ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: computerking on September 12, 2011, 07:51:54 PM

Title: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 12, 2011, 07:51:54 PM
Yeah, I'm going to ask a few questions that will make me look like a noob. Because I am one. Here goes a few things I'm scratching my head about...
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?

Thanks in advance...
And feel free to put your own noob questions in here, too, if only to make me feel better :).
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 12, 2011, 08:04:21 PM
1. I think so. You might need to specify the sort of spell that you are prolonging though.

2. Yes. Also, blocking all actions is kinda weird. What sort of block did you have in mind?

3. Stickyness and duration are not connected. An aspect can be sticky and yet disappear when the duration expires.

The above is from memory, so I suggest you get a second opinion before drawing conclusions.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: gojj on September 12, 2011, 08:06:43 PM
I'd like to tack on a question I've been wondering, but have been hesitant to make a thread asking it: What does RAW stand for? I know it relates to the rules, but that's about it. Rules and Ways? Really Angry Wizard?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 12, 2011, 08:07:20 PM
1. Yes, but I think you can prolong it without saying it is allowed to be prolonged.  Rotes can basically be almost anything.

2. You always get to roll defense, just often at mediocre (+0) Unless you are defending with Endurance..I don't see how most blocks could stop that.

3. Duration could only effect the situation in rare circumstances.  Say if hte ice suddenly sublimates (by design of the spell) at the duration or some such thing.

Sadly none of this is going to be true 100% of hte time FATE is about variability and options not constants.

@ Gojj:

Rules
As
Written

Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: gojj on September 12, 2011, 08:09:46 PM
Thank you.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: TheMouse on September 12, 2011, 08:10:35 PM
>>>Can a rote be established for Spell Prolongation (For any spell)?

It isn't explicit, but I'd say yes. You'd just have to be as specific as any other rote.

>>>Does a person in a full magical block (against all actions) still get rolls to avoid incoming attacks?

Whenever someone Blocks you, you get to roll whatever you want. You just have to overcome the Block for it to do anything.

So if someone hit you with a Block with a strength of +4. This Block covers defending. The victim of the block gets attacked and wants to resist, so they roll Athletics to dodge, producing a +3 Effort. They've failed to overcome the Block, so their defense does nothing.

Next exchange, they get attacked again and try to dodge again. They get a +5, beating the Block. Now they apply their dodge against the attack.

>>>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?

You must spend shifts to add to the duration of any Aspects created with magical Maneuvers. This is covered on page 252-253.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 12, 2011, 08:11:41 PM
Can a rote be established for Spell Prolongation (For any spell)?

We had a thread about that a while back if you want to go digging. I don't think we resolved much though. I think the general attitude is that you can make a rote to extend the duration of another spell, however people are split on whether not not it needs to be for one specific spell only or if it's ok for any spell. My initial inclination is to say "why would you want to waste a rote like that?" but after that I would think it would be ok for it to be universally used for any spell.

Does a person in a full magical block (against all actions) still get rolls to avoid incoming attacks?

I'd say yes, but only because we have precedent for a magic grapple, which has that effect. So if you want a block that prevents them from making defensive rolls then pay the fate point and go through the process to make a grapple just like everyone else does.

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?

That's a tough one. My inclination is usually to simply say that it's based on the roll and is either sticky or fragile. There's a part of me that would rather look at each individual aspect and see if it must be maintained (like "hurricane winds") or if it would naturally hang around (like "wet floors") but I think that kinda encourages people to use the aspect that works best mechanically, rather than the aspect that best fits the story and I'd rather have a better story.

TheMouse is technically right though, RAW says that you pay duration for all maneuvers.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 12, 2011, 08:20:36 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 12, 2011, 08:32:28 PM
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.

Agreed.  I thought you always got a roll at mediocre.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 12, 2011, 08:33:23 PM
Wow, apparently I did not remember my grappling rules correctly. I was saying that there was precedent for a magic grapple (Madge's Orbius spell) but I was completely wrong about grapples blocking defense rolls. Just wasn't remembering that right.

I would still have the block not apply to defense rolls, but for a different reason now that I'm looking at those portions of the book. A block applies to "actions," and a defense roll is not technically an action but a part of someone else's attack (I know it's weird but I went looking for defense rolls and only found them under attacks).
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: zenten on September 12, 2011, 10:36:23 PM
Page 210 Your Story: "You can't use a block to prevent someone from making a defense roll."
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ways and means on September 12, 2011, 11:55:45 PM
I worked under the assumption that a defense roll couldn't be blocked defensive skill could be blocked (a grapple should nullify any athletics or weapons modifier unless the skill roll beats the grapple) this is how I see ambushes too some degree as a block. 
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Belial666 on September 13, 2011, 01:27:54 AM
Quote
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


For example, an offensive block against perception (effectively a blindness/deafness spell or similar) doesn't prevent anyone from doing defense rolls. But because they will fail to notice any incoming attacks, they will be surprised, rolling defense at mediocre even though the block doesn't directly prevent them from actually rolling defenses. Ditto if you make the attacker invisible instead of the defender blind, only in reverse.

There are other ways to similarly have someone not roll a defense without actually making them incapable of defense rolls.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 13, 2011, 02:15:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ARedthorn on September 13, 2011, 02:37:37 PM
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?

Gravitus has always given me heartache trying to simulate in game, because of the side-effect... one of my players wants to try an earth-mage with strong evocation, and I'm not sure how best to simulate it. IMO, it should be two simultaneous effects- one massive damage effect, fairly localized (single target or single zone), with surrounding zones taking a low-level maneuver to lose their footing. I could just call that fluff- but it's certainly big and noticeable if, say, someone tried it in a city.

On the upside, every time we've seen Gravitus, it's been closer in line with something thaumaturgy could do than evocation, systems-wise... it certainly seems to be more of a prep-work kind of spell with harry- having to gather power, focus his mind... affecting an area so large that not all of it can be within line of sight... that would solve it easy.

A lower-level version, I'd run as a direct attack, using evocation, and call it done.
Changes-grade... either involves a TON of FP and tags, or thaumaturgy.

And I'd make it resisted by Endurance (modified by Might) either way.


As for defending against zone attacks- easy... Cover. Dropping prone might even be enough, depending on the spell's visual description.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: TheMouse on September 13, 2011, 04:48:28 PM
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.)

Narratively, there are many examples of possible ways to defend against such things. Cover and dropping prone were mentioned above.

Just because an attack will hit everyone in a zone doesn't mean that it fills the whole zone. All you need to do to defend is be somewhere the attack doesn't reach. You can move between streamers of flame, duck behind something, duck under the attack, jump over it, or even slice it in two with your bad-ass magical sword.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 13, 2011, 04:54:30 PM
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?

To be honest a spell is resisted by whatever you want it to be resisted by (with justification I suppose). Determining how the spell is resisted is part of creating the spell. Just figure out how you're creating the effect and then figure out how one might prevent that. Hell, don't even be worried if someone wants to resist it differently later, as long as they justify it to your satisfaction.

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?

Yeah, a zone wide attack does not necessarily fill the zone with death, they simply attack all of the characters in that zone. If for example Ana made a zone wide fire spell, it may actually be individual beams of white flame lashing out at each target (it also may not, but that's ok). Additionally even if you are trying to fill the zone there are usually plenty of nooks and hiding places within an area, places that would not be affected by something like that.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 14, 2011, 01:20:46 AM
Is Morgan's Earth Stomp actually legal by the rules?

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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: TheMouse on September 14, 2011, 03:12:09 AM
Is Morgan's Earth Stomp actually legal by the rules?

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?
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).

Might lacks a defensive trapping outside of wrestling, in which case it can replace Fists; this isn't explicit, but presumably it can replace the defensive trapping of Fists in this instance. Other than that, no defensive trapping.

So far as I can tell while doing this reading, the Might part doesn't adhere to the rules. Either it's a Block against which you need to push, in which case you use Might. Or it's a physical attack, in which case you can use any applicable Skill. There's no rule to force someone to use a particular Skill to defend; likewise there's no rule to even allow them to use Might to defend at all in the first place.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 14, 2011, 03:15:26 AM
I always call these rules a 1st edition.  This is an example of why.  They don't come out and say the specific things like that (yes, they should).    I think a degree of common sense is expected here.

Wind designed to push a player back could be defended by Might.  A spell that suffocates should be defended by endurence.

etc.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 05:29:11 AM
The book does say that the skill used for defense in any given situation is defined by the skill used to attack. In this case I figure that the individual spell makes that justification since evocation covers such a broad range of effects. So it's very much justified to determine the defense skill within the spell.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 05:45:43 AM
If not, then why should it be possible with magic when it isn't possible without magic?

Everything I would have had to say to the rest has already been said except this.  Because it's magic.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Belial666 on September 14, 2011, 10:30:02 AM
Heh, yeah. The magic section even has a paragraph titled "doing the impossible". Admittedly, it's for Thaumaturgy but when did that stop a good lawbreaking dark wizard?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: TheMouse on September 14, 2011, 01:23:07 PM
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.

Saying that you can defend with Might (or Endurance, or whatever) adds more ways to defend against something. You can still dodge the earth opening and trying to eat you if you want to. But if the player decides that Might sounds better for whatever reason, they can opt for Might.

This is in stark contrast to saying that you must defend with Might. Now Might is your only option listed in the book.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 04:24:06 PM
Except again, the book states the defense must be appropriate to the attack with justification. When they wrote up the rotes they wanted to slim that process down so that it could be cast quickly and without needing to figure out that process every time (that's the whole purpose for the rote spell), however the rule still stands. If someone justifies doing it another way then you do it that way. The earth stomp spell doesn't force you to do anything, or create any kind of precedent that isn't already there (like the fact that you may defend with any skill).
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: TheMouse on September 14, 2011, 05:00:25 PM
The earth stomp spell doesn't force you to do anything

"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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 05:17:57 PM
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm confused as to why this is bad. What is your actual issue?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 14, 2011, 06:23:21 PM
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm confused as to why this is bad. What is your actual issue?

If there is a bigger issue to this,I think it's the concept of forcing a character to use a skill it does not have to defend against something. "Oh, you have a high Athletics? Hear, Mr. No Might, eat some Earth Stomp." and the like. Personally I don't mind it, and I expect that a Mental attack would require a Discipline or Conviction defense, for example.

Which brings another Noob Question out of me: Would a Mental Blast Spirit spell designed not to infiltrate or finesse a mind, just overwhelm it by force to induce unconsciousness, still be Lawbreaker territory(as in the Power), or just a gray area that makes the Wardens twitchy?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Belial666 on September 14, 2011, 07:13:31 PM
Gray area. That's exactly the kind of spell the Gatekeeper used on Harry and co in Changes.And yes, a wizard can choose which skill to attack normally. I see no problem with this because;

Evasion (stunt)
You can always use the dodge trapping to defend agaist magic, regardless of its type, if you are aware of the attack.
Improved Evasion (stunt)
You get +2 to your dodge trapping vs magic.


Essentially, the wizard is paying an already hefty cost to be able to attack specific skills. Most characters can pay a smaller cost to still use athletics vs magic.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 07:29:22 PM
"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:

"Each target that fails to defend, with Might, suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success."
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: TheMouse on September 14, 2011, 08:54:04 PM
You're reading it wrong.  Or perhaps they typed it wrong.  Try it this way:

"Each target that fails to defend, with Might, suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success."
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.

Adding those commas that aren't in the book doesn't swing it away from saying that you need to defend with Might. Nor would parentheses or dashes. So not only are you adding something that's not in the book, but the things you added don't do anything to make it say something other than what it said before. You've only changed the timing and a little about the emphasis.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 09:52:24 PM
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!"?

Time and again Iago has told us to take what we have and extrapolate. Look at the loose definition the rules give us and make the best decision based on them. The rules for defense say that the defense should fit the attack, and yet all over the skills section we see examples of skills being bent to justify a defense (That example with fists is from the book, look at the fists skill). So do you want to believe a completely literal interpretation of a single passage (That could have easily been an oversight) or would you rather use the examples we have repeated throughout the book in more plain language.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 09:58:17 PM
I wasn't quoting it incorrectly. I was positing that the writers are as human as you and me and will sometimes make mistakes.  Which is why I said "Or perhaps they typed it wrong,".  The "with Might" could have very well been just them reminding us that Might could be used in an uncharacteristic way to defend.  Which would have made the sentence mean "Each target that fails to defend suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success (like any other spell).  Oh, and Might is the default defense for this spell."

The problem here is, you're saying that it absolutely, for certain, 100% clarity, says one thing and I'm saying that it's not nearly certain enough to mean that they intended this spell to be defended differently than every other.  See Harry's explanation of the translation of the passage in Exodus in WN for an example of humans not always being perfectly clear when putting words to paper.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 10:01:22 PM
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!"?

Unless they have a stunt allowing for that?  Yes, they absolutely use their Mediocre Athletics.  Not doing so removes the entire purpose of being able to move a trapping from one skill to another and makes everyone who spent refresh to do so an idiot.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 10:03:32 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 10:12:47 PM
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.

Nah, I got what you meant before the edit.  And 231 deals entirely with thresholds, 131 is the trapping.  From opposite sides of a zone, no way.  If he'd been punching the guy beforehand and was definitely in smacking around range, sure.  Just keep in mind that unusual circumstances with a good argument allow exceptions, not alteration, of the rules.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 10:19:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ARedthorn on September 14, 2011, 10:24:25 PM
This is one thing I don't like about dresden... stunts not-withstanding, they seem to have pigeon-holed their defensive stats a little much. I'd like to see more than one skill come with a NATIVE defensive trapping.
Or perhaps, have a house-rule that lets players choose 2 defensive trappings- with the standard build being Athletics:Dodge plus either Weaponry:Parry, Fists:Block or Lore:Counterspelling at player's choice, +1 more per stunt.
Each would have to be at least a little limited in application based off context...

Athletics:Dodge (or Performance:Dance?) represent you being hard to hit, and work against pretty much anything as long as you're free to move around; Lore:Counterspelling would primarily be for defending against magic on the fly, but could also work against most mundane effects as long as you see them coming; Fists:Block and Weaponry:Parry mostly for anything close enough; Guns:Gun Fu might represent shooting things out of the air, or defensive cover fire; etc, etc. There's no reason you couldn't build a stunt to add defensive trapping to any skill you want, anyway... just instead of including one for free (on athletics), let them pick it.

Anyways- short answer... I'd be ok with letting fists act defensively without a stunt... but I'd prefer a house-rule like above.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 10:29:43 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Belial666 on September 14, 2011, 10:31:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 10:35:34 PM
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).

I think this may be one of those intentionally vague areas that we're meant to interpret where the line is drawn table by table.  Sounds like I'm likely to be a bit less lenient than you but more lenient than rules lawyer types.

Also thanks for the catch, my book-fu is lacking it seems.

No worries, it happens.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 10:38:25 PM
From opposite sides of a zone, no way.

To be purely technical there are no opposite sides of a zone. If you and I are in the same zone then close combat is always ok, and if it's not ok then we aren't in the same zone.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 10:50:43 PM
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.  Wings might work but it's a power rather than a skill.  I'd even allow athletics if the target were on the move on the grounds that the caster might have simply poorly targeted it.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 14, 2011, 10:53:05 PM
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)?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 14, 2011, 11:03:17 PM
I like this plan, but then what skill do you roll for defense? Skiing? Resources? Scholarship (to represent having planned ahead)?

Driving.  Skis are kind of a vehicle.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ARedthorn on September 15, 2011, 12:19:18 AM
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.

Eh... you're right, for the most part... but the fact that MnM HAS 4 defensive skills (each specialized) is a lot less pigeon-holed than GURPS, which is a lot less than DnD or Dresden (without stunting a lot)... when in fact, dresden could be a lot more flexible than ANY of them.
And that's just the examples you've thrown. WoD (new or old) lets players focus on their strengths, and use defenses that are appropriate to the combat styles as part of it's RAW... and there are plenty of more complicated systems out there. I think Dresden could easily afford to do much the same.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 15, 2011, 02:14:34 AM
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.

Now, I pretty much hate the idea of letting wizards attack odd skills. Here's why:

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.

3. It really devalues Athletics and Speed.

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.

7. It tilts the scales in favour of whoever's attacking.

8. Some sort of instinctive aversion I find hard to explain.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ways and means on September 15, 2011, 02:52:01 AM
Other abilities bypass athletics defense incite emotion for 1 (discipline), venomous for a second (endurance) and for spells like zone wide  gravity wells it makes sense for people to defend against them with might or endurance instead of athletics (if someone created a gravity manipulation power it would make sense for it to be defended against by endurance or might instead of Athletics too). Much as there are attack that are basically unparryable in the game (bullets for one) it makes sense for their to be attacks that aren't dodgeable.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 15, 2011, 04:25:29 PM
Sort of like Jedi at high levels in any Star Wars system: the game is written about Wizards.  They simply get to be more badass.  Not saying I agree with it, but it is usually a given fact.  I accept it.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 15, 2011, 06:12:08 PM
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.

Agreed, I was being a bit ridiculous with that statement.

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.

These three are technically wrong. Again when you look at the attack section in the combat rules it states that the attack defines the defense. This is a universal rule, everything does this. There are situations that when someone attacks with weapons (or guns) you can not defend with fists. There are all sorts of mundane attacks that limit your defensive options.

Now I'm actually starting to agree with some of you in that limiting the defense to a single skill is probably not ideal, and as a GM I'd likely allow people to decide on another defense if they can justify it (since as stated above there are instances where other defenses do actually work like the fists for guns above). However I'm thinking that the skill needs a defense trapping in the first place to be substituted, and I'm thinking athletics could be a catchall in that case.

Other than that I don't see a huge problem with making the defense fit the attack with magic, because how are you going to attack most non-defense skills? How do you make a skill that attacks scholarship or stealth? It just doesn't make sense.

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.

Additionally; Really? Every tough NPC (or PC for that matter) is already going to have might, endurance, athletics, and fists or weapons at a pretty decent level. Those are the skills I can see one easily attacking, so they're still going to be tough and a stunt would only be necessary if they want to make sure that they roll their highest skill, but the difference would likely only be one or two at the most.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 15, 2011, 06:56:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 15, 2011, 07:46:53 PM
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.

You probably could (perhaps with a stunt), however that would be someone stretching the stealth skill to fit the attack, not the attacker targeting the stress skill. Can you think of any attack where the stress could only be avoided with stealth?

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.

I can agree with most of this. The concept of dodging would fit most attacks. Discipline may not be appropriate for all mental attacks (like if I'm attacking your concept of faith) but it should work for most as well.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 15, 2011, 07:55:21 PM
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!





Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 15, 2011, 08:00:56 PM
You could probably defend that one with Discipline too but nice work with the creative thinking.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 15, 2011, 09:43:32 PM
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 game is called "The Dresden Fiels Role Playing game" I'd say it's about wizards.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 15, 2011, 10:11:35 PM
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?

Ahh, I forgot to respond to this. There is a part in the fists skill where it talks about being unable to defend against some weapons (specifically swords, polearms, guns, etc) with fists without special circumstances (as mentioned above in the guns v. fists example). Seems like an instance of making the defense fit the attack that is more inclusive than just ranged attacks.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 16, 2011, 01:56:28 AM
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.

I can see plenty of ways to attack skills with skills if you get clever.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 16, 2011, 04:25:05 AM
I think grapples attack might.

A grapple is a block, not an attack.

Spot lights could attack stealth.

Again I'd call that a block because no stress would be done in the event that the stealth roll failed.

Choking someone should be defended with Endurance or in rare cases might.

I could maybe agree with that, but I'd be more likely to use the grapple mechanics than create some new rule for choking people.

I could see torture being defended by discipline or conviction.

Depends on the torture. If it's a mental attack then yes, if it's a physical attack.... I'm not sure how to handle that in general. Endurance perhaps?

Driving defends with driving.

Agreed.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 16, 2011, 04:39:14 AM
I guess driving only defends against driving if you are operatign a vehicle though.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 16, 2011, 04:40:55 AM
@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.

Quote
So, you think that you can attack Might or whatever with mundane attacks too?

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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 16, 2011, 04:47:08 AM
@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.


I more or less meant that a game based on a wizard from a novel will likely have wizards be the dominant force in that world.  Seems to be cannon in hte novels too.  I expect them to be very powerful, espeically late game.

The analogy to Star Wars was that "The power to destroy a planet is nothing compared to the power of the Force." - In every system that has been created for that universe Force users are the most powerful (at least in the long run).  That was all I meant.  Other things are viable to be played, but hte advantage of the magic users is usually pretty over powered or unfair.  Pretty sure it's that way in old World of Darkness and D&D too. 
Yeah those are all, not this game system, I know...but the trend still stands.

Magic targets certain skills...sounds bad right?   When it can blow up your heart for 36 shifts from pretty much anywhere; the skill thing is pretty mild by comparison.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 16, 2011, 04:51:05 AM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 16, 2011, 06:52:51 AM
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.

Again, you're trying to define your attack so as to eliminate all other options, but your definition contains no justification for this. What would occur if I try to dodge? I will face the exact same spell. Your mechanics don't fit your fluff and thus it doesn't work.

To be honest, what I see in the spell descriptions is not concrete, but is instead an attempt to save time. Seems to me that they did not mean that the only way to ever avoid the earth stomp spell was with might, but rather that without extenuating circumstances that is the default skill (just as athletics is often the default in other cases), and that mooks should probably be rolling that. If this is the case then your fears should at least be eased. There's no way to pigeon hole someone into defending with their worst skill.

I think we've reached a point where this is a little fruitless though. You've convinced me to be more moderate, but you'll never convince me that the intent is not that an attack defines the defense, and it seems like you're just as resistant to this concept.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 16, 2011, 04:07:40 PM
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 feel the spirit of my post is being ignored.  The point I'm trying to make willfully ignored.  ( I know it when I see it, I do it :P)  I think you were looking onlyh at specifics so easy counter arguments exist.

I'll rest my case but keep my opinion.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 16, 2011, 04:23:21 PM
Sorry to have caused such an uproar. OK, No, I’m not sorry, I thrive on your polemics. But my initial question (Regarding Earth Stomp), made me consider the (unmentioned) concept of invisible spell effects. I mean, If you’re using Earth magic to do damage to someone, it’s not mandatory (And some may argue silly) for the spell to have a visible effect that someone could just Athletics Dodge away from. They might not even know what’s happening until their shins snap (Since spell effects are Instant).

I know this concept runs perpendicular to the cinematic nature of Roleplay in general, and DFRPG specifically, but it is a viable tactic. The easiest dodge to this problem is to say that the Mystic Perception trapping of Lore could allow for a Spidey-Sense-like tingle to warn you of incoming spells, but what if we leave the Lore issue out of it. If you don’t know that someone’s turning the air around you into Lucite (Earth evocation, I think), how could you justify using Athletics to avoid it, instead of, say, Might to break free before it can totally solidify?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 16, 2011, 07:09:23 PM
To be honest there's a little bit of metagaming in this response, but in the interest of having a game that is fun, and not a game where you get shot to death every time someone points a gun at you, I usually try to be a little more lenient about my justification for defense.

Consider how sanctaphrax responded to a similar statement I made earlier. You can't technically dodge bullets either, but we use athletics to get out of the way of that too. The way I figure it is that you aren't actually dodging the attack, but rather making yourself a harder-to-hit target. If you're diving from cover to cover, and moving all over the place it makes you much harder to target in the first place, so this is how I would justify it, and that kind of justification works for almost any kind of attack.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ways and means on September 16, 2011, 10:29:17 PM
Personally I would allow a wizard to create a cloud full of poison engulfing a zone as an attack vs endurance and zone with 100 times the normal gravity as a an attack vs might, though I admit I see both of these as evocations that create literal environmental hazards (which even Sanctaphrax agrees should be resisted by endurance).  But then I see evocation being able to do most types of attacks under the sun (including illusion attacks against alertness to force someone to walk off a cliff or to the path of bullets etc [obvious examples abound in ghost story] and mental attacks vs discipline [whole other argument]), so the ability to create environmental hazards being under the remit of evocation makes sense to me (the obvious example in the novels being Harry's volcano spell).
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 20, 2011, 01:27:26 AM
@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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ways and means on September 20, 2011, 02:27:48 AM
Would you allow pc's to dodge mustard gas or dodge gravity Sanctaphrax? if you wouldn't then why would you let PC's dodge there magical equivalent? 
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 20, 2011, 03:50:49 AM
You could escape the area of effect of such a spell with Athletics. Therefore dodging it.

Also, I don't think you can make poison gas with Evocation. Mustard gas is not a simple elemental effect.

The root of the problem here is that you are allowing wizards to subtract significantly from their opponents' defenses at no cost whatsoever.

Your average Chest Deep fighter probably has physical defense 5-9. If you make him rely on Endurance, he probably has defense 3 (although other numbers are possible too). And if his Endurance is too high for your tastes, you can be sure that he'll have another skill at Average or Mediocore that you can attack.

So you get a rather huge advantage in exchange for absolutely nothing.

This is bad. People already squawk about Evocation being too powerful.

What's more, I can't see why you want to make this possible. What does it add to the game?

PS: Do you have a list of skills that can be attacked? If so, where did you get it?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ways and means on September 20, 2011, 05:15:19 AM
Your right about mustard gas but you could replace the example with radiation (which would fit into the earth element next to gravity) and the arguement still stands. Technically you can't attack a skill you can only attack a character the skill just determines how they defend. I was just argueing that certain skills don't make sense for defence against certain attacks for example the rule against parrying bullets. I was also argueing that evocation is capable of making attacks that shouldn't be countered by athletics such as radiation or gravity things that are nearly omnipresent in the zones they affect, attacks that unless you allow pcs to use their supplemental movemet to get out of the affected zone could not be dodged.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 20, 2011, 06:09:39 AM
I was just argueing that certain skills don't make sense for defence against certain attacks for example the rule against parrying bullets.

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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 20, 2011, 07:28:00 AM
@sinker: Would you allow nonmagical attacks to require unusual defences?

Yes, however this touches on something that I realized a long time ago. Mortal skill and evocation are capable of everything the other is capable of and work exactly the same. In both cases you have to come up with an effect you are trying to create (something that is within the realm of possibility, I.E. justified), and roll a skill to see how successful it is. The one difference I see (and the thing that makes evocation so powerful) is that, while a mortal has to come up with a reason for how it works, the wizard says "It's magic." Magic is it's own justification. To be fair this is just an attitude I've developed while looking at the source material, an inference, rather than a direct reference, but I like it.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 20, 2011, 12:45:09 PM
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.

The Buzzard has a point. But I want to drop in one further thing I thought of.
I believe the "Defend with this other skill" mechanic is supposed to give the characters more of a chance, not less of one. 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. Instead of that being the only option, perhaps the designers allowed the chance of another skill defending against it, so the target is not stuck with a Mediocre stat to roll against.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 20, 2011, 05:34:40 PM
...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.

Again, this is something that I no longer believe is good for the game. If you can dodge bullets, then you can dodge sudden magic spells.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: ways and means on September 20, 2011, 05:43:46 PM
If you take that line of logic that practicality doesn't have to be applied to how yoy defend then you should allow people to parry bullets (weapons) or persuade someone not to fire (rapport) as a defense.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 20, 2011, 05:50:24 PM
Except dodging is the standard defense against bullets...
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Belial666 on September 20, 2011, 06:17:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 20, 2011, 06:29:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: zenten on September 20, 2011, 08:28:57 PM
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.

You're arguing something differently from Belial666.

He's saying that you start dodging *before* the gun is fired.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 20, 2011, 09:19:32 PM
@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.

My point is...

Magic can kill someone; counting in a +10 roll(usually lower) and all stresses/consequences possible just by having your blood (assuming they can produce enough shifts with thaumaturgy - the heart 'sploder curse was my example) instantly. Yeah you get a defense roll, but if the wizard went overkill on his complexity to count in high skill and a few fate points...your roll will not matter.  Your character will just die.

 It should also be able to attack and choose the most reasonable defense for the situation.  Which is far less dangerous and far more fair than a instant one-shot-kill.

If you allow one, you kind of have to allow the other. Otherwise you step into the realm of hypocrisy or at least willfull stubbornness against one or the other application of magic.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 21, 2011, 04:23:27 AM
You're arguing something differently from Belial666.

He's saying that you start dodging *before* the gun is fired.

Yeah, mostly mentioned it to clarify the distinction.  You can't actually dodge bullets but you can make yourself a hard target.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 21, 2011, 06:39:08 AM
@sinker:

Fair enough. I'll downgrade your sin from "making magic overpowered" to "favouring attackers over defenders".

Seriously, your approach isn't awful. I just don't like it at all.

@Silverblaze:

Let me make sure I have this straight. You're saying that

1. Thaumaturgy is horribly unfair.
2. Evocation and Thaumaturgy should be roughly equivalent.
3. Therefore, Evocation should be horribly unfair.

Is that a fair summary?

@computerking:

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".

@ways and means (and everyone else):

Let me explain why I feel so vehemently about this.

First of all, I have trouble imagining a reasonable justification for an attack against which Athletics is ineffective. You can dodge explosives and bullets, and what spell is harder to dodge than that?

But that's not important, really. It's a minor point.

More importantly, I just don't feel it's fair.

Being good at physical defense is expensive, but doable. This ruling makes it essentially impossible. What's more, it gives a rather huge mechanical advantage to wizards willing to adopt certain descriptive approaches to their spells.

Those are both bad things from a balance perspective.

So I say, let them use Athletics even when it makes little sense. BS it if you have to. Because it preserves the balance of the game.

This approach of mine is inspired by that of the White Wolf Exalted forum towards effects that ignore perfect defenses. It is widely agreed there that with a certain magical ability it is possible to use a spoon to completely block a nuclear explosion going off inside your brain. Because if it isn't possible, then the game becomes completely unbalanced and supposedly-powerful characters get splattered in one hit.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 21, 2011, 09:11:26 AM
More importantly, I just don't feel it's fair.

See, now that's a good argument.  I disagree but then I don't like things to be fair for my players.  They're all closer to the smart end of the IQ curve than the middle, so I don't feel at all bad about my "be creative or be dead" approach.  If I let them roll Athletics for anything they'd get bored with combat pretty quickly;  so would I.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 21, 2011, 12:51:38 PM
@ 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. 
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 21, 2011, 01:24:15 PM
@ 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.

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.

Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 21, 2011, 01:53:51 PM
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".

I didn't mean that the spell would require the default of "You cannot Defend" but that , like when attacked from a successful ambush, the default would be, "You can defend with Athletics, but it's reduced to zero. Your Might, However..."
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on September 21, 2011, 08:55:15 PM
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.

I know and I accept it.

 I don't really like that in my gaming, but if the story and role playing is good (in hte particular game I'm in) I can overlook it.  i am a stickler for game balance in most other cases though and strive to get as close to it as I can with every system this one included. Some things aren't fixable without copious house ruling...therefore not worth fixing since it will no longer be hte same system in the end.

Ergo, I accept magic is overpowered. I just expect my fellow players or player base if I run the game to behave in a mature and semi self-limiting way to keep everyone happy.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 22, 2011, 03:31:36 AM
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.

It's fine if Powers are unfair against mortals, though. They're supposed to be.

In fact, I think that by the RAW they aren't as unfair to mortals as the book says they are. But that's beside the point.

PS: @computerking: I suppose that might be a decent way to approach it. But the main discussion here isn't about ambushes, I think.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on September 22, 2011, 03:59:15 AM
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. 

I don't see it as a major issue though - we're playing a cooperative game.  If the game were approached from a competitive point of view, it might be an issue.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 22, 2011, 04:09:14 AM
You don't think so?

Well, I'd be glad to discuss it. But maybe not here.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 24, 2011, 08:03:33 PM
Some more Noob questions for you folks:

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?
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?
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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 24, 2011, 08:08:05 PM
1. All wards are temporary, so I'm not sure what you mean by that. They lose strength with repeated hits instead of collapsing instantly.
2. It's possible, as far as I know. I once put a player up against a 1 shift ward with a 14 shift evocation landmine, and nobody told me I was breaking the rules.
3. Blindness can be a block, a maneuver, or a declaration. But it can't block all actions, only those that require vision.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on September 24, 2011, 08:50:53 PM
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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). 

One thing to remember with blocks - anything they're blocking can also be used to break them.  You could create a block which blocks (almost) all possible actions but it probably wouldn't be simple blindness.  It'd be something like being encased in solid earth.  Your spell trappings decide specific effects.

Edit:  Here's a breakdown of a ward recently used in the game I'm running.
The ward totaled 28 shifts.  Breakdown follows: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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 26, 2011, 02:16:58 PM
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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 26, 2011, 08:32:20 PM
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?

It'd be right handy for removing magical maneuvers/blocks during combat without having to figure out how to get around them.  Zone-wide maneuvers can be especially annoying.

Quote
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!
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 26, 2011, 09:28:27 PM
Counterspells are actually often the best way to deal with thaumaturgy, I think. Here's why:

1. Some thaumaturgy just can't be removed with normal methods. How else are you going to remove a bad luck curse? Prayer? Waiting until it wears off? Sitting under Niagara Falls until the running water washes the magic away? A counterspell would definitely be easier.

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.*

*For a given value of toast.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 26, 2011, 11:45:49 PM
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.*

*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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 27, 2011, 12:27:03 AM
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 could pull it off and not be taken out at chest deep if you were willing/able to drop enough fate points on aspect invocations.  Then again, I can't find anywhere that forbids thaumaturgic counterspells, so that could also be an option.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 27, 2011, 01:14:17 AM
You're missing the point, computerking. The numbers are insignificant.

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.)
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 27, 2011, 05:28:53 AM
You're missing the point, computerking. The numbers are insignificant.

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.)
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 27, 2011, 05:38:26 AM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 27, 2011, 03:17:30 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 27, 2011, 04:25:30 PM
It's ambiguous by the RAW. So it's up to you.

Regardless, counterspells will often still be better than attacks against low duration wards without landmines.

Also, depending on how you read the rules, counterspells may or may not trigger landmines. So there's that.

And of course counterspelling is the only practical countermeasure against some magical effects.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on September 27, 2011, 05:42:42 PM
I went with counterspell suppressing a portion of the ward for short periods (when targeted at a given part) but only taking the ward down permanently if it accounts for all shifts in the ward. 
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 27, 2011, 08:07:57 PM
And of course counterspelling is the only practical countermeasure against some magical effects.

Yep, like Orbius on one of your friends' faces.  Sorry, couldn't resist.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 28, 2011, 04:39:47 AM
I was very tempted to derail this thread with a reply to that.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: polkaneverdies on September 28, 2011, 01:25:02 PM
I admire your restraint Sancta. I know that anybody mentioning that spell is nearly enough to make you froth at the mouth and stab things. ;p
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 28, 2011, 07:06:57 PM
And therein lies the fun.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 29, 2011, 10:29:18 AM
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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 29, 2011, 12:15:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: zenten on September 29, 2011, 04:35:58 PM
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.

As a house rule I'd allow the size to grow at a cost of 2 complexity per zone.  It would be very costly to make something the same size as a regular house, but it could be done.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 29, 2011, 06:39:24 PM
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.

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).
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on September 29, 2011, 07:02:43 PM
Your Story, page 277:

"Without a threshold they can only be set up to cover a small area at most - usually a point of transition such as a doorway or intersection."

The Merlin might merit some sort of power based off of Sponsored Magic, allowing Wards at Evocation speed without thresholds. Or perhaps the situation provided a natural chokepoint and a few minutes to cast a ritual. I dunno.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on September 29, 2011, 10:44:12 PM
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.

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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on September 29, 2011, 11:05:47 PM
This got me thinking interesting thoughts. If boundaries are created by people's belief that it's a boundary can you ward conceptual boundaries? Can you ward the "Glass ceiling?" Or one's privacy? How about theological boundaries? Just a weird thought, not actually rules discussion. I have no idea how that would resolve mechanically. Ignore it as you like.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on September 29, 2011, 11:38:26 PM
Glad I'm not the only one that sent off on a conceptual tangent.  :)
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 30, 2011, 01:26:32 AM
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?

I warded my property line with chain link.  As near as I can tell though, cats are able to completely ignore wards if it suits them to.  Proper cats, mind you, not shapeshifters.

Seriously though, if you put up a fence with the intended purpose of keeping people out... it could absolutely count as a threshold for warding purposes.  Likely +0-2 ranging from picket to multiple rows of 12' electrified topped with razor wire.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on September 30, 2011, 01:32:17 AM
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.  :)
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on September 30, 2011, 02:45:42 AM
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.  :)

Harry's said you could make a circle entirely in your head (early in smf to murphy), it's just unnecessarily difficult and less reliable.  I imagine the same thing holds for wards.

Fair chance they can.  I mean if they can fail to see how you being dead is relevant, what's a little magic?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on September 30, 2011, 06:52:01 PM
Can you ward the "Glass ceiling?" Or one's privacy? How about theological boundaries?

Hmmm, a mental Ward, that bounces magical attempts to get at your private thoughts back at the caster... That'll surprise a Third Law Breaker!
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 02, 2011, 05:14:44 PM
Time for another one... How much would a custom power based off of True Shapeshifting (But limited to Humanoids Only) be worth in Refresh?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on October 02, 2011, 06:14:25 PM
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:
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 02, 2011, 10:04:43 PM
3 or 4 refresh. You still have unlimited skill shuffling and amazing disguise skills. That's pretty potent.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 03, 2011, 12:38:52 AM
3 or 4 refresh. You still have unlimited skill shuffling and amazing disguise skills. That's pretty potent.
Good point.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 03, 2011, 02:08:38 PM
I've seen a little bit of the "argument" regarding a stunt allowing Weapons skill to be used to defend against incoming magical attacks (I believe the stunt "Footwork" came from this discussion).

I was wondering if it would be more akin to a Power to be able to actually "Parry everything", when it comes to a defense against magic. 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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 03, 2011, 04:34:17 PM
Hmm, Reading the entirety of Footwork, it seems to work well as what I'm thinking of, with a narrative description change to reflect my concept... I guess I'm answering my own question now.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 03, 2011, 06:26:50 PM
Heh.

There's actually a stunt on the master list called Parry Everything that does exactly that.

But people think it's unrealistic, so it's being renamed and reflavoured into Footwork.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on October 03, 2011, 11:30:34 PM
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?

Definitely a power rather than a stunt, unless you want PMs being able to take it too.  Should probably be on an IoP too.  Just write a power for the sword that allows it to counterspell at the wielder's Weapons roll on either offensive or defensive rolls .  If it starts seeming too powerful in testing, charge a FP for each use or bump the refresh cost for the power up.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on October 06, 2011, 03:20:18 AM
I honestly don't care if hte stunt is too much for  "mortal stunt".  If the game is fun and it isn't OP in the grand scheme of the game at large... whatever, your ninja parries bullets... good for you.

This still isn't better than being able to have huge athletics bonuses due to speed powers.  Or create huge blocks due to magic.

Plenty of people do care...that's ok, I'm just not one of them.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 06, 2011, 08:32:49 PM
I've seen some people say that casting a major spell on a willing target (Like transforming yourself) has a starting complexity of the target's (usually physical) stress track +1, and others (like that rick Neal guy) do the opposite, discounting the stress track, and making the starting complexity the sum total of the target's relevant consequences +1. Is there a source of any kind that suggests which is correct one way or another?

I've seen one statement that because the player has the option not to take consequences when facing stress, so a willing target would be taken out with a complexity of Stress track +1. But it's not official, it just seems to make sense. How much credence should I give to Rick Neal's blog on this and other topics? (I notice that not only is he listed as a "Bleeder" in the book, it references him as "See: AWESOME!" in the Index)

And yes, I know ultimately it's the Players' & GM's choice.:)
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 07, 2011, 01:25:36 AM
I don't like either method. The idea of tougher characters being harder to give powers to sits badly with me.

There are other problems with those methods too, but that's the main one.

So I recommend you not connect take-out difficulty and transformation difficulty at all.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 07, 2011, 03:38:14 AM
I don't like either method. The idea of tougher characters being harder to give powers to sits badly with me.

Of note this doesn't necessarily need to be the case. One can take someone out in ways other than physically. Of course your other option is lawbreaking, and that doesn't really resolve any other issues, but it's just a thought.

What if the target is already taken out? Could a social character talk someone into being magically transformed (provided of course that a mage was standing by for the actual transformation)?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 07, 2011, 04:03:38 AM
I don't just mean physically tougher. What bugs me is that this system turns high stats into a disadvantage. That's bad.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 07, 2011, 04:07:24 AM
I do wonder what you mean by not connecting take-out difficulty and transformation difficulty. How would you suggest one come up with a complexity for a transformation ritual?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 07, 2011, 04:37:05 AM
Depends on the ritual.

A ritual designed to kill the target or turn him into something useless should involve a take-out.

A ritual designed to add powers should have a cost based on the refresh cost of the powers involved. Maybe each power would cost its refresh cost times three or so in complexity. And you should use the temporary powers rules.

Maneuvers and other hard-to-classify stuff (like making one person look like another) would have to be done case-by-case, basically building the effect out of shifts.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 08, 2011, 08:33:03 PM
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)?

Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on October 08, 2011, 09:35:35 PM
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?

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.

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)?

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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 08, 2011, 09:42:41 PM
**hangs his head in shame at his typo**
HAS not invaded or placed.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 08, 2011, 09:59:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 08, 2011, 10:00:17 PM
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)
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 08, 2011, 10:01:55 PM
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.
Ah. I get it. And the sense of Self thing really fits in with Dresdenverse's concept of Magic.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 08, 2011, 10:15:14 PM
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)

I've just realized this is why I don't like Sanctaphrax's solution to your previous question about transformation. How much would it cost to add a stunt using that cost base? The same amount as it does to maneuver... That doesn't seem equal to me.

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. I'll tolerate it as a one-time solution to an unusual problem, but I don't like that kind of thing to be over used. To me making an enchanted item devoted to that is telling me that you will use it at least once per session if not much more. I don't like that.

I guess it's more of a personal issue though. Results with your table may be different.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Belial666 on October 08, 2011, 10:28:58 PM
Quote
it reads more like one's sense of self
Yep, 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.

I.e. the Stygian Sisters tear off pieces of their own souls then replace them with pieces torn off various victims in order to gain immortality through soul-mutilation. Sound familiar?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 09, 2011, 02:49:30 AM
@sinker:

I do not think that a stunt should cost the same amount as an aspect. I have no idea how you got the idea that I think that.

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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 09, 2011, 04:46:12 AM
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.

OK. Let me try to come up with a compelling argument through examples.

Example 1: The Sword of the Cross, an Item of Power grants its user True Aim.
Quote
True Aim. When  swung  in  keeping  with  its purpose, a Sword of the Cross grants a +1 to the wielder’s Weapons skill.

Despite its Power-based origins, this is basically a Stunt. It sets the precedent of a "power" granting a Stunt. (Note, I will call back to this example later)

Example 2: The Shape-shifting power Mimic Abilities has a power Trapping called Mimic Stunt:
Quote
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?
(Another argument might come from the fact that this trapping does not specifically state that you need to meet the requirements of Eat Power to do it, but that's another argument for another day)

Example 3: There has been much talk about Ectomancy lately, in the wake of Ghost Story.
(click to show/hide)
Just putting in another possible power that has the potential to grant Stunts

Example 4: Channeling, Ritual, Evocation and Thaumaturgy all cost Refresh, and part of their trappings include 2 Focus Item Slots, which can be changed into 4 Enchanted item slots. Likewise, Refinement can be chosen to grant 2 Focus Item slots. I put forth that because these slots are part of a power, and that power is paid for with refresh, than those slots are already paid for with refresh. So an effect of an Enchanted Item is already covered, cost-wise, by sacrificing the ability to further enhance your spellcasting, and instead choosing to have a single repeatable effect in an enchanted item.

Example 5: An Item of Power (See, I told you I would call back to these) grants one or multiple ongoing powers for a small discount in an unbreakable object that can be transferred to another for 1 FP per scene for all of its powers.
An Enchanted Item grants one effect for a limited number of uses, in a breakable object that cannot be transferred to another without reducing its power at the time of its creation. If this were an Item of Power derivative power, how huge would that discount be?

To sum up, There is the potential for Stunt granting in many powers, Stunts are inherently less powerful than powers, and are also inherently easier to come across in characters (Even Pure mortals can have them). To forbid an enchanted Item, which can potentially be made to cast any Evocation or Thaumaturgy spell, from granting something so mundane as a stunt is a little heavy-handed on the ban stick, in my opinion.

And sometimes I believe the imposition of a Fate Point per use cost for magically granted powers may be a bit egregious as well. You could transform yourself into a Troll, for example, but couldn't lift a fat kid without spending at least 3 Fate Points every time, Or every scene (Huge size and Inhuman Strength)? Sometimes it seems that a well-prepared wizard couldn't be a force to be reckoned with in the games you guys run.

Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 09, 2011, 05:54:59 AM
Heh.

You should talk to Belial, who runs a spellcaster in a game I run. He's pretty much stomped everything in his path so far.

The FP cost of a temporary power is payed once, when you get the power. Check out the sidebar on page 92 of YS.

Now, I'm not opposed to the idea of stunts being granted with magic on religious grounds or anything. I just think it's a bit weird and hard to justify thematically, and so probably not worth the effort involved. I also worry that doing this would let wizards use magic to solve social and mental problems easily, which magic is normally just not much good for.

As for your examples...none of them are any good. Sorry.

Powers can resemble stunts. In some edge cases, they can even let you use some stunts. But in every case, you get what you pay for. You spend a point of refresh to buy the mimic point, form point, or point of IoP quality; then you use that point to buy the stunt. In no case can you add refresh to your character.

That is what spellcasting would do if you allowed Enchanted Items to grant powers and stunts freely. This is bad, and cannot be allowed.

So the FP tax is necessary.

Your argument that you've already payed for it with the cost of the enchanted item is bad, for a couple of reasons.

The main one is that an enchanted item is worth one quarter of one refresh. That's much cheaper than any power it could ever grant.

Plus, Enchanted Items are less restricted the Items Of Power. They can be loaned for a smaller cost (1 shift of effect rather than a FP each scene) and they can easily be replaced. Also, they actually don't have limited numbers of uses. And they almost never have weird thematic restrictions on their use.

What's more, anything an Enchanted Item can do can be done with Thaumaturgy. And any complexity of effect that an Enchanted Item can manage is within range of a thaumaturge's base complexity. So you don't actually have to spend refresh on the effects of enchanted items.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 09, 2011, 06:06:51 AM
Firstly spellcaster's are ridiculously powerful without the ability to grant themselves all of the other powers in the book as well. Consider that many other templates spend just as much or more refresh just to have the same (maybe a little less) damage output with none of the flexibility whatsoever.

To be flat honest with you a lot of my opinion is based on conversations I have had over the last year with people like Iago, Sanctaphrax, Devonapple, and others.

One of the things that has become clear to me in this experience is that you shouldn't have powers you didn't pay for. With "Item of power" you are still paying for that stunt or power (with a slight discount for it not being constantly reliable), With "mimic stunt" you are paying for the ability to gain a stunt, but you are still paying for that stunt. Read the cost of mimic abilities, you spend one refresh for every potential stunt you could mimic. With temporary powers you are still paying FP. You can't gain a stunt or power that you didn't first pay something for.

The last thing that I have a hard time refuting is that a thaumaturgic spell should be able to grant powers (and stunts) via the temporary powers sidebar on YS92, however I would point out that repeatedly the sidebar states that this should happen under rare circumstances. If any mage can make an enchanted item that gives them a power or stunt every session I'd hardly qualify that as rare.

Additionally (and this is where my rules-lawyer comes out) if you want to be strictly RAW the sidebar states that people can gain supernatural powers temporarily. It says absolutely nothing about stunts. So if you want to gain temporary access to the Mimic abilities power and then eat someone to gain their stunt, then by all means, lawbreaker.

Also as an aside, Sanctaphrax I know that a maneuver and a 1 point-cost temporary power don't cost exactly the same, I just don't like that they are the same shift cost when one grants you the use of a power for a scene (or at least that's what the temporary powers sidebar says) and the other grants you a potential +2 once (or twice if you spend that one FP that you would have spent on the power). They just don't seem to have an input to output ratio that is balanced against the other.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 09, 2011, 01:11:53 PM
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. And I understand that some powers can seem like stunts (I believe this was Sanctaphrax's attempt to shoot down my example of Items of Power), but if that is the case, why can't an EI create an effect that seems like a stunt?

Taking the Enchanted Item out of the equation, lets look at it from a Thaumaturgical perspective.
I would be hard-pressed to justify how a wizard can take a cup of pigeon blood, peregrine falcon feathers, and a piece of cloth from the wings of the Wright brothers' first plane and make a spell that grants Wings, but he can't take a pint of blood from an Emissary of Ares, a sliver of Damascus Steel, and Left hand prints from 5 ambidextrous people and make a spell that grants Off-Hand "training".

But I defer to your interpretations, and won't push it any further.

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...
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 09, 2011, 08:00:31 PM
Hm, that's a good ritual idea for the two-weapon fighting thing.

I suppose I'd probably allow it.

Like I said, I don't oppose the idea on principle. I just feel it's a bit weird for magic to be granting mundane skill.

Plus, the free creation and universal applicability of stunts makes them a bit tough to make fair in these situations.

See, a wizard granting 3 stunts could make someone into a master of social combat. 1 stunt to allow social attacks with their best skill, 1 to allow social defense with their best skill, 1 to give +2 to that skill in social combat under X scenario.

That's what worries me.

PS: Wizards should indeed be scarily powerful. But not because they get more for their refresh than others. It should be because they have a lot of refresh. Your average guy has ~6 refresh after the pure mortal bonus and ~15 skill points with a cap of Good. Your average wizard has 10 refresh and 35 skill points with a cap of Superb. See what I'm getting at here?
PPS: 3 x Refresh Cost is an intentionally low figure. If you want the complexity to be more important than the FP spending, by all means raise it.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 10, 2011, 01:16:57 AM
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.

It's a number of FP equal to the amount of refresh (1 for cloak of shadows, 2 for channeling, etc) for each scene if it's a temporary power. That's totally how it works.

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...

I wasn't trying to argue that wizards shouldn't be powerful, just responding to your statement that without the ability to grant powers to themselves or others they aren't powerful.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 11, 2011, 01:44:53 AM
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.

Also, could transformation magic (changing an aluminum bat into steel, in the same example) do it?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: UmbraLux on October 11, 2011, 02:00:46 AM
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".  :)

Quote
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.  ;)
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 11, 2011, 06:41:14 AM
Hope this helps. It probably won't, but here's hoping. (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23201.0.html)
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 11, 2011, 03:16:33 PM
OK, a weird one.
Listens to Wind isn't regarded as a lawbreaker despite having a familiar. Would communicating with an animal using Mind magic be lawbreaking, or just odd?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Richard_Chilton on October 11, 2011, 04:00:50 PM
Generally speaking, you have to have human involvement.  You can raise a dead dinosaur as a zombie but you can't raise a dead human.  You can trap a fairy in a magic circle but you can't use to trap a person (um, I'm guessing you'd need a special circle to hold a person).  You can kill a Red Court Vampire with magic but you can't kill a normal human with magic.

So the "Don't invade another's mind" probably doesn't apply to animals.

Richard
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 11, 2011, 06:17:15 PM
Would Modular abilities (utilizing 1 pre-paid refresh to shuffle around) warrant a 1 refresh discount if it was limited to only changing between versions of Echoes of the Beast?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Silverblaze on October 11, 2011, 08:26:57 PM
Nope.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Richard_Chilton on October 11, 2011, 08:31:14 PM
But if you defined a new power - say calling "Many Beasts, One Head", and your GM was okay with it, then you might get it for less.

After all, you are ignoring most of the versatility of Modular Abilities so why pay for more than you need?

Richard
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 12, 2011, 02:16:47 PM
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?

Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on October 12, 2011, 03:31:49 PM
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?

However long it takes your GM to call the end of a scene and the start of a new one.  So, anywhere between five seconds and forever.  There has to be a break in the action to call the end of a scene and if the rest of your group is still fighting that doesn't happen even if you're having a lay-down on the grass in the NN.

For non-epic battles, I'd say they're one scene long and the players can just deal with it unless they can manage to create such a break.  The battle in the Deeps in WN, I'd call that three scenes long.  One for the duel, one for the ghoul initial charge, and one for the rescue attempt.  I might even go just two and lump all the ghoul action together.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 12, 2011, 05:09:05 PM
From the standpoint that you're looking at it from (I.E. How long does it take to clear stress) you want to look at what stress is, and that's stress (I know, I'm being helpful). So it takes a moment to chill, clear your head and relax for a bit.

Mechanically though TMB is right. The GM tells you when, and it's usually a party wide event. If you veil and run or jump to the nevernever then you've removed yourself from the scene and don't usually have the opportunity to return unless the GM is ok with that (or you can check out the fortuitous arrival or whatever the heck it's called).
Title: revisiting Mental damage
Post by: computerking on October 16, 2011, 02:55:29 AM
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.

OK, however using such an item against a non-Mortal (Full faerie, Ghoul, Blampire, Rampire, etc) would still be A-OK by the Laws (but Not necessarily by the Wardens, though), right?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 16, 2011, 02:59:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 16, 2011, 03:16:26 AM
You might bump into issues with the accords in that case. But yeah, no lawbreaker.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on October 16, 2011, 03:44:55 AM
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.

You probably could.  Just figure out how to take the backlash Harry took from casting a spell without speaking and fire a shot of it at someone else.  I doubt it would really bother a lot of non-humans, especially the Fae, though.  Depending on whether you used actual raw magic or just the memory of it in the spell, it might even be a shot of free power if you did it to anyone who was capable of shaping magic.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 16, 2011, 04:57:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on October 16, 2011, 04:53:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 16, 2011, 05:25:35 PM
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.

Leah (and to a lesser extent Aurora) are pretty much near-godlike in power, and as such can't be the template for all fae creatures when it comes to mental sturdiness. Could you mentally blast a pixie into something they're not? Possibly. Could you mindwipe a Hob totally, causing its lack of self image to make it disappear into non-existence? Maybe (provided you get a takeout). So fae that aren't so powerful as those two should be able to be affected.

Unless when you said, "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.", you meant "them" as in Aurora or Leah only, not "them" as in fae in general. If you meant the former, I agree.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on October 16, 2011, 05:38:04 PM
Actually meant them as fae in general since their thought process are astoundingly other than human.  If you hit a fae with a blast of mental chaos would it fall down twitching, say "oooh, pretty", or completely fail to notice that what you sent was trying to be chaotic?  Most mortals wouldn't have enough of a grasp of the fae mind to even begin to know how to craft something stressful to them.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 16, 2011, 07:19:43 PM
Fae do not have powers making them immune to mental stress, therefore they take it the same way as anyone else when his with Domination or Incite Emotion. But the infliction of mental stress by mortals is pretty much handwavium, so it could work differently.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 17, 2011, 02:55:59 PM
I'm probably going to facepalm when I get the answer to this one:
Fate Point expenditure on an attack, is it allowed after the defense roll?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: The Mighty Buzzard on October 17, 2011, 03:03:58 PM
Eh, hard call.  If you go roll, calculate, opposing roll, I'd say no.  If you're lazy like me and roll defense while they roll offense, then yes.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: sinker on October 17, 2011, 05:35:40 PM
An attack is technically just a contest (YS193) and my read on contests is that both sides roll and resolve at the same time (in many contests there is no aggressor or defender so how would we define who goes first?). As Fate points are supposed to be resolved after a roll it seems to me that you would by definition be spending fate points after the defense roll has occurred.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Sanctaphrax on October 18, 2011, 01:18:32 AM
If not, I've been playing all wrong.
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: computerking on October 19, 2011, 11:26:41 PM
Do the mild Consequences flushed away by a Recovery Toughness Power count towards the Fate Points awarded if you concede or are taken out?
Title: Re: Noob Questions
Post by: Tedronai on October 20, 2011, 01:00:33 AM
Quote from: YS206
Losing a conflict, either by concession or by
being taken out, grants the player one fate point
per consequence taken in the conflict.

By a strict reading of the rules, yes, as you did 'take' that consequence, even if you healed it at the first available opportunity.