house rule that can be applied instead of or alongside that rule would be this: Focus Items and Specializations that improve control apply only to controlling shifts of power, not targeting. END EDIT.
Now, some comments:
* He was willing to take a consequence to pull off these shots. That means he can't do this more than once, maybe twice in a single fight. Also, remember that consequences, even mild, don't go away until after you 'justify recovery', which for mental consequences may require rest, seeing a therapist, etc. etc. So, he may not even be able to pull this off in two consecutive fights if his consequences haven't gone away yet.
* His tactic is far less effective against certain types of enemies or enemy groups, specifically Mortals (risk of killing them and breaking 1st law, much discussed elsewhere on this forum), Ogres and others with resistance/immunity to direct magical assault, and large groups of enemies spread out across multiple zones (even an AOE, which is 2 shifts weaker, may only harm some of the opposing forces).
* Throwing around that much power is ripe for fallout or compels on collateral damage.
* He's spent refresh, fate points, skill points, and consequences on being able to pull this off (pretty much every resource a character HAS at the game-mechanic level). He deserves to get something for that. Whether it's disproportional or not is up to you and him to determine, though.
-
Thanks EdgeofDreams, those are fair points and exactly the kind of thoughts I'm looking for.
When we were discussing it as a group, the consensus was similar to what you said: That he should do a lot of damage because it was what he was focused on and he was spending a lot of fate points and a consequence (though even without the consequence he was doing a lot of damage). But there was a sense among at least some of the group that it was still just too much damage, even for the resources expended (both during character creation and in the scene). Since the player in question didn't mind the nerf, we went for it.
(This player admitted a couple times that he purposefully pushes the limits and he expects to be told no at some point -- he figures the best way to find the limits is to push past them and get pulled back.)
-John B.
-
(This player admitted a couple times that he purposefully pushes the limits and he expects to be told no at some point -- he figures the best way to find the limits is to push past them and get pulled back.)
Sounds like you've got one of the best kinds of power gamers you could hope for - the kind that's self-aware and doesn't want to ruin the game for anyone else.
-
How does he do in Social combat? How about Mental? Perhaps the group is relying on physical combat too heavily, if the Wizard is overshadowing them too much. Maybe something more subtle should be required of them. Also, are the aspects he's invoking all from himself, or is he also using aspects from he scene and/or targets? If he's self-powering that much all the time, perhaps his aspects are too combat-oriented, and don't define his character as well as they should?
The house rule is OK, but giving the character a good challenge may result in a more fun game, as well.
Fighting in an area with a Thaumaturgic ward against magic may take the wind out of his sails and have him rely on his teammates a little more. Or in a torrential downpour(running water). There are ways of skirting the issue of his character build while still creating a great story.
-
This... actually explains some of the issues I've been having. A lot of the questions I've been asking on this forum, people come back with "wizards are too powerful as is, leave them be"... often quite passionately. I didn't quite understand until now...
Cause, see... in our game, apparently I've been doing something very critical very wrong... and with this as the alternative, I may opt keep doing it wrong.
I've been giving my wizard extra shifts of damage based on how well their control roll does against the higher of Spell DC and Target DC...
IE, if they barely manage to control a high-power spell, they haven't been getting any bonus damage. Even if the target had low defenses and they hit very well.
Which means... I haven't had this problem yet.
I need to think about this a while.
-
I've been giving my wizard extra shifts of damage based on how well their control roll does against the higher of Spell DC and Target DC...
IE, if they barely manage to control a high-power spell, they haven't been getting any bonus damage. Even if the target had low defenses and they hit very well.
Huh. I think that's a lot more elegant than my house rule (which involves keeping track of which part of the roll you apply invokes/tags to) and it addresses the "double-dipping" issue so each fate point only adds +2 shifts of damage instead of +4.
I'm going to think about that a bit more...
-John B.
-
@computerking, good points. He was actually okay at social conflicts (and is the kind of character who enjoys getting himself in trouble, so he tended to be fairly central in many social scenes, too, even if it largely consisted of him getting himself compelled and causing the rest of the group to groan and smile at the same time). The issue wasn't ever that we weren't having fun. As much as anything else, it felt weird that he could do so much damage--like it didn't fit the feel of the world and campaign otherwise. Plus, at least one of the other characters was also a physical-combat focused character and was definitely very overshadowed in that niche (as well as being less versatile in other areas).
Ironically, the problem was made worse precisely because we didn't focus on combat. Almost every combat that came up went like this: This wizard went first (he had an enchanted item that basically let him use his Lore for Initiative 3 times a session, which more than covered every turn of combat in an average session). He fried the main bad guy in one shot (or, on one occasion, fried several bad guys in one shot after splitting the attack), or if he didn't, they were so weakened that the other characters mopped them up in an almost desultory fashion. Therefore almost every fight, even against villains that were meant to be scary, ended with the smell of scorched flesh and the enemy never even getting a single blow or spell off. This also completely negated the weakness of wizards, which is that they have a limited number of spells before they're tapped out.
In contrast, there was a fight against an Outsider that had complete immunity to magic and it was by far the most interesting and tense fight of the campaign and let the other combat character (a werebear) shine.
So, basically, one character consistently ending the fight in one roll wasn't as much fun and we didn't get in enough fights for me to ever get the balance right (the campaign's been over for a couple months now).
-
There's a way to deal with this sort of things story-wise too.
Suppose a Big Bad Guy shows up early-on instead of at the climax. First off, the Wizard probably won't have a lot of FP's to throw around for Invoking Aspects. That alone could stretch the conflict a little longer. Maybe hit 'em with a Compel to make it even more interesting. And if the Wizard's willing to take a Consequence to boost an Evocation, well, it'll probably be there for the rest of the story, ready to be Compelled.
My players have been a tad gun-shy when it comes to Evocations, so I haven't seen this issue crop up in my game.
-
Fate Points in general spent for combat are just crazy. I have a Pure Mortal character in my game... he has 3 stunts and 9 fate points... tonight he told an big gruff not to start a fight in the middle of the street (not the elder gruff but the big ones right before him)... the gruff did not listen an smacked at the Champion of God for retribution for one of his brothers... he stabbed him with iron knife for a 2-stress attack in response, the Gruff turned on him and told him that he would dance with the little mortal, and so the character pulled out his .44 revolver and tagged every one of his aspects using 5 fate points... his guns is +5, +12 for aspects, and +2 roll... 19-effort attack vs the gruffs +2-effort defense roll... 20-stress damage from a Pure Mortal!!!... all my PCs fear the Pure Mortal because of the amount of Fate Points he has...
-
Link is broken. You have http:// twice and unnecessary quotation marks.
Nonetheless, I was able to find my way to the appropriate page.
Alois has 4 refresh worth of powers and his two highest skills dedicated to pure offensive power. That's a lot of punch. Your problem may simply have been that his character was far more focused on doing damage than the rest of the party.
None of the non-wizard characters seem to have been designed to do damage. Also, some of them are Submerged and others are Feet In The Water. What's up with that?
Addressing the actual topic next post.
PS: Alois isn't actually very powergame-y in my humble opinion.
-
Personally, I think that the system was probably working as intended in your game. FP are powerful, wizards are walking artillery, put them together and boom.
(Plus, you can always summon extra shifts of power without FP. As long as you don't mind backlash, that is.)
If you don't like that, your houserule sounds reasonable. So does Redthorn's (although I don't know how he/she handles cases where the caster takes backlash), so does the one about foci and specializations that seems to belong to no-one in particular.
It's a nerf, but maybe a justified one.
Anyway, it sounds like you have an interesting player on your hands. I have someone similar in my PbP, who goes by the name of Belial666. I hope he shows up here, it's usually fun to see his ideas for munchkinry.
Except for when they involve Orbius.
PS: I really should add this to my list of house rules. Posting this to convince myself to do it.
PPS: I have to wonder why the guy without Speed was going first. Did you never fight anything supernaturally fast?
PPPS: I question the balance of that initiative-boosting enchanted item more than I do those evocations.
-
The biggest problem I see is that those characters (the wizard as well the pure mortal) are build so that they can invoke lots of their aspects at once in combat. What are they exactly? War-hardened lunatics who can't think of anything else than killing? I think either their characters are too much focused on fighting - in which case the GM should oppose such an agglomeration of fighting-related aspects - or the fighting scenes are too much fitting for the use of their aspects. In this case, I as a GM would try to build fighting scenes where more of thier aspects could be used to their disadvantage.
Maybe that's responding to power gaming with power gaming, so the first option would be the better fit, I think... ::)
-
Well, as far as how much is too much, consider Harry Dresden's sample sheet in Your Story, which reflects his character around the time of Storm Front.
His Aspects:
Wizard Private Eye (High Concept)
The Temptation Of Power (Trouble)
My Mother's Silver Pentacle
Chivalry Is Not Dead, Dammit
Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger
Epic Wiseass
Perpetually Broke
It's worth noting that Harry's not optimized for combat evocation, and yet, 4 of 7 of his aspects could be used to boost combat evocation pretty routinely, and two more in certain circumstances (Chivalry and Wiseass). The only one of his aspects I can't see being used to boost combat evocation is Perpetually Broke, but that one's pretty obviously there as compel-bait.
High concept is always invokable whenever you are using supernatural powers--it's the perk of the requirement that your powers must always fit within your high concept (see sidebar on YS158). Trouble is often invokable, and it often makes sense for powerful characters to have Trouble Aspects that reflect the downsides of being powerful (like Harry's The Temptation of Power). I'd actually recommend that any spellcaster have one regular Aspect that illustrates their personal approach to magic--Harry's is Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger, while Molly's is Subtlety Is Its Own Power. (See the Blind Spots sidebar on YS179, generally.) Harry's got a second one, My Mother's Silver Pentacle, which is tied both to the named item and to its representation of his faith in magic as a force for good.
All of the above only considers permanent Aspects on your character sheet. Spellcasting characters with access to Thaumaturgy or Ritual (Crafting/Prefixmancy) can create potions or enchanted items that give them temporary Aspects with a free tag included to further boost their effectiveness. If those temporary Aspects are sticky, they can be a second place to dump FPs. Characters can also use NGMs, which again, can be sticky.
My understanding is that the limiting factor is far more often the number of FPs a character has available, rather than the number of viable Aspects, assuming that the relevant roll is within their area of competence. If a player sets his character up to be compelled right and left, and then burns the resulting FPs at a critical moment, he's...using the game mechanics in a very standard fashion.
-
Well, as far as how much is too much, consider Harry Dresden's sample sheet in Your Story, which reflects his character around the time of Storm Front.
His Aspects:
Wizard Private Eye (High Concept)
The Temptation Of Power (Trouble)
My Mother's Silver Pentacle
Chivalry Is Not Dead, Dammit
Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger
Epic Wiseass
Perpetually Broke
It's worth noting that Harry's not optimized for combat evocation, and yet, 4 of 7 of his aspects could be used to boost combat evocation pretty routinely, and two more in certain circumstances (Chivalry and Wiseass). The only one of his aspects I can't see being used to boost combat evocation is Perpetually Broke, but that one's pretty obviously there as compel-bait.
High concept is always invokable whenever you are using supernatural powers--it's the perk of the requirement that your powers must always fit within your high concept (see sidebar on YS158). Trouble is often invokable, and it often makes sense for powerful characters to have Trouble Aspects that reflect the downsides of being powerful (like Harry's The Temptation of Power). I'd actually recommend that any spellcaster have one regular Aspect that illustrates their personal approach to magic--Harry's is Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger, while Molly's is Subtlety Is Its Own Power. (See the Blind Spots sidebar on YS179, generally.) Harry's got a second one, My Mother's Silver Pentacle, which is tied both to the named item and to its representation of his faith in magic as a force for good.
I think you are stretching things a bit with those aspects, but I will immediately admit I haven't had any real playing experience with the game yet. His High Concept, granted, will allow you to boost magic, but why would it be combat magic? He's a private eye, wouldn't that be more applicable to tracking spells and the like? Or would you reason "I'm on a job and you are in my way, so I'll blast ya!"? Perhaps I am thinking of the High Concept in the wrong way, but it seems excessive to say: there's the word wizard in my High Concept, so I can get +2 to everything that has to do with magic, if I want to.
Tempation of Power would work if he was going above and beyond the laws, or if he's stretching them. He couldn't just use it for any spell, I'd imagine. He might be tempted to blast that annoying lady in front of him at the check out, but how would that tempt him towards more power? In the same line of reasoning, how would killing a troll, for example, tempt his darker side? I just read the graphic novels of Storm Front and in it is grandly illustrated how Harry is tempted by all the ambient dark powers around Sells' house (a GM compel), but then his pentacle reminded him of the type of magic he stood for and he resisted (buying of the compel, related to his pentacle aspect, perhaps).
My Mother's Silver Pentacle is really a stretch for combat magic of most kinds, unless he uses it to channel his 'faith' in magic, as he does against vampires. Even more so, Harry believes magic comes from the force of life, so that would not stroke with regularly blasting things to bits.
Chivalry Is Not Dead, Dammit is IMHO a far more applicable aspect for combat. Either to save or avenge the lady, to protect others from the harm any supernatural nasty might present. This, like Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger sound like the go-to's amongst his aspects for combat.
Now, I will grant you that the idea of aspects is to come up with interesting ways to use them to your advantage, as the GM will seek interesting ways to compel them. "So you want to summon a gentle wind, eh? Too bad you are Not So Subtle, isn't it?"
-
I'm not going to comment much, there's lots of good thoughts here already.
There is one thing i'd like to point out. Just in case it's not simply a typo.
[...]+7 Power for offensive Evocation in his favored element with specializations and focus items. He would plan on taking a Minor consequence and fill in his last Stress box (expecting, usually accurately, to one-shot them), so he'd set the Power of the first spell at 14.[...]
Base Power of 7, increased to 14 means 8 Stress from casting. One Mild consequence would not be enough to manage that.
-
About the OP's question: I am always of mind that when players do things in a similar fashion too much, they will eventually meet up with someone or something that negates that particular habit of theirs. As suggested, this wizard might be coming up against an Ogre and your own Outsider are such examples. And, of course, mortals, what better than to throw a few flunkies in the mix, in the way of the wizard's blasts. Bring the meaning of 'living shield' up to a whole new level :)
Or you could follow the 'mantra' of the novels, as was also suggested, throw out a big fight early on, or several smaller ones. Stretch the players a bit and have them face the big bad in a worse-for-wear state, as Harry often does. You don't have to do this all the time, but just often enough to remind them to use their minds creatively.
-
Thanks for all the comments, everyone. Some very good points. They'll be very helpful next time I run a Dresden campaign with evocation or channeling.
Link is broken. You have http:// twice and unnecessary quotation marks.
Thanks. It should be fixed now.
Also, some of them are Submerged and others are Feet In The Water. What's up with that?
Well, it's not directly related to the post's question, but there were two separate sets of characters who did not directly interact (until the very end, and even then it was limited). So the Submerged characters were all together in one party and the Feet in the Water characters were all together in a separate party. It was basically two interwoven campaigns around the same central themes and threats. I think that the main Wiki page explains more what we did.
PPS: I have to wonder why the guy without Speed was going first. Did you never fight anything supernaturally fast?
PPPS: I question the balance of that initiative-boosting enchanted item more than I do those evocations.
Well, that's embarrassing--I think I'm going senile at an early age. I looked at Alois'character sheet and he doesn't have any Initiative boost... the enchanted item I was thinking of is actually for physical defense. So he wasn't going first. It's weird what memory does sometimes... Still, his evocation uber-blasts dominated every fight he was in, except for the Outsider fight.
There is one thing I'd like to point out. Just in case it's not simply a typo. Base Power of 7, increased to 14 means 8 Stress from casting. One Mild consequence would not be enough to manage that.
Yeah, it was a typo -- he actually had a base Power of 8, and a base Control of 7, so I mixed those two up. Thanks.
Or you could follow the 'mantra' of the novels, as was also suggested, throw out a big fight early on, or several smaller ones. Stretch the players a bit and have them face the big bad in a worse-for-wear state, as Harry often does. You don't have to do this all the time, but just often enough to remind them to use their minds creatively.
That's a good idea and I didn't use it as much as I wanted to. Because we weren't doing a combat focused campaign, one fight per session was usually all I threw in. And I didn't push them as hard as I should have (or the novels would have) so they got recovery time between pretty much every conflict until the climax.
In the two-session climax (which I haven't written up on the campaign wiki yet), there was a series of back-to-back fights, chases, and other conflicts--basically Alois snuck and ran through a full-blown Wild Hunt in progress to get to a Red Court stronghold, which he proceeded to wipe out (though not without getting hurt and tired). He knew it was coming and he played more conservatively with an eye towards stretching out his resources (fate points and Mental stress/consequences).
I used mortals in the climx, too (the Red Court stronghold was a night club full of people).
(I'd also instituted the hosue rule above before the climax sessions, so I can't say for sure if it would have been any different if we were using RAW...).
-John B.
-
[Y]our houserule sounds reasonable. So does Redthorn's (although I don't know how he/she handles cases where the caster takes backlash), so does the one about foci and specializations that seems to belong to no-one in particular.
If I'm understanding Redthorn's rule variation and your question correctly, it should still work just fine.
First, if you roll high enough to hit the target (i.e. tie or beat their defense roll), then you hit them, regardless of what happens with the attempt to Control the Power of the spell.
Next, attempting to control the Power of the spell is resolved as RAW--if you fail to meet or beat the Power, then you choose Backlash or Fallout. If you choose Backlash, you take damage but the spells goes off at full power. If you choose Fallout, then the Power (and thus the damage) of the spell decrease, plus there is unintended fallout.
The only difference is that if the Power of the spell is higher than the target's defense roll, then you have to roll higher before you start getting extra shifts of damage, so you'll get less overall.
Is that what you're asking, Sanctaphrax, or am I misunderstanding?
-John B.
-
I like leaving evocations fine as-is.
A good GM can find many, many ways to make a PC think twice before putting everything they have into one evocation.
Also keep in mind that if a wizard takes consequences to make a truly huge evocation (I used to do this), they've "used up" consequences that they could have used for physical stress.
Everything is a give and take in this system.
-
Yeah, it was a typo -- he actually had a base Power of 8, and a base Control of 7, so I mixed those two up. Thanks.
Still not enough for a mild consequence to do it (14 shifts - 8 power = 7 stress of overcharge - 2 mild = 5 = taken out).
As for me and mine... the thing I'm worried about is that the way I've been playing it... there's really no perk to having a higher power rating (higher conviction means more stress available, but higher power... useless).
ie- if I have a Power 8 Control 8 wizard built... and cast the same damage spell 2ce, with the same roll...
first time with 8 power against a target dummy with no defense or armor, roll +0 on control... I barely control the spell, so no extra shifts.
....I deal 8 damage from power, with no extra from shifts of success, AND I risked backlash or fallout if I rolled poorly.
second time with 1 power against a target dummy with no defense or armor, roll +0 on control... I gain 7 shifts of damage from the control roll (higher of defense or spell dc was 1, the spell power)...
....I deal 8 damage again- 1 from power, 7 from accuracy. All I risked from a poor roll here is less damage.
now- non-target dummy (target has 4 defense/no armor this time)... same spell 3 times.
first with 8 power and +0 control: barely control the spell, but hit just fine. 8 weapon + 0 shifts from control.
....deals 8 damage.
second time with 4 power and +0 control: control the spell well (8 vs 4), and hit well (8 vs 4), either way, that's 4 shifts. 4 Weapon + 4 accuracy.
....deals 8 damage.
third time with 1 power and +0 control: Control the spell VERY well (8 vs 1), and hit well (8 vs 4)... that's 4 shifts from accuracy.
....deals 5 damage.
In any of the above, rolling a -1 on control would've reduced damage by 1 (fallout in case 1, reduced bonus to accuracy in 2 & 3), and rolling a +1 would've increased damage by 1. The only factor that changes here is power.
Meaning that in order to get the maximum damage out of a spell, you only need to put as many shifts into power as your target's defense. This puts some more responsibility for the success of the spell on the player's guesswork rather than the character's build, but... it also means that a munchkin can afford to treat power as a dump stat after they get conviction to +5 (since defense won't often be higher than this, and in OW, the monsters are often statted up much lower than this).
I'm not sure I like that. At least in the RAW, both power and control have value, even if that results in the potential for game-breaking displays of power.
You really have to pick which way you want to break the game, I guess.
-
I'm wondering why the wizard wasn't dealing with consequences from non-physical conflicts.
-
So apparently, I'm a total noob here. I was under the impression that since the Attack Roll and Control Roll were a single roll, any fate points applied counted only once. Are you guys treating these as two separate rolls that are made at the same time?
-
So apparently, I'm a total noob here. I was under the impression that since the Attack Roll and Control Roll were a single roll, any fate points applied counted only once. Are you guys treating these as two separate rolls that are made at the same time?
They are a single roll. However, that single roll serves two purposes, which is why they said it felt like the fate point was counting 'twice' - because it improves both your control and your aim.
-
Thanks, EdgeOfDreams. I wonder if most people adjudicate it this way.
-
They are a single roll. However, that single roll serves two purposes, which is why they said it felt like the fate point was counting 'twice' - because it improves both your control and your aim.
Which means you can get +4 extra damage per fate point with Evocation atacks, instead of the +2 extra damage per fate point that you can get with any other type of attack, magical or mundane.
For example, if you decide that you're planning on spending 2 FP on an attack, then you can up your Power by 4 (which increases the damage by 4) because the 2 FP you spend on casting will offset the additional difficulty of controlling that increased Power. Then the 2 FP you're spending will also improve your to-hit roll by +4, which also increases the damage by 4. Thus for 2 FP, you got +8 damage instead of the usual +4 damage you'd get if you spent a FP while shooting a gun or swinging your fists or any other type of attack, mundane or magical.
I don't mind wizards doing obscene amounts of damage, per se, but I don't like them getting double the bonus from FP that everyone else does. However, there are other consequences of either of the two house rules that have been suggested (mainly that Discipline becomes more important than Conviction), so I'm undecided what I want to do about it in future campaigns.
This has been a very helpful discussion...
-John B.
-
I don't mind wizards doing obscene amounts of damage, per se, but I don't like them getting double the bonus from FP that everyone else does. However, there are other consequences of either of the two house rules that have been suggested (mainly that Discipline becomes more important than Conviction), so I'm undecided what I want to do about it in future campaigns.
That increased bonus doesn't come *totally* free, at least due to the stress issues, but anyway...
The thing is, by the default rules, Discipline is ALREADY better/more important than Conviction. Ignore Fate Points, Focus Items, Stress, etc. and just compare a caster with Discipline 5, Conviction 3, and another with Conviction 5, Discipline 3. If they both summon up power equal to their conviction and roll neutral on their attack-and-control roll, then they've both got an effective 8 shifts against an opponent defending at 0. However, most enemies will defend somewhere in the 3 to 6 range, which means the high-discipline caster is gonna hit WAY more often than his high-Conviction buddy.
There really is no 'right' answer to the evoker power-level question, sadly. On the other hand, this thread has given me more ideas for houserules that I may start up a new thread about at some point.
-
Matsurao, regarding High Concept invokation:
From the sidebar on YS158:
Story Power Alchemy: Supernatural Powers And The High Concept
By drawing straight lines from a character's high concept to his supernatural powers, you gain all of the benefits of having an aspect riding shotgun whenever the character's supernatural abilities are in use.
Whenever, say, a wizard goes to town with arcane spell-slinging, he can invoke his high concept (Master Evocationist) to make it work....
If you've got a wizard character with FPs handy, he can invoke his High Concept for ANY Evocation roll, Thaumaturgy roll, or even The Sight roll. If you think that gives too much to spellcasting characters, note that this is true for non-spellcasters as well. A werewolf with Inhuman Strength and Inhuman Speed could use his High Concept to amplify any offensive combat roll where his Inhuman Strength would apply, and any defensive roll where he's using the Dodge Trapping of Athletics, since that's boosted by Inhuman Speed. A White Court Vampire may always use his High Concept to boost Incite Emotions.
There are two limitations that apply here. First is the player's supply of FPs. Second is the rule that any Aspect may only be applied once to a given roll. This does mean that if a werewolf's player is sitting on a giant stack of FPs due to many compels, he could boost every Attack and/or Dodge roll in a given combat using his High Concept...until those FPs run out.
-
Matsurao, regarding High Concept invokation:
From the sidebar on YS158:
If you've got a wizard character with FPs handy, he can invoke his High Concept for ANY Evocation roll, Thaumaturgy roll, or even The Sight roll. If you think that gives too much to spellcasting characters, note that this is true for non-spellcasters as well. A werewolf with Inhuman Strength and Inhuman Speed could use his High Concept to amplify any offensive combat roll where his Inhuman Strength would apply, and any defensive roll where he's using the Dodge Trapping of Athletics, since that's boosted by Inhuman Speed. A White Court Vampire may always use his High Concept to boost Incite Emotions.
There are two limitations that apply here. First is the player's supply of FPs. Second is the rule that any Aspect may only be applied once to a given roll. This does mean that if a werewolf's player is sitting on a giant stack of FPs due to many compels, he could boost every Attack and/or Dodge roll in a given combat using his High Concept...until those FPs run out.
Okay, thanks for clearing that up! :)
-
In the books, there are a couple of incidents dealing with what happens to a wizard channelling vasts amounts of thaumaturgical energy if it is disrupted.
What happens to a wizard channelling 13 or 14 shifts of energy, and who uses all their fate points to do it, if another wizard pours some magic into countering their control? Instead of just taking a mental stress hit and a minor consequence, the wizard is going to take a much larger mental stress hit if they do control it, or that 13 or 14 shifts is coming out as fallout.
One of the things the power gamer is going to expect is that his power is going to be a known quantity that villains in the know will plan for. They will do things so that as the hero enters their lair, they get tagged with various effects that will allow the villain to mess up their spell. So the hero gets something sticky on them, and the villain has something similar in their control, so when the hero targets the villain, a lot of his energy will leak onto the substance that got over the hero.
Or the minor henchman encounter used maneuvers to put something on the hero, a spell, a trigger, that will later interfere with the wizard's control at a crucial point.
Or perhaps the villain is lazy, and just boasts of his plans before a minion that the hero's are bound to capture and interrogate, so your nuking wizard is going to want to have a lot of reserve control to deal with said villain's plan. Which has the effect of taking that big opening nuke off the table.
-
Michael, I am not sure what you mean.
Are you saying, "the GM can compel you to screw up"?
Or do you have some other meaning in mind?
-
What I was getting at is that a villain who expected to have to deal with a wizard known to have powerful evocations would take precautions. Some of those might just be psychological, aimed at undermining the confidence of his expected opponent.
But how does it work mechanically? If someone is tapping the maximum power that they can control, what happens if someone disrupts their control? If a wizard calls up 14 shifts of power, and with all the fate points they can spend gets a 15 roll, and had to take a minor consequence just for calling up that power... what happens if their opponent spends fate points and invokes aspects that bring that roll down? So instead of taking a minor consequence with a 15 roll, they have to take a moderate consequence as well because it is now an 11 roll.
-
But how does it work mechanically? If someone is tapping the maximum power that they can control, what happens if someone disrupts their control? If a wizard calls up 14 shifts of power, and with all the fate points they can spend gets a 15 roll, and had to take a minor consequence just for calling up that power... what happens if their opponent spends fate points and invokes aspects that bring that roll down? So instead of taking a minor consequence with a 15 roll, they have to take a moderate consequence as well because it is now an 11 roll.
Technically, you can boost your rolls but you can't reduce an opponent's rolls. The closest you can come to that is an appropriate compel / invoke for effect which prevents him from taking some action altogether.
-
Um, yeah. What UmbraLux said.
Although allowing a compel to reduce a roll would be reasonable, in my opinion, I'm not actually sure that the rules allow it.
But they can be bought off, give FP, rely on the target's aspects to work, and are under the GM's control. So they can't really make a reliable weapon.
Normal invocations are more reliable, but they can't do that and shouldn't be able to do that.
-
I don't see why you can't compel an enemies aspect to reduce their roll. Especially a consequence, in which case they're reimbursed a fate point at the end of the fight based on the assumption it will in some way hamper their chances of winning.
Even if not strictly by the rules, it allows for such compels (-2 to roll) without requiring the GM to do it everytime. If necessary, call it an Invoke for Effect which causes a GM compel of the aspect/consequence to reduce their roll.
-
In the books, there are a couple of incidents dealing with what happens to a wizard channelling vasts amounts of thaumaturgical energy if it is disrupted.
What happens to a wizard channelling 13 or 14 shifts of energy, and who uses all their fate points to do it, if another wizard pours some magic into countering their control? Instead of just taking a mental stress hit and a minor consequence, the wizard is going to take a much larger mental stress hit if they do control it, or that 13 or 14 shifts is coming out as fallout.
With regards to Thaumaturgy, it seems that an opponent could weaponize a Block attempt. That is, by applying a Block against the Thaumaturgist's control roll, you could force a control failure. If the Thaumaturgist still had Fate/aspects in reserve, they could overcome the block, but if not, it could force the spell to fail. And if this was done late in the casting process, then the release of energy from a large failed spell could be ... bad.
Another way to disrupt spells (Thaum or Evoc) might be to make use of maneuver-generated aspects. Choose a tactically appropriate aspect, then if they try to cast, Invoke/Tag the aspect to trigger a Compel. The target can buy out of the Compel ... but only if they have the Fate available.
-
I don't see why you can't compel an enemies aspect to reduce their roll. Especially a consequence, in which case they're reimbursed a fate point at the end of the fight based on the assumption it will in some way hamper their chances of winning.
Even if not strictly by the rules, it allows for such compels (-2 to roll) without requiring the GM to do it everytime. If necessary, call it an Invoke for Effect which causes a GM compel of the aspect/consequence to reduce their roll.
My impression: it was a philosophical choice. As written, you always own your own action / roll.
While I agree using fate to force a -2 seems reasonable, I'm extremely hesitant to change that principle.
-
My impression: it was a philosophical choice. As written, you always own your own action / roll.
While I agree using fate to force a -2 seems reasonable, I'm extremely hesitant to change that principle.
Also, in the example provided, the villain would still need to do something to hamper the caster, so he could use the tags and whatnots to empower his own roll(s), right? That takes care of -2 to the player, by adding +2 to the NPC. (Or am I terribly, terribly wrong in this assumption?)
-
+2 to one's own roll in a contested check is, inversely, a -2 to the opponent's roll - but the system tends to privilege tagging Aspects for a positive numerical impact ("He stumbles because of his Twisted Ankle, giving me the opportunity to duck his blow: +2 to my Athletics to dodge" rather than "He stumbles because of his Twisted Ankle, taking a -2 to his Fists roll to attack me").
-
Or am I terribly, terribly wrong in this assumption?
You (and devonapple) are correct. Adding to your resistance roll makes it more difficult for your opponent to succeed. Functionally, there's little difference between that and subtracting from the attacking roll. However, if you allow subtraction you open the possibility of adversely affecting rolls which aren't normally resisted. (Navel gazing maneuvers, scenery maneuvers, declarations, etc.)
So I prefer to stick with the principle "you own your own action".
-
I don't see why you can't compel an enemies aspect to reduce their roll. Especially a consequence, in which case they're reimbursed a fate point at the end of the fight based on the assumption it will in some way hamper their chances of winning.
Even if not strictly by the rules, it allows for such compels (-2 to roll) without requiring the GM to do it everytime. If necessary, call it an Invoke for Effect which causes a GM compel of the aspect/consequence to reduce their roll.
If the GM wants to compel me he's got to be working a lot harder than that. A compel for a -2 on a roll is narrative weak sauce.
-
Even if not strictly by the rules, it allows for such compels (-2 to roll) without requiring the GM to do it everytime. If necessary, call it an Invoke for Effect which causes a GM compel of the aspect/consequence to reduce their roll.
Invokes for Effect are better spent keeping the opponent from acting or defending at all for an Exchange.
I wonder if a lot of these discussions would be reduced if there was a published Fate Point/tag economy chart with examples of what types of plot effects (combat and non-combat) were considered "fair game" for a single tag or Fate Point. Then again, it may be impossible to stratify because each table is going to care differently about different things at different times.
At one table, for instance, an invoke could render an opponent unable to act or defend for an exchange; at another table, or even at the same table but in a different conflict, that invoke could take an opponent out of the fight because the opponent is less relevant, the fighting is just a minor obstacle, or the GM needs to move things along.
-
I think the reason people are looking to reduce opponent's rolls is the specific case of an opposed caster who, should their Discipline roll be reduced below the threshold required to control the shifts they've called up, will either suffer backlash or fallout. It's understandable given the amount of hostility Evocation tends to draw.
On the other hand, if you are aware of your opponent's aspects you can do quite a bit better than just a -2. Anything from compelling them to miss completely (one of the example aspect discussions goes over compelling Harry's "The Building Was On Fire And It Wasn't My Fault" aspect) to compelling them to flub a certain portion of the power (if they have an aspect like "Goonish Magic" or "Sloppy Evocator.") So it isn't like you can't penalize your opponent's actions, you just can't do so as routinely as you can buff up your own.
-
I've been messing with this a bit, based on some of the comments in this thread. I was thinking about an idea and was wondering what people thought (basically I'm trying to keep the power of evocation more in line with other powers and with my own expectations based on the novels and setting, while also trying to keep or make Discipline and Conviction roughly equally useful).
Evocation House Rule Idea: You cannot increase Power above your Conviction (plus any specializations, focus items, etc.) with stress.
You may choose any power up to or equal to your modified Conviction and you suffer a single Mental stress, whatever the Power is. The only way to cast a spell with Power higher than your modified Conviction is with Mental consequences or Sponsored Magic debt. Consequences increase the Power up to their rating (e.g. a Minor consequence gives +2 Power while an Extreme mental consequences gives +8 Power). I haven't really thought through how Sponsored magic would work exactly, but it makes sense to me that it should thematically and mechanically.
There are a couple repercussions of this that I can think of that I'll discuss below. Please point out anything that I'm missing or overlooking or miscalculating.
Mental Stress: Since every spell causes a single stress no matter what its Power, Mental stress is simply a counter ("pouring extra power in" is represented by consequences, not stress). So at Conviction 1-2 you can cast three evocation spells without consequences, while with 3+ Conviction you can cast four evocation spells without consequences. Really, this isn't all that different and actually lessens some of the calculations ("well, I've already filled stress boxes 1 & 3 so I might as well go for a stress 2 or 4 Power, since a 1 or 3 are going to roll up anyway..."). It's a pretty minor thing either way, but unless I'm overlooking something I think that 1 stress per spell will work fine in practice without substantially how Mental stress limits evocation.
Evocation Attacks: Discipline is still slightly better than Conviction for attacks, which I'm okay with. An extra point in Conviction or an extra point in Discipline both give +1 damage, while Discipline has an edge because it's more likely to hit targets with good defense skills and/or armor and because you're less likely to suffer Backlash or Fallout. Conviction isn't completely irrelevant: Attacking multiple opponents or hitting a whole zone both require a minimum Power and can't be done unless your modified Conviction is high enough, whatever you Discipline is. Plus, there are other benefits to Conviction (see below). But all in all, a balance is ideal, but higher Discipline is better than higher Conviction for evocation attacks. And I'm okay with that.
But apart from the balance or Discipline and Conviction, how does it affect damage and the power of evocation? In practice, it's costly to get a Weapon rating higher than your modified Conviction. But for most wizards, that still means Weapon ratings of 3 or more (7 or higher isn't that hard to get at character creation). When you add in that they can get significantly more powerful attacks with consequences or sponsored magic, I don't feel like they're too weak.
On a personal note, it also resolves something that's always bothered me, which is that the difference between a wizard with Conviction 3 and Conviction 5 isn't all that big in practice in the RAW. In the books Dresden is described as being very innately powerful, but I don't think the RAW captures that well compared to other wizard builds.
Other uses of Evocation: Modified Conviction is more important than Discipline in every other use of evocation except attacks.
- Most effects have a minimum Power (e.g., Maneuvers are 3 or the target's affected skill)
- The strength of blocks and armor is based on Power, not the control roll
- All modifiers (duration, area of effect, etc.) increase the required Power
- More powerful spells are harder to counterspell (a masterful but weak warden with Conviction 1 and Discipline 7 would be a lot easier to counterspell than they would be to dodge)
- The more Power you have, the easier it is to counterspell other people's spells
- Conviction also determines how many spells you can cast
So overall I'm pretty happy with the balance of Discipline and Conviction with this house rule. I also think it stacks better in comparison to other "combat" powers of similar cost (e.g. Supernatural Strength if you consider the drawbacks of Evocation to effectively be a "price discount")
Thaumaturgy: As far as I can see, Thaumaturgy isn't much changed. It will never cause mental stress unless I tweaked the house rule (like saying that you can do up to 2 below your Conviction for no stress, while 1 below or equal to your Conviction causes 1 stress). Also, since the only way to get more Power is consequences (Thaumaturgy doesn't allow Conviction to be modified by specializations or focus items), Conviction becomes a pretty hard cap on the fastest you can possibly cast a spell. Control (Discipline) is still more important because you don't want to have the spell blow up.
It seems to me like the balance of stats is similar to RAW thaumaturgy, with Conviction getting a small boost in that it's a more fixed cap on casting speed than it used to be.
Again, I might be missing something.
Anyway, I'm not set on the above house rule by any means. But I was thinking about ways to prevent the insanely powerful attacks that I talked about in the original post (where each fate point effectively gives +4 damage) that are easier than my original house rule yet don't make Discipline significantly better than Conviction, like the second idea above of saying that only successes above the higher of Power or attack roll add to damage.
So, thoughts? Comments? (Note: Pointing out any big flaws and ripping it apart won't hurt my feelings--I'd be grateful.)
-John B.
-
Regarding mental stress: how my group does it is if you want to pump up your spell with stress its a stress box for each point. For example, if you wanted to increase your spell's power by two you would have to fill in your one, two, and three mental stress boxes instead of just box number three. In my opinion this is more effective than limiting how much power someone can throw into a spell. If they want to throw down a legendary attack (assuming they have Superb Conviction with no focus items) than they can just tick off all of their mental stress boxes, but they won't be able to cast anything else without harming themselves in some way.
-
Regarding mental stress: how my group does it is if you want to pump up your spell with stress its a stress box for each point. For example, if you wanted to increase your spell's power by two you would have to fill in your one, two, and three mental stress boxes instead of just box number three. In my opinion this is more effective than limiting how much power someone can throw into a spell. If they want to throw down a legendary attack (assuming they have Superb Conviction with no focus items) than they can just tick off all of their mental stress boxes, but they won't be able to cast anything else without harming themselves in some way.
Huh. I like that. So if they want to throw out one massive spell that does like 22 damage, then they can, but they're totally tapped out. I'm going to think about that some more.
-John B.