ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: noom777 on December 13, 2011, 05:49:50 PM
-
If a character used a veil on himself this exchange and a monster wants to attack him does the monster uses alertness as his action for the exchange and if it beats the character's veil toughness he finds him but it has no action left to attack him?
So, the character can use another veil on the following exchange and the monster will lose his action trying to find him with alertness again right?Is it possible for the monster to use alertness and if it beats the veil to attack in the same exchange?
Also,when the veil is beaten it vanishes and the caster is visible?
Thanks again!
-
If a character used a veil on himself this exchange and a monster wants to attack him does the monster uses alertness as his action for the exchange and if it beats the character's veil toughness he finds him but it has no action left to attack him?
So, the character can use another veil on the following exchange and the monster will lose his action trying to find him with alertness again right?Is it possible for the monster to use alertness and if it beats the veil to attack in the same exchange?
Also,when the veil is beaten it vanishes and the caster is visible?
Thanks again!
I believe the answer to the first and second questions is yes, Veil-and-Seek works like Block-and-Escape. It can be re-done to force the person looking for you to have to try again. (I am assuming the Veiler is also moving, so as not to be in exactly the same place in the zone.) Also, Investigation can also be used to seek Veiled persons. Alertness represents noticing little things, like a shadow that's off or a darker patch of shadow shaped like a person, to reveal the presence and location of someone veiled, while Investigation actively seeks those changes (It's a semantic difference).
As for the third question, I think veils are only pierced for that single person, and unless they draw people's attention toward you (As a Maneuver on you, to place an aspect like "Pointed out") to try to get them to also see through your veil.
Note: I still consider myself a noob, so hopefully more experienced opinions shall follow this one.
-
Have there been examples in the books of Wizards using a veil to vanish from someone who was looking at them as the time? I've always thought of Veils as having some of the same limitations as Stealth, the chief of which being that its difficult to hide from someone who is watching you do it. Once hidden, of course, the magic provides the necessary concealment, allowing you to remain hidden 'in plain sight', but it seems as though you should need to get out of sight first. (Which might be as simple as using a supplemental action to move around a corner before casting the veil.)
Regardless, I think I would only use the ambush rules for cases where the target doesn't have any concrete reason to believe he's in imminent danger of being attacked. Once he was ambushed, the target would be in defensive mode -- at least until the adrenaline wore off -- even if the target vanished, to later attack again. (But that's my opinion.)
-
No reason you couldn't veil with an audience, especially with some methods (bending the light, or getting it to ignore you, etc, should be just fine)... others not so much (the mental kind where you alter their perception would be harder, I'd think).
That said, someone who watched you veil at least knows where you were and that you veiled. It seems preferable (where possible) to break line-of-sight before veiling so they don't catch any unlucky breaks.
-
Something to keep in mind. Alertness is passive and (usually) requires no action. An alertness roll is usually made to see if someone noticed something without trying. As computerking pointed out investigation is the flip side to that, so if someone wants to actively search for something as an action then it's usually investigation. So the monster could roll alertness and then do something else if you wanted. Personally (and depending on the monster) I'd probably just have the monster roll their attack with whatever skill restricted by their alertness.
As to the books and veils, there's no reason to believe that they don't work while people are watching since Molly veils herself and the beetle (quite well as I recall) while Harry watches. Since how well someone can detect you under a veil has to do with the quality of the veil I would imagine that sometimes someone watching you would allow them to find flaws more easily, since they know what they're looking for, but if the veil was really good then there are few flaws to find.
-
If a character used a veil on himself this exchange and a monster wants to attack him does the monster uses alertness as his action for the exchange and if it beats the character's veil toughness he finds him but it has no action left to attack him?
Depends on the situation. Is said monster looking (Alertness) for the character? Or is he simply striking out (Fists / Weapons) and hoping to hit? Or is the monster looking for tracks and other traces (Investigation)? Use the skill which fits the narrative. :)
So, the character can use another veil on the following exchange and the monster will lose his action trying to find him with alertness again right?Is it possible for the monster to use alertness and if it beats the veil to attack in the same exchange?
He can make an Alertness Declaration ("I saw the grass moving over there!") and then swing his club (Weapons) while tagging the Declaration for a +2. That's the closest I can think of to doing both actions in one exchange.
Also,when the veil is beaten it vanishes and the caster is visible?
Generally, yes. Though it may be dirt or blood which is visible rather than the character...if that fits the narrative better. Mechanically though, the veil is no longer effective.
Have there been examples in the books of Wizards using a veil to vanish from someone who was looking at them as the time?
A veil doesn't have to mean invisibility. It could be illusory images, fog, or even a light too bright to look at. Mechanically it means the veiled target is more difficult to hit...that can be explained in a variety of different ways.
-
Keep in mind UmbraLux, that using Alertness is not an action. Alertness is the passive ability to notice without trying. Here's a quote from the appropriate trapping of the skill.
You will rarely ask to roll Alertness—if you
are actively looking for something, Investigation
(page 133) is usually more appropriate.
Alertness is reactive perception. That is,
Alertness is more appropriate for things that
you do not expect or are not looking for—such
as the spiked pit trap in the hallway you’re casually
walking through. It’s a skill that, typically,
the GM calls for you to roll.
If you're curious as to what the other trappings of Alertness are, they are Avoiding surprise and Combat initiative.
-
Keep in mind UmbraLux, that using Alertness is not an action. Alertness is the passive ability to notice without trying.
Yep, by a strict reading of Alertness you can't use it to consciously look for a hidden target at all. That said, it does appear to be used as the default active perception (when not searching) skill...at least in both groups I've played with. But, you're correct. Per the book you don't get the chance to roll Alertness when looking for something hidden - it would be Investigation.
-
i would think the monster would get a alertness roll to see if the veil even worked in the first place. then if it failed a investigation roll would be need to find the player. that the investigation roll would take a full turn. if the monster did find the player. the player could then recast veil to hide again and the monster would roll alertness to see if the it lost the player again. i point to the fact molly ended up playing cat and mouse game with a monster in the book Changes. the monster even toss paint at molly to find her. hope that made cents.
-
Yeah veils can be nasty pieces of work, but magic is supposed to be rough. If it was an ambush situation they get an alertness roll to detect an incoming threat, if they match or beat the veil they know "something" is coming. Then its investigation or lore to pierce the veil and that "search" is a supplimental. When you start seeing veils of 8 or 9 then ur looking not at "invisible man, i cant be seen" but rather "i dont exist, ive erased my presence" kind of veils.
If its in combat, then they dont need an alertness roll they know their there. Its straight investigation and lore, and its probably still a suplimental action. Remember that combat manuevers like "waving arms around" can be checked by the person under the veil, usually against athletics or stealth.
-
In my mind a veil is a attack that does not hurt the monster. OK. let try to pin down what i am saying better. if a player wanted to cast veil. the player would roll conviction to power the spell, discipline to control the spell. if the player won the rolls now the player casts the spell. ok the veil is on and run BUT did the spell fool the monster. the monster would roll to dodge/block the veil. (if the player cast a fireball. the monster would roll to dodge/block the fireball.) now for the monster to dodge/block the veil what would the monster roll? alertness, investigation, or lore. i say let your Game Master decide. now lets say the monster failed to dodge/block the veil. now it needs to find the player. the monster rolls to find the player. what does it roll? again let the Game Master decide. let us say the monster found the player but now it is the player's turn. so what does the player do? let us say recast veil and start it all again. that is basically what happened to molly fought the ik monster (Ik'k'uox was it's name i think) in the 12th book Changes. hope that make what i am saying clearer.
-
It doesn`t quite work like that.
First of all, you don`t roll to power spells.
Second, most veils are blocks. You don`t roll to defend against a block, you roll to oppose it.
With that in mind, could you please restate your question? I want to make sure that I know what you are asking.
-
I am wrong about the power roll. NO excuse. i was wrong. about the veil being a passive attack. ok i will not argue that. but in the games i played i we gave a player or monster a chance to beat the veil with a automattic roll. a different way to do it is to say for the veil to work is for it to be stronger than the monsters alertness, lore, or whatever you think it should use to see through the veil. if monster has alertness, lore, or whatever at let say 4. the player a veil of 5 or better to hide from the monster. then on the monster's turn it could roll to find the player. hope that made cents.
-
Given that Alertness represents passive - and thus inherently reactive - perception, that assessment is at least somewhat true.
If a practitioner's veil fails to exceed an observer's Alertness roll, then that veil isn't going to be much help against that observer.
-
What is a fair frequency to use for giving opponents Alertness and/or Investigation checks? Which of these is how it should work?
1. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) the round the veiled character is in range to be observed.
2. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) *every* round the veiled character is in range to be observed.
3. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) the round the veiled character attacks the opponent.
4. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) the round the veiled character attacks anyone else in range to be observed.
5. Opponent may opt to take an Investigate check (regular action) the round the veiled character is in range to be observed.
6. Opponent may opt to take an Investigate check (regular action) the round the veiled character attacks the opponent .
7. Opponent may opt to take an Investigate check (regular action) the round the veiled character attacks anyone else in range to be observed.
8. Additional rules?
-
You can also treat a veil as a straightforward block against attacks and other actions that require perception. That way, passive Alertness doesn't enter into it and no fancy rules interpretations are required.
-
You can also treat a veil as a straightforward block against attacks and other actions that require perception. That way, passive Alertness doesn't enter into it and no fancy rules interpretations are required.
That block could be broken with any Skill that requires perception, right? So swinging out blindly would be a valid attempt to break the block?
-
Yeah.
-
A veil against any action which requires perception could be broken by perception.
Alertness is passive perception.
'Passive' in this instance means they don't need to take an action to roll it, and that they roll it reactively (don't have to even ask to roll it; it's the GM's responsibility to ask them to).
It would seem, then, that even an Alertness (passive) roll could break such a veil.
What is a fair frequency to use for giving opponents Alertness and/or Investigation checks? Which of these is how it should work?
1. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) the round the veiled character is in range to be observed.
2. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) *every* round the veiled character is in range to be observed.
3. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) the round the veiled character attacks the opponent.
4. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) the round the veiled character attacks anyone else in range to be observed.
5. Opponent may opt to take an Investigate check (regular action) the round the veiled character is in range to be observed.
6. Opponent may opt to take an Investigate check (regular action) the round the veiled character attacks the opponent .
7. Opponent may opt to take an Investigate check (regular action) the round the veiled character attacks anyone else in range to be observed.
8. Additional rules?
Options 5-7, if implemented in the absence of some variation of 1-4, would severely hamstring the Alertness skill.
Personally, I would suggest an Alertness roll the first time the veiled character is in range to be observed, and again whenever an occurrence would make that character more obvious to observers (anything from physical attacks, offensive blocks, and most offensive maneuvers to having the narration of their movement take them in front of that giant spotlight so that they're temporarily silhouetted)
As for Investigate checks, the character gets those whenever the player asks for them and spends an appropriate action (possibly standard, possibly supplemental, depending on context).
-
You can also treat a veil as a straightforward block against attacks and other actions that require perception. That way, passive Alertness doesn't enter into it and no fancy rules interpretations are required.
This.
What is a fair frequency to use for giving opponents Alertness and/or Investigation checks? Which of these is how it should work?
1. Opponent gets an Alertness check (free action) the round the veiled character is in range to be observed.
5. Opponent may opt to take an Investigate check (regular action)...<anytime they have an action and wish to so so - standard modifiers are applied>
Either or both of the above also work.
-
Tedronai nailed it.
-
Given that the block rules in general allow any (appropriate) skill to be used to break the block, and since a veil is a block is a block, I'd favor Sanctaphrax's suggestion. So an attacker could swing wildly where he thought the invisible target was, and if he was very lucky (ie, beat the block) then he'd hit. Possibly just barely, due to the block, but enough to cancel the veil. (This assumes, of course, that the character has reason to believe there is someone within range of his attack.)
-
To be honest I do dislike that idea a little bit, but only from a thematic point of view. Consider that under that method, a blind and deaf world class fencer is more likely to hit than a very alert but only moderately trained swordsman. That seems a little off to me.
-
To be honest I do dislike that idea a little bit, but only from a thematic point of view. Consider that under that method, a blind and deaf world class fencer is more likely to hit than a very alert but only moderately trained swordsman. That seems a little off to me.
Oh, my, the scene you just created in my mind....
The PC's are quietly ushered into the Master of the house's exercise room, where 2 men are facing off in full fencing garb. One is in perfect stance, advancing and retreating with fluid grace, his opponent visibly less skilled with a sword, trying his best. After several unsuccessful attempts to score a hit on his more competent opponent, the underdog is double-feinted, lured into an off-balanced strike, and defeated with a quick riposte and hit to the heart. The men lower their swords and bow to each other. The men take off their helmets, then the victor takes off his blindfold. "Perhaps Next time, James," He says, then turns to the PC's. "Oh, I didn't expect you this early. I'd heard you wanted to speak with me..."
I have to use that. Thank you, sinker!
-
To be honest I do dislike that idea a little bit, but only from a thematic point of view. Consider that under that method, a blind and deaf world class fencer is more likely to hit than a very alert but only moderately trained swordsman. That seems a little off to me.
Only if the GM fails. Modifiers still exist in FATE and, even if you play with aspects only, both blind and deaf should be aspects which easily help the defense if they don't simply get compelled to make the scene ludicrous. (Absent some compensating power of course.)
-
From a game balance perspective, I can't help but wonder why someone who themes their block spell as affecting perception should have significantly more bang-for-the-buck than one who themese their block spell as impairing movement (paralysis, say -- or entangle). Better to use the same mechanics for all blocks.
From a flavor text perspective, I would actually say that it makes some sense that someone who is skilled at creating a web of steel (and perhaps also at predicting an opponent's moves) might be as equipped to happen across an invisible target than someone who's just looking around for signs of his passage.
In any case, keep in mind that the veil is still a block, and as such still reduces (greatly) the likelihood of hitting, and the strength of the hit if one occurs.