Can a rote be established for Spell Prolongation (For any spell)?
Does a person in a full magical block (against all actions) still get rolls to avoid incoming attacks?
Do Zone maneuver aspects based on basic conditions (example, “slick footing” from a Water evocation) stay Sticky based on success on the roll, or based on magical Duration?
Wait, precedent for a grapple blocking defense rolls?
I was under the impression that defense rolls could not be blocked. I'd like to see this precedent if possible.
Page 210 Your Story: "You can't use a block to prevent someone from making a defense roll."Addendum: unless you're imaginative or clever enough
Good answers all, thanks for the foof for thought.
Moving on to another couple of questions.
Regarding Morgan's Earth Stomp spell on YS293:
Would a (single target) spell similar to Harry's Gravitus (in Changes and It's My Birthday, Too) also be resisted with Might, instead of Athletics?
Also, how would a Zone-Wide attack be defended against, narratively? I mean, if for example Harry did a Zone-Wide Fuego, how could someone justify avoiding being hit by it, other than someone who would be able to dive out of the zone?
Also, how would a Zone-Wide attack be defended against, narratively? I mean, if for example Harry did a Zone-Wide Fuego, how could someone justify avoiding being hit by it, other than someone who would be able to dive out of the zone?Mechanically, you use a skill with a trapping that allows you to defend. You need no more justification than that, because that's how the game works. (I mention the mechanics because your second question here mentions mechanics.)
Regarding Morgan's Earth Stomp spell on YS293:
Would a (single target) spell similar to Harry's Gravitus (in Changes and It's My Birthday, Too) also be resisted with Might, instead of Athletics?
Also, how would a Zone-Wide attack be defended against, narratively? I mean, if for example Harry did a Zone-Wide Fuego, how could someone justify avoiding being hit by it, other than someone who would be able to dive out of the zone?
Is Morgan's Earth Stomp actually legal by the rules?Working from the rules in the Evocation section, there isn't an option to change the Skill with which someone defends. It points you to the regular combat section, which mentions Athletics, Fists, and Weapons (naming Athletics as your catch-all defensive Skill).
The idea of attacking against Might kinda bugs me, and as far as I know it's never mentioned outside of that example.
So...yeah. Does anyone know if there's something in the spellcasting rules that allows this?
If not, then why should it be possible with magic when it isn't possible without magic?
If not, then why should it be possible with magic when it isn't possible without magic?
Wind designed to push a player back could be defended by Might. A spell that suffocates should be defended by endurence.The problem isn't that the rote says it can be defended against with Might. It says it must be defended against with Might.
The earth stomp spell doesn't force you to do anything
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm confused as to why this is bad. What is your actual issue?
"Each target that fails to defend with Might suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success."
A plain English reading of this line (which is the only relevant line in regards to defense) is that you need to roll Might to defend. Failure to do so results in a 2-shit -- or weapon:2 -- hit. It does not stipulate that Might based defense is in addition to other options. It simply states that anyone failing to defend with Might takes the hit.
This forces you to defend with Might.
Of course, the GM may always simply allow another Skill to be used in the stead of Might. But this is golden rule territory and not what the book says. I'm happy to discuss applications of the golden rule separately, but right now I'm talking about what the book actually says.
You're reading it wrong. Or perhaps they typed it wrong. Try it this way:I am not reading it incorrectly. You're quoting it incorrectly. The way I quoted it is the way it is in the book. The sentence as written in the book is a single clause, and it has a single piece of punctuation: A period at the end.
"Each target that fails to defend, with Might, suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success."
Let me ask you something. Say I'm a new player (or just obstinate) and I don't take athletics. We are in physical combat. You (the GM) say "This guy is shooting at you, roll athletics to dodge." and I respond with "I don't have athletics, but I'm in the same zone as him. Can I use fists to knock the gun out of the way?" Do you say "Sucks to be you! Roll your mediocre athletics! MuaHahahaha!"?
Sorry, decided to edit my post because I didn't think everyone would be on it so fast. Check out what I wrote, and the close combat defense trapping of fists on 231.
Agreed, but my point is that the attack should define the defense, and that just because the skill doesn't have a defense trapping, doesn't mean that it can't be used if it fits the attack. Certainly there are stunts that move trappings around, but they still have a place when you're trying to use a skill that doesn't fit the attack (Burglary against a knife or fists against guns from several zones away for example).
Also thanks for the catch, my book-fu is lacking it seems.
From opposite sides of a zone, no way.
Another question one might ask is what else would you use as a defense against the earth opening up beneath your feet and trying to smash you? You can't exactly use athletics as by the time you are aware of the attack you are in midair (the earth beneath your feet is gone).
The alternative I can see is having them defend at mediocre like anyone does when they are surprised or can't see the attack coming.
Wear skis everywhere you go and hope they're facing the right direction to span the gap.
I like this plan, but then what skill do you roll for defense? Skiing? Resources? Scholarship (to represent having planned ahead)?
And what system doesn't "pigeon-hole" their defensive stats?
In DnD, your defense against melee and ranged is your Armor Class, which is boosted by Dexterity. Unless you got a class ability saying otherwise, you can't use Wisdom to boost that defense, or Charisma or Strength.
In GURPS, your defense against melee is dodge and parry. Unless you have special abilities saying otherwise, you can't use your Will or Fortitude to block.
In Mutans and Masterminds, your ranged defense is dodge. You can't use Parry, Fortitude or Will to avoid such attacks.
So I don't see the problem here.
You could just move away from the place where the earth is opening. Saying otherwise is liking saying that you shouldn't be able to dodge bullets with Athletics.
4. I see no good reason why spells should be able to do this when other things can't.
5. Magic is powerful enough, darn it.
6. It's not actually in the rules anywhere, it's just extrapolated from an example spell.
1. It puts a tax on survival. Every combat character needs a stunt like Evasion or he's boned. This is bad.
2. It means that every already-existing NPC who's supposed to be tough in a fight needs to have their sheet edited.
Thing is, if you can attack Might then why can't you attack Stealth? Cast a spell that acts as a beacon attracting stuff from the Nevernever from which the target must hide. Whatever.
Athletics can be used against any physical attack.
Endurance can be used against poisons, diseases, and environmental attacks.
Discipline can be used against any mental attack.
How do you make a skill that attacks scholarship or stealth? It just doesn't make sense.For Scholarship, how about a Spirit Hold that mentally cuts your mind off from control of your body, and the blocking mechanism is a Trivia Gameshow Mindscape. Win the game(get enough successes on a Scholarship Roll) and you're free!
So, you think that you can attack Might or whatever with mundane attacks too?
Thing is, if you can attack Might then why can't you attack Stealth? Cast a spell that acts as a beacon attracting stuff from the Nevernever from which the target must hide. Whatever.
The thing about "the attack defining the defense" sounds to me like a fancier way of saying that Fists or Weapons don't work against ranged attacks. Does the book say anything more definite?
Anyway...
I normally assume the following:
Athletics can be used against any physical attack.
Endurance can be used against poisons, diseases, and environmental attacks.
Discipline can be used against any mental attack.
PS: The game isn't really about wizards. Nor should it be. Magic is very powerful, but as long as you don't interpret the rules in its favour it's not much stronger than normal weaponry.
The thing about "the attack defining the defense" sounds to me like a fancier way of saying that Fists or Weapons don't work against ranged attacks. Does the book say anything more definite?
I think grapples attack might.
Spot lights could attack stealth.
Choking someone should be defended with Endurance or in rare cases might.
I could see torture being defended by discipline or conviction.
Driving defends with driving.
So, you think that you can attack Might or whatever with mundane attacks too?
@silverblaze:
Driving is the defense skill if you are trying to defend against an attack on your car. No argument there.
The game is named that because the books are named that. Not because the players are supposed to play wizards.
@sinker:
Not that I don't appreciate the response, but you seem to have missed the most important part of my post.
Because your position is a heck of a lot more defensible if you do.
And the beacon attack can only be defended against with Stealth. The entity invoked is so deadly that absolutely no defense is even slightly effective against it. No dodge, no parry, no block. Just hide.
Does that sound like BS? Well, it is.
But the game lets you fluff things however you like within the mechanical limits. If you can force opponents to defend with Might, then nothing prevents you from forcing opponents to defend with Stealth.
To me, just about every example given of an attack that bypasses the guidelines I mentioned sounds about as reasonable as that.
Also, not all combatants will have high Might. It's actually not that terribly useful in a fight, if you aren't a grappler.
And the beacon attack can only be defended against with Stealth. The entity invoked is so deadly that absolutely no defense is even slightly effective against it. No dodge, no parry, no block. Just hide.
Does that sound like BS? Well, it is.
But the game lets you fluff things however you like within the mechanical limits. If you can force opponents to defend with Might, then nothing prevents you from forcing opponents to defend with Stealth.
Magic is pretty damn strong, but it's not clearly stronger than an equivalently priced package of other powers.
The heart-exploding thing is impressive, but it requires part of the target's body. And if you can get that, you could probably kill the guy some other way.
Also, Toughness and FP could get you through Sells' trick.
I was just argueing that certain skills don't make sense for defence against certain attacks for example the rule against parrying bullets.
@sinker: Would you allow nonmagical attacks to require unusual defences?
Usually true. I've seen some extremely creative solutions using oddball skills for defense but it's not the norm. There is a hard and fast rule for this type of situation though, so it's had far too much debate.
That rule: Convince The GM.
If you can, defend away. If not, pick a different skill. GMs vary too widely for something that's been this thoroughly argued to ever be universally agreed upon.
...If you assume a certain effect is invisible, you would not be able to see it to effectively Athletics dodge out of the way, Rendering Athletics to Zero, much like being ambushed.
Come on people, be realistic. Dodging bullets works;
1) A human dodging moves at about 30 ft/second for a very short time.
2) The human torso is 2 feet across.
3) Handgun bullets move at 600 ft/second.
So if you do aim your shot at a dodging man and you are 20 ft away, a bullet that was going to hit is going to miss. You have to aim a foot ahead of your target in order to hit him as he dodges. But the target knows (or should know) that and dodges erratically. So it becomes a contest of whether you can aim faster than he can dodge - and judging distance to target, firing angle and the like takes time and a split-second of thought. Dodging erratically doesn't.
That is why, statistically speaking, 99% of bullets that do hit against moving targets in full combat are shots "to whom it may concern" rather than well-aimed ones and why the rounds/death ratio of the average soldier is 200/1.
Fluff-wise, dodging should become significantly more effective against ranged attacks once you put superhuman speed and reaction time into the mix. Someone who can move at 50 mph rather than the human max of 25 mph can get out of the way of military rounds with some luck. Someone moving at 200 mph can dodge the majority of bullets as easily as a human could dodge other people running in a straight line.
They actually tested this on mythbusters this year. Until the shooter was far enough away that you couldn't see the muzzle flash anymore, it was physically impossible for a human to dodge a bullet unless they were moving before they saw the flash.
@Silverblaze: I may be missing your point, but I promise it isn't intentional. Care to explain?
@sinker: Would you allow nonmagical attacks to require unusual defences?
@ways and means: I disagree with you to the greatest extent possible.
You're arguing something differently from Belial666.
He's saying that you start dodging *before* the gun is fired.
More importantly, I just don't feel it's fair.
@ Sanctaphrax: More or less I suppose I am...sadly. More like... you know I can't really sum it up better than you did. I think the distinction I was making is that targeting defense seems easier than blowing up a person in a very unfair fashion so it is likely possible.
I'm stating these things from a mostly objective viewpoint. When it comes to magic I'm not sure there is a good fix to make non magic users *quite* as efficient etc. I actually refuse (for the most part) to talk balance when it comes to evocation and thaumaturgy...there virtually is none.
I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. The default is not, "you cannot defend". The default is, "you can defend with Athletics".
There's not supposed to be combat balance. Wizards and the stronger supernaturals are supposed to be able to win any stand-up fight with a plain mortal, even if that mortal is the best there ever was with their fists, guns, or Jackie Chan-like evasiveness. The ability to dish out the massive hurting is the benefit they get for giving up the ability to do pretty much anything else as well as a plain mortal.
There is so supposed to be combat balance. Evocation is supposed to be roughly equal to Strength and Speed and Toughness. And it is, as long as you interpret the rules without generosity and remember the importance of the word roughly.I don't know what the authors' intent was, but they aren't balanced. There are simply too many mechanical ways to boost spell power which don't have physical combat equivalents. Though I do see a lot of weapon value inflation discussed which helps to a degree.
If a temporary Ward is breached, does it collapse like an Evocation Block? or does is lose strength as it is repeatedly breached, eventually grinding it down to zero?A ward has to be taken to -4 to be "permanently" destroyed before its duration is up. Otherwise it's simply suppressed for a short period of time...generally one exchange per shift in combat.
Is it possible to make a brittle Ward (Low shifts of protection) backed by a powerful magic trap? Or does the Ward have to be strong enough to "support" the attached spell?Sure. It's also possible to suppress a portion of the ward without taking it down entirely.
Does a blindness spell count as a block against all actions, or just as a maneuver to place the Blinded aspect? Or does the block allow for the Declaration of a Blinded Aspect on the target, for double the fun?Could be maneuver or block depending on exactly what you're trying to accomplish. I generally go with perception block in combat (similar to a veil but applied to a victim).
They suppressed the basic ward effect for short periods by beating the number of shifts in that effect. Excess shifts extended the suppression by one exchange per shift. To take the ward down permanently, they'd have needed 32 (28+4) shifts.
Hmm... So, Counterspell would be useless against a Ward (Or any high-complexity thaumaturgical spell)?
Counterspell is looking less and less useful... Can't counter incoming spells, can't do squat against most thaum, What are they really good for?
Evil Sorcerer: Let there be pea soup fog in the zone which mine enemies inhabit for the duration of this scene that I may flee!
Good Wizard: Bugger this for a game of soldiers. *counterspell*
Evil Sorcerer: Eeep!
2. A 20 shift ward hit by a 21 shift attack becomes a 19 shift ward. A 20 shift ward hit by a 21 shift counterspell is toast.*21 Shift counterspell? Sounds like nearly killing yourself (consequence-wise) to get rid of a ward. And that's just the Power summoning. The Backlash required on a single roll will probably drive you the rest of the way to dead. Still makes Counterspelling a poor trapping of Evocation.
*For a given value of toast.
21 Shift counterspell? Sounds like nearly killing yourself (consequence-wise) to get rid of a ward. And that's just the Power summoning. The Backlash required on a single roll will probably drive you the rest of the way to dead. Still makes Counterspelling a poor trapping of Evocation.
You're missing the point, computerking. The numbers are insignificant.Maybe I'm not getting it. I was assuming that the "Power" you have to defeat with Counterspell is the "Power" of the entire spell, strength shifts, duration shifts, extra shifts to cover zones, etc. If all you have to beat is the strength shifts, then counterspell is looking better than I thought.
If you subtract 15 from all numbers in that example, it still works.
The point is that the counterspell is more effective than the attack. (Though this will not be true for all wards.)
His point doesn't have anything to do with the numbers. It has to do with the fact that there are two options to get rid of a ward, attack and counterspell. When you attack (and beat the shifts of the ward) it only reduces the ward strength by one, leaving a intact ward that's only slightly less effective. When you counterspell (and beat it) then it completely removes the ward.I get his point on the effectiveness of using Counterspell against a ward. But my new question is whether the counterspell only has to beat the ward's strength, or all the shifts of power required to make the ward. The book doesn't seem to make the distinction between the two when describing counterspelling, only referring to the power of the spell. It makes it easier if a counterspell doesn't have to surpass Spell strength and duration shifts and zone shifts, etc.
And of course counterspelling is the only practical countermeasure against some magical effects.
New Question: Can a Ward be placed somewhere without a threshold, and what would be needed to do that?
Could it be done using an Enchanted Item?
Yes. It's specifically mentioned that The Merlin did it while fighting the rampires. YW277 says it limits their size to a doorway/intersection worth of warding.
It's thaumaturgy, so whatever sounds good.
Technically, yes. It won't be much of a ward though and it would always be the exact same ward.
I usually say that a ward doesn't need a threshold but it does need a boundary. All of those things that Dresden talks about that we define as cutting off this thing from that thing. A fence, a river, a doorway, a street, etc.Boundaries are thresholds. "In the broadest sense, the term "threshold" may be given to any metaphysical barrier...running water is a prime example...can even be conceptual*..." YS230
That's just kinda my feeling on the matter though, I'm pretty sure RAW mentions a threshold. Keep in mind though that a threshold of 0 is still a threshold (so businesses, abandoned buildings, etc should be ok).
Boundaries are thresholds. "In the broadest sense, the term "threshold" may be given to any metaphysical barrier...running water is a prime example...can even be conceptual*..." YS230
So your feeling on the matters appears to be fully supported by the book. :)
*Conceptual thresholds are an interesting case...could you ward one? Some, like dawn, are undoubtedly too large. But what of smaller conceptual borders? Could you ward your property lines instead of your house walls? What about others?
Agreed, any barrier should count. Even a knee high picket fence. But what about just the property line without a fence?
I wonder a bit if Merlin's ward is best modeled by simply declaring a conceptual (mental) boundary and then using it for the ward. Granted, I wouldn't think it easy enough for apprentices to get away with it...but it would explain how Merlin was able to set a ward where he did. Going to have to read that book again...
Oh, and given Mister's easy movements I wonder if all cats can simply walk through wards. :)
Can you ward the "Glass ceiling?" Or one's privacy? How about theological boundaries?
Time for another one... How much would a custom power based off of True Shapeshifting (But limited to Humanoids Only) be worth in Refresh?Some questions:
3 or 4 refresh. You still have unlimited skill shuffling and amazing disguise skills. That's pretty potent.Good point.
The concept I'm considering is an Emissary of Ares who can literally ground out/cut through/parry incoming magic. What would such a power look like? Or should I look at it like a reskinned Footwork?
I don't like either method. The idea of tougher characters being harder to give powers to sits badly with me.
Here's another. Would casting a "Mind Bolt" that only does Mental damage be considered Breaking the 3rd or 4th Law, Although it does not technically invaded their thoughts or placed a Compulsion?
Also, the same question, but for a magic effect used to "transmute" physical damage into Mental Damage (for example the Psychic Knife of Psylocke from the X-men Comics)?
What I would suggest, computerking, is to go back and read the section on mental conflict on YS217-219. People often look at mental stress as exhaustion because of it's connection to magic, but to me it reads more like one's sense of self (which kinda still fits with the magic angle). When you do mental damage, you're damaging someone's concept of who they are. If that's appropriate for your attack then by all means use it, but if so then you're definitely breaking the fourth law by changing who they are with magic.Ah. I get it. And the sense of Self thing really fits in with Dresdenverse's concept of Magic.
If you're just tiring someone out from the inside then IMHO it's still physical stress.
Questions about Enchanted Items: How many shifts of power would you need to have an EI that grants a Stunt? And would that stunt last an entire scene when activated?
What about multiple Stunts? Would they all activate together?
In the possibility of an EI granting the Venomous sub-power for one attack (maneuver), would it still require Enough Shifts of power to transform the user, or could it be made a part of the sword itself? And in either case, could it be altered to do subsequent Venom damage based on the user's Discipline instead of Fists or Weapons? (Concept: A magic-based poison that stops working after the scene, leaving the victim alive)
it reads more like one's sense of selfYep, that's a mental attack. OTOH, someone with magic can just flat out make a barbed wire of magic and entangle your spirit with it rather than your body or make a big black blade and spiritually eviscerate you then eat whatever is left of your soul. Those are the other half of the attacks that deal mental stress and are the spiritual rather than mental attacks. And those are the absolutely worst things one can do to you, almost exclusively the purview of Kemmlerian Necromancy and Outsider Sponsored Magic.
To actually answer your question though I would see that as an attempt to take the power or stunt without actually paying for it. Consider the fact that enchanted items can be used multiple times per scene for only one mental stress per use beyond the first, and that's if the caster hasn't devoted some shifts to additional uses. Considering that could essentially grant you the use of that power/stunt for the majority of every scene, it seems really unbalanced. If you want the power/stunt then take it, pay the refresh, and justify it as an aspect of your magic.
To be honest I don't like the idea of using a magic ritual to gain powers that you aren't paying refresh for.
EDIT: To clarify: giving yourself a -1 power costs a FP. The same would apply for a stunt. Maneuvering has no such cost attached, which is rather important. That being said, 3 complexity per point is pretty cheap. It's meant to be, because the FP cost is so much more important than the complexity.
@computerking:
I'm not sure I'd even allow magic to add stunts at all. Powers, fine. Stunts, no.
But you gotta pay FP for them if they are allowed.
I don't think that an enchanted item granting a power or a stunt is terribly practical, really. You'd need a lot of power and a lot of FP. Plus, they might well take too long to work. GM fiat situation there.
True Aim. When swung in keeping with its purpose, a Sword of the Cross grants a +1 to the wielder’s Weapons skill.
Mimic Stunt. You are able to clone any of your target’s mortal stunts. You must clone these abilities by temporarily paying for them out of your mimic points (above).Another incidence of a power granting a Stunt. It's a trapping of another power, yes, but no FP is needed to use the granted/copied stunt, because using that stunt is a part of that power. If a power was conceived that consisted of only Mimic Stunt, would its cost be lowered to (Mimic Points) minus 1? What if it could only be used once, and could not be changed?
OK, a Fate Point just once when gaining the power isn't too bad, I'm wondering where I got the FP per scene/use idea in my head from.
But as a note to Sinker, There are those who believe wizards are and should be ridiculously powerful. They play Jenga with the building blocks of the Universe. Not in some limited, single-use way, but any way they see fit. I mean, they cut the heads off of warlocks for a reason...
Has it been discussed whether conjuration could create items that satisfy a Catch(Like a steel sword vs a Fey)? I would think no, but confirmation would be good.Per the book, "None of the things that conjuration creates are actually real; they're made of ectoplasm..." (YS274) So I'd agree with your "no". :)
Also, could transformation magic (changing an aluminum bat into steel, in the same example) do it?This is more likely, but "...must be powerful enough to achieve a 'taken out' result on the target..." (YS282) That said, I'm not entirely sure how you'd figure out a taken out result for inanimate objects. I will say it shouldn't be easy...in fact it should be extremely difficult. Unless you want gold to be devalued as your would be alchemists start building philosopher's stones. ;)
Approximately how long of a time without having to fight is considered "Out of Combat" for purposes of Stress renewal?
Take for instance the "tactical reserve wizard" Who goes into battle, blasting away, and when nearly tapped out of energy, opens a portal to the NeverNever, where he can catch his breath, and come back when he's got his second wind. How many exchanges will happen back at the fight while he takes a breather?
And what about the old standard, "I Veil and run away," with the pursuer failing to figure out which way you buggered off to. How long before the Stress Reset?
Thanks for all the answers.
Here's another. Would casting a "Mind Bolt" that only does Mental damage be considered Breaking the 3rd or 4th Law, Although it does not technically invaded their thoughts or placed a Compulsion?
Also, the same question, but for a magic effect used to "transmute" physical damage into Mental Damage (for example the Psychic Knife of Psylocke from the X-men Comics)?
Judgement call on the part of the GM as to whether it counts for Lawbreaker (it probably should) but it almost certainly counts for Warden Chopsalot.
Same answer. Method of delivery really doesn't matter. If it's capable of inflicting mental consequences, it's almost always going to violate the 4th law.
What I would suggest, computerking, is to go back and read the section on mental conflict on YS217-219. People often look at mental stress as exhaustion because of it's connection to magic, but to me it reads more like one's sense of self (which kinda still fits with the magic angle). When you do mental damage, you're damaging someone's concept of who they are. If that's appropriate for your attack then by all means use it, but if so then you're definitely breaking the fourth law by changing who they are with magic.
If you're just tiring someone out from the inside then IMHO it's still physical stress.
I am not sure that you can actually make such an item or cast such a spell.
If you can, then it's not Lawbreaking to hit a monster with it.
Oooh, you've got me thinking interesting thoughts now. The fey can be nothing other than what they are, and what they are is set in stone for thousands of years. What happens then if you alter their sense of self? If they view themselves as something different do they become different?
IF you can affect them, see Aurora and Lea. I'd think you'd need to be an expert in fae psychology or way more powerful than any mortal to even begin to affect them by anything but luck or having some means to cheat.
Losing a conflict, either by concession or by
being taken out, grants the player one fate point
per consequence taken in the conflict.