This also helps differentiate social stunts. People with + accuracy/power stunts are good at winning arguments. People with timescale stunts are good at actually changing peoples beliefs.
Social attacks have weapon ratings. The weapon rating of a social attack is determined by the reasonableness of the attack and by how well that attack fits its target's character.Have to admit I'm surprised to see this from you - it doesn't seem to mesh with your desire to separate mechanics from narrative.
So, forum. Do you think that this is a good idea?I don't know that weapons are needed. I do think setting stakes should be far more explicit.
Diaspora (FATE) was touted as having a sophisticated social combat system - I may opt to get it.Setting the scene (which should imply stakes - still wish they were explicit) is one thing Diaspora does well. It has you assign "zones" to social combat with zones being areas of thought or agreement.
Given that, it seems sensible to modify each attack based on its stakes. Which is what I'm trying to do here.I'm not sure that makes sense to me. You're suggesting a single given attack have different weapon values based on whether it's a high school debate or a presidential primary? Not sure I'm seeing your intent, can you explain?
I have recently had a conversation about social combat. I think I like the fact that it can solve an arguement. I also think it is kind of scary. Dice rolls can completely change the way a character thinks ("Join the Dark Side" "Change your political party or religion" "Broccoli in fact does taste good") and the player has to deal with that.
I feel there are some things you simply can't achieve with a few rolls in social combat regardless of the rapport skill rating.
I think the FATE system, more than any other, accounts for this in a pretty satisfying fashion in three ways.
1) Consequences give the player the choice to not be Taken Out.
2) Concessions allow a player to resolve a conflict in a manner consistent with their vision for the character.
3) Even if Taken Out unexpectedly, the "reasonableness" rule still says that the result can't be wildly out of character.
I feel there are some things you simply can't achieve with a few rolls in social combat regardless of the rapport skill rating.Agreed. This is part of why I like setting the stakes explicitly. Once they're set, that's all that can occur from the conflict. Any consequences need to reflect it and so do the scenes (which primarily matters for recovery).
@Silverblaze: Yeah, social take-outs have limits. Unfortunately, those limits are rather vague. This system would allow you to remove those limits if you felt inclined, since you can apply arbitrarily low weapon ratings to social attacks that it makes no sense to have succeed.
@ways and means: Your definition of "great" is very different from mine.
@Ophidimancer: I could see that working, but it would require easier mental attacks. And DFRPG seems to assume that mental stress is something special. Still, making Conviction useful for resisting attempts to convince you has appeal.
@UmbraLux: I thought a bit more about your comment about narrative and realized a significant flaw with my idea. It lets people effectively get social armour by being unreasonable. This is bad, I'll try to think of a way to fix it. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.
A social attack's weapon rating depends on how reasonable it is for the target to listen to you. If accepting what you have to say costs nothing, then you'll probably get a high weapon rating. If it's expensive to accept what you have to say, then you'll get a low weapon rating.
Let's take as our example a social attack that's designed to make people vote for you as class president might have a high weapon rating, because nobody is emotionally invested in not voting for you and it's easy to convince them.
But if you're trying to convince people to vote for you as PotUS, people will be emotionally invested in refusing you and as such you'll get a crummy weapon rating.
This mechanically represents the way that hardly anyone ever gets argued away from their core convictions.
Social attacks have weapon ratings. The weapon rating of a social attack is determined by the reasonableness of the attack and by how well that attack fits its target's character.
So, forum. Do you think that this is a good idea?
I have recently had a conversation about social combat. I think I like the fact that it can solve an arguement. I also think it is kind of scary. Dice rolls can completely change the way a character thinks ("Join the Dark Side" "Change your political party or religion" "Broccoli in fact does taste good") and the player has to deal with that.
What is the problem with this?
This is way more powerful than bluff checks and sense motive checks or diplomacy checks in the D20 system.
You seriously have no problem with someone being able to change core concepts of your character with a few dice rolls?
Lets say you are playing a Wizard of the White Council. You also happen to be a strong advocate of PETA. You also think chivalry is not dead.
In a few games (or in theory a few social combats in one game) a social combat expert now has you convinced breaking laws of magic is fine. PETA in fact stands for People Eating Tasty Animals...or at least it does afte a few rapport rolls. Also, now chivalry is dead, your girlfriend is sorta pissed.
This is way more powerful than bluff checks and sense motive checks or diplomacy checks in the D20 system.
I think roleplaying over a large period of time should be able to slowly shape another character's thought processes and behavior. I think events in games should change characters outlook on life. Certainly not a few rolls or a social combat.
That is my problem with it.
Even a Severe consequence is temporary and will pass eventually.
What do you think?
Social combat has another huge problem. If I (the character) don't want to be convinced and I (the character) am unreasonable...I (the character) can just walk away. I (the character) can plug my ears. I (the character) can pee on your leg. I (the character) can up and shoot you in the face. All of this is a generally good way to end a social combat.
Being very unreasonable totally ruins social combat.
Because "number of Aspects" isn't really the important thing. Not all Aspects are created equal. If I'm threatening to kill the love of your life, who I have hostage, then that ought to be more than +1 stress to Intimidation attacks.
Is that a good enough representation of the art of debate and persuasion for you?
I think that if the social conflict in question is that important that it can change your core concepts and beliefs...this should NOT be down to a few dice rolls, it should be roleplayed.
Taking consequences is to represent the amount of effort you're willing to put into it. You've begun to doubt your own abilties or starting to feel like you can't contribute to the team as much. You lose your cool etc. The use of Aspects can be used to represent the reasonable social advantage you're suggesting. The bonus to intimidate due to having a hostage - used either as a tag or a compel of He has my daughter! Aspect. Your opponent is also Big and Scary!? hey that can be tagged or have fate points spent on too. No need for weapon ratings for social conflicts when there are already rules in place to reflect this.
...this should NOT be down to a few dice rolls, it should be roleplayed.It's not a binary choice. At least not unless you make it one.
It's not a binary choice. At least not unless you make it one.
One of the things I like about FATE is the ability to incorporate role play directly into the game mechanics.
More recently, I was working on a Telepathy power that would allow its user to give mental commands. When I was trying to work out the limits of that effect, I realized that social attacks had no clearly-defined limit to what they could make people do. Convincing someone to lend you $500 and convincing someone to give you their house are pretty much the same so far as the system is concerned.
This also bugged me somewhat.
...having to take them is a sign that the argument you're up against is working.
How do people unblur the lines between mental and social consequences?
You should really only get mental consequences when you pit your will against anothers, rather than your wit (a fine line I know) and its still negotiable what you get and how you handle getting taken out. There is still that element of overlap with social and mental consequences but all they really are is flavour, the mechanical aspect (no pun intended) is just where to place them on your sheet (either in the mental spot or social spot) and unless you can take aditional mental or social consequences it really doesn't matter where you got them.
As for Aspects only working once, that is true, it can also represent the fact that you can only be affected by the factor a limited amount of times. For example, Mr Big and Scary might be able to use his aspect on you, but sooner or later you're going to get used to it. You can use the hostage situation the same - "I know you got my kids, you told me already and I've taken the requisite stresses/consequences to go on regardless". All it would take to continue having those things apply their benefit is for the bad guy to spend a FP.
I understand when to get mental consequences, but if after an arguement (said arguement's goal is to convince me to change my mind ) I'm told that would be mental. however, the goal of the social combat as to get me to change my mind.... so it would be social yes?
The idea of this house rule is to create a mechanical difference between reasonable and unreasonable social attacks. To make intimidation easier when you use it against people you could splatter and harder when you use it against people you might not be able to take.
It's the degree of changing your mind. A Social Conflict might change your mind about, say, where to go to dinner, or whether to ask someone out somewhere. It's not going to change your fundamental mindset. It's surface stuff.
PS: My main reason for doing this was actually the desire to make accuracy more important than weapon rating, but it seems that nobody else actually cares about that...
@sinker: Not always. Getting any kind of success out of an unreasonable social attack should be harder than doing the same with a reasonable one.
....
PS: My main reason for doing this was actually the desire to make accuracy more important than weapon rating, but it seems that nobody else actually cares about that...
Suppose I attack, and miss by one. If I have +1 accuracy, I get my weapon rating minus the target's armour in stress.That's a convoluted bit of reasoning...which jumps to an unwarranted (and wrong) conclusion.
If I miss by more than one, neither +1 accuracy or +1 weapon rating does anything.
If I hit, both +1 accuracy and +1 weapon rating provide an extra point of stress.
So accuracy and weapon rating are equal in value unless you already have a weapon rating that exceeds the target's armour.
(Unless your GM in his infinite mercy gives you perks when you barely hit someone.)
So by assigning actual weapon values to social attacks, one can make social accuracy better than social damage.
You're looking at stunts aren't you? At the value difference between +1 Accuracy and +2 Stress?
Honestly, a part of me thinks Social conflict is better without any weapon ratings. To me, the whole Social conflict thing seems like it's supposed to be "softer" than Mental or Physical conflict. Like, a social consequence that lasts months and years at a time really isn't supposed to be something that comes normally.
Part of this goes back to my feeling that social combat and the possibility of filling all your consequences with social stuff and making yourself a sitting duck in combat is way off. Part of it is that Social consequences seem much more transient in nature than physical or mental stuff, things that literally and tangibly change you and who you are.
Really? You don't think it would last as long? ??? How about, a bad breakup that ends in the ex badmouthing you to all your mutual friends for months, or someone being accused of paedophilia and losing their teaching job and their reputation and in some cases even their rights for years. Wouldn't those be social consequences?Yes. Those would be ones that don't "come normally." Those are pretty extreme things, the result of constant, consistent efforts over a considerable amount of time--i.e., numerous maneuvers adding up to one massive "attack" that overwhelms your "defense" and has to be weathered with a consequence.
I'm not saying that Severe or Extreme social consequences shouldn't and don't happen. I'm saying that maybe it's appropriate that they're that much more difficult to inflict, i.e., no RAW Social Weapon ratings (that I recall, anyway).
(And honestly I'm iffy on the whole notion of stress-adding stunts for Weapons in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.)
Wait, what? Seriously?Mainly, I suppose, it's how I've seen such stunts be referenced around these boards as if they were an automatic +2 to stress whenever you're using a weapon. This may not be quite what they are (I admit I haven't looked closely at the stunts in question), but that's the impression I've gotten.
Please explain this, in a PM if need be.
Accuracy is never worse than weapon rating, but it isn't always better.
Really? You don't think it would last as long? ??? How about, a bad breakup that ends in the ex badmouthing you to all your mutual friends for months, or someone being accused of paedophilia and losing their teaching job and their reputation and in some cases even their rights for years. Wouldn't those be social consequences?
(Tedronai might be worth talking to here too. IIRC he regards Fists as pathetic.)
@sinker: I already explained how in some situations weapon rating and accuracy are identical. If you want to say that accuracy is always better, you're going to need to disprove what I said somehow.
No, those would be Mental Consequences from a mental conflict. YS clearly gives that as an example on turning a social conflict into a mental one.Consequences representing how those in a community view you differently than they otherwise would are clearly not mental in nature. They are social.
Consequences representing how those in a community view you differently than they otherwise would are clearly not mental in nature. They are social.
If those same actions resulted in internal changes to the victim, those changes might be mental.
I can't think of a non-contrived scenario where 1 accuracy can reasonably assumed to be of no greater value than 1 stress. (given the breadth of relative accuracy result from 2 rolls potentially producing an effective 8 point penalty for the attacker combined with the possibility of FP expenditure on the behalf of the defender to further widen that gap)
@sinker: I already explained how in some situations weapon rating and accuracy are identical. If you want to say that accuracy is always better, you're going to need to disprove what I said somehow.It's already been done. I'll try to simplify.
@Mr. Death: It looks to me like your real problems are not with Weapons stunts adding to stress. They seem to be with the arguable weakness of the Fists skill and with the tendency of some people (including me) to gloss over stunt restrictions in conversations.As I said, I haven't really taken a close look at those stunts, so that might well be the case. When I do see them summed up, most often it's in the sense of something like, "If you're using a broadsword, add +2 to the stress."
Weapons is absolutely not in need of a nerf. Ask ways and means, he seems to be trying to buff Weapons right now.I'm not saying it needs a nerf. What I'm saying is that using Weapons already has a built in advantage of the weapon rating, and adding a stunt to boost the weapon rating even further feels like stacking stunts in a way the RAW doesn't intend. It makes more sense to me to limit it to accuracy stunts, or maybe stress boosting stunts that cost a fate point to use, like Killer Blow.
1. Comparing accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio.
2. Measuring by stress caused.
3. Accuracy past the success level becomes stress at a 1:1 ratio.
4. Weapon rating becomes stress at 1:1 if accuracy is high enough.
Conclusion 1: Accuracy is a must. If you don't hit, weapon rating doesn't matter.
Conclusion 2: Excess accuracy is equal to weapon rating in causing stress.
Example: Splitting 10 points between accuracy and weapon power evenly makes me ineffective against anything with a defense greater than 5. If Defense is exactly 5 I'll cause 5 stress. Putting all 10 points in accuracy means I'll still do 5 stress when defense is 5 but I'll also do 4 stress when defense is 6 and 1 stress when defense is 9 - both situations where the 5/5 split does zero stress.
Yeah, this is where I was, but I realize that Sancta is talking about stunts here, which means +1 to accuracy or +2 to weapon rating. In that case, the only instance in which +1 accuracy makes a difference in in those situations where you're only one off, which creates a zero sum attack that doesn't do any stress (or technically have any real effect). So really +2 weapon rating is better than (or equal to) +1 accuracy unless your GM does something about zero sum attacks.He seems to be comparing accuracy and weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio here:
PS: My main reason for doing this was actually the desire to make accuracy more important than weapon rating, but it seems that nobody else actually cares about that...It appears the intent is to make accuracy more important than weapon rating. I'm simply stating "it already is more important".
If you're comparing accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:2 ratio you've already admitted accuracy is more important.
The same cannot be said for example social attack stunts, which do not follow the stunt creation guidelines.
More recently, I was working on a Telepathy power that would allow its user to give mental commands. Then I realized that these problems could solve one another. So here's the rule:
What I was referring to were the 'example stunts' in YS. The social stunts, there, do not follow the stunt creation guidelines.
Honest lies and Infuriate have further limiting factors, which is sometimes worth additional shifts. One could argue that Rumormonger is also limited by the fact that there must be justification for it to be considered an attack (I wouldn't though). Sex appeal is limited by gender/orientation?
...was this just put up as background for your thought process?
He seems to be comparing accuracy and weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio...
I'm not saying it needs a nerf. What I'm saying is that using Weapons already has a built in advantage of the weapon rating, and adding a stunt to boost the weapon rating even further feels like stacking stunts in a way the RAW doesn't intend. It makes more sense to me to limit it to accuracy stunts, or maybe stress boosting stunts that cost a fate point to use, like Killer Blow.
But that all's got little to do with social conflict, so perhaps we're getting off topic.
See, my point only stands in a very specific case.What specific case are you referring to?
The thing is, that specific case is rather common in social conflicts.I can't think of anything I'd call a 'specific case' which is also common enough to warrant rewriting rules for an entire section of combat. Perhaps I'll understand better once you explain what this case is.
Some stunts are written under the assumption that people will not always have access to their favourite weapons. I freely admit that they push the limits of balance a little bit, but if you can't specialize in a weapon with stunts something is very wrong.I totally agree. I just think that stacking a stress bonus on top of the Weapon rating doesn't feel right. Weapon specialization stunts, to me, would be to boost blocking, maneuvering, and attacking.
The Rules As Intended here clearly let you use stress-boosters with Weapons and Guns. The rules and the examples are in agreement, and there's nothing unbalanced about the result.What are some of the examples on restrictions to the stunts? It should be considerably narrower than just the type of weapon, as far as damage goes, because you're already getting a +2 or +3 for using that type of weapon.
What specific case are you referring to?
Ok, let me explain in it's entirety. According to the stunt creation rules, we can only gain +1 to accuracy from a stunt*. So, using only stunts the max accuracy bonus in social conflict we can achieve is +1*.You're discussing stunt creation and Sanctaphrax is discussing a "special case" which relates accuracy to weapon rating at a 1:1 ratio. If the two of you are discussing the same thing you're doing an excellent job of obfuscation. :)
The only time a +1 accuracy is useful is when 1 shift makes a difference. If we roll under -1 we miss anyway, so neither accuracy nor weapon rating is useful to us.From my point of view, a bit more accuracy would have been extremely useful. ;)
If we roll -1 then a +1 to accuracy nets us a zero sum attack, and if the GM isn't feeling generous, a zero sum attack does nothing without weapon ratings. A -1 with only weapon rating does nothing as well. If we roll 0 then both accuracy and weapon rating increase the stress in the same way.After success? Sure. That's what I stated previously.
So in this case (where a single point of accuracy is the most you can achieve and your GM doesn't award anything for zero sum attacks) 1 point of accuracy is exactly like 1 point of stress.
Is that not a bit off?Why do you consider it 'off'? It's basically the same as physical combat with Fists. Certainly weaker than using weapons but, if you want a weapon, you should probably buy the appropriate stunt / power / item / status.
Why do you consider it 'off'?
Put it another way, don't you think assigning some weapon rating based on player creativity devalues equivalent weapon rating stunts? Why bother paying a refresh when you get the stress damage for free?
What specific case are you referring to?
That case is a case where even with the stress boost the attack will inflict no more than 1 stress on a successful hit, and where the GM isn't handing out free Aspects for glancing blows.
I think that this is just a case where one option is clearly better than another option. Is this really that bad?
I think I've a way to properly explain what I mean...the rules against stacking stunts (or taking a power twice) basically boil down to that you can't take two stunts that fill the same 'if/then' statement. So, by my thinking, just having a weapon means you have a certain 'if' (Using a Broadsword) paired with a certain 'then' (+2 stress on a successful hit), and subsequent stunts need to have different conditions and outcomes, i.e., you can't/shouldn't get another +2 just by fulfilling the condition "using a Broadsword."
The bonus from a broadsword is not a stunt bonus. I can think of no reason to treat as one, and I can find no such reason in your posts.You're right. It's better than a stunt bonus, because it doesn't cost any refresh. But what it is is a flat stress bonus for using a given weapon.
You can get weapon 3 from a broadsword, a halberd, a chainsaw, or any number of other things. What a stunt would do is reward you for using one of those, but not for using the others. What's wrong with that?The fact that there is already a stress bonus for using a given weapon inherent in its weapon rating, and let's be realistic here--if your character's concept justifies or implies that you have a specialization in broad swords, how often are you really going to use anything else? A flat bonus for every time you're using the character's chosen weapon means a flat bonus to stress 99% of the time he gets into a fight, and as I recall, stunts are supposed to be less applicable than that.
Check out Off-Hand Weapon Training and Way Of The Bow for examples of canon stunts that boost stress with weaponry.I'm aware of both--but, importantly, Way of the Bow's stress bonus is only +1, and Off-Hand Weapon Training has conditions different and narrower than "you wield a type of weapon."
For example, if I attack with my Good Intimidation against your Good Rapport, and neither of us has relevant stunts or powers, +1 stress and +1 accuracy are equal unless the GM is giving bonuses for glancing hits.Are you counting the roll in here?
If you had armour 1 from a stunt, then +2 accuracy and +2 stress would also be equal. But if you have no armour, +2 accuracy is substantially better.This latter part, no. Assuming a hit, two extra shifts of accuracy is equal to two shifts of weapon rating and zero extra shifts of accuracy whether or not you have armor. If you're second doesn't hit, I agree...it's why I've stated accuracy is already 'better' than weapon rating.
Does that make sense?
Yes. Superior and inferior options is like the definition of imbalance. Imbalance is generally worth fixing unless it serves an important purpose or is super hard to fix. The first is not the case here. The second may or may not be.There's a big difference between imbalance and situationally superior options. Take rock-paper-scissors as a simplistic example. None of the three are equal, there's a circular hierarchy of situational / tactical effectiveness. FATE combat is similar, if more complex. You have the option to attack, maneuver, or block. Since those options are open to anyone, it's not a balance issue. It's a tactical choice.
The fact that there is already a stress bonus for using a given weapon inherent in its weapon rating, and let's be realistic here--if your character's concept justifies or implies that you have a specialization in broad swords, how often are you really going to use anything else?
I'm aware of both--but, importantly, Way of the Bow's stress bonus is only +1, and Off-Hand Weapon Training has conditions different and narrower than "you wield a type of weapon."
I'm not against stress bonuses for Weapons or Guns in general. I'm just saying they should have more stringent conditions than the type of weapon you wield, because let's face it, if you have a stunt that lets you do Weapon:5 damage for free every round (remember, by the RAW, this is equivalent to hitting someone with a sedan), are you ever going to not use that weapon if you have any choice in the matter?
Are you counting the roll in here?
This latter part, no. Assuming a hit, two extra shifts of accuracy is equal to two shifts of weapon rating and zero extra shifts of accuracy whether or not you have armor. If you're second doesn't hit, I agree...it's why I've stated accuracy is already 'better' than weapon rating.
All it seems to do is devalue stunts which give a weapon rating / stress equivalent.
There's a big difference between imbalance and situationally superior options. Take rock-paper-scissors as a simplistic example. None of the three are equal, there's a circular hierarchy of situational / tactical effectiveness. FATE combat is similar, if more complex. You have the option to attack, maneuver, or block. Since those options are open to anyone, it's not a balance issue. It's a tactical choice.
I like tactical choices. Making all choices equal is boring - it makes the choice meaningless.
Do note, there's a big difference between tactical options open to everyone and strategic options (i.e. powers) which only get chosen once (or at least seldom). Tactical options only create imbalance if one option becomes incentivized over others all / most of the time. Strategic options create and / or limit future tactical options...which is why they create imbalance so easily.
Though even in an average game, it's not that heavy a restriction for a stunt. I could understand disliking those stunts, it's the focus on the stress boosters that I think is wrongheaded. The accuracy and defence boosters are not worse.I don't recall saying the others are worse. I just think that direct, broad stress boosters are redundant and shouldn't stack. If it's going to be that broad, making the stress boost +1 would be better. +2 stress is not an insignificant amount.
Way Of The Bow has other benefits, and is very broad even by my standards. As for Off-Hand Weapon Training, it's actually broader than a specific weapon type. If I can reliably bring a broadsword to every fight, I can also bring two broadswords. And if I'm caught without my favoured weapon, I can still use it.Broader, yes, but also not guaranteed to be +2. If your offhand weapon is anything less than Weapon:3, Weapon Specialization for +2 stress is always going to be better. A flat +2 stress booster makes Off-Hand Weapon training at best redundant, and at worst obsolete. A dual-wielding knife user is going to be doing Weapon:2 damage; a knife user with this Weapon Specialization will be doing Weapon:3.
What you are suggesting is nothing other than a nerf to Weapons and Guns intended to bring them in line with Fists.No, that is not my intention at all. I've said nothing about Fists, except that I don't think it's underpowered, in response to your previous assertion. You keep bringing up Fists, not me.
If you think a weapon 5 halberd will make Bruce Lee feel weak, make Bruce Lee stronger. (Possibly add a trapping to Fists that gives your hands a weapon rating.)Again: I'm not talking about Fists. I'm saying that it doesn't seem right to me to have a stunt that adds a flat +2 stress to every use of a weapon, because you already get a stress bonus from using a weapon at all. I think either it should be a tighter restriction (maybe the weapon type gets +2 stress against armored opponents, or it's +2 stress after the enemy's disarmed, or +2 stress on flanking attacks, or whatever) or a lower bonus.
I don't recall saying the others are worse. I just think that direct, broad stress boosters are redundant and shouldn't stack. If it's going to be that broad, making the stress boost +1 would be better. +2 stress is not an insignificant amount.
Broader, yes, but also not guaranteed to be +2. If your offhand weapon is anything less than Weapon:3, Weapon Specialization for +2 stress is always going to be better. A flat +2 stress booster makes Off-Hand Weapon training at best redundant, and at worst obsolete. A dual-wielding knife user is going to be doing Weapon:2 damage; a knife user with this Weapon Specialization will be doing Weapon:3.
And that's not even getting into whether you can specialize and dual-wield, which could give you Weapon:7 damage, for only 2 refresh.
No, that is not my intention at all. I've said nothing about Fists, except that I don't think it's underpowered, in response to your previous assertion. You keep bringing up Fists, not me.
Besides, nerfing Guns and Weapons to match up with Fists is impossible. The only way to nerf Guns and Weapons to be in line with Fists would be to require spending a refresh to use a weapon rating at all.
Again: I'm not talking about Fists. I'm saying that it doesn't seem right to me to have a stunt that adds a flat +2 stress to every use of a weapon, because you already get a stress bonus from using a weapon at all. I think either it should be a tighter restriction (maybe the weapon type gets +2 stress against armored opponents, or it's +2 stress after the enemy's disarmed, or +2 stress on flanking attacks, or whatever) or a lower bonus.
It's not that I think they push them too far past Fists users, but that I feel it devalues the game's existing options for high-powered attacks, like strength powers and spell casting.
And that's not even getting into whether you can specialize and dual-wield, which could give you Weapon:7 damage, for only 2 refresh.
You think such stunts devalue spell casting when for the same point of refresh you spend on a stunt can get +2 accuracy that stacks, as accuracy trumps weapons rating (by a debatable scalar of 2:1) this is twice as effective and the stacking makes the power better still.Yes, but two things: One, powers are supposed to be significantly more powerful than stunts of the same cost, and two, you can only take refinement after you've already spent several refresh on a power.
High weapon value Powers are in fact better than weapon value stunts, just as intended. Your proposed change would make them more so. Thereby weakening Weapons and Guns in comparison to everything. What, if not Fists, is this meant to balance them against?
Anyway, stacking stunts is not allowed. There's a good reason for that.
Why are you more bothered by a direct, broad, boost to Weapons damage than by a direct, broad, boost to anything else? You've provided no reason that I can see. The thing about how you already get a boost from wielding a weapon is so far as I can tell totally irrelevant.
PS: A dual-wielding knife user with Off-Hand Weapon Training will often be doing weapon 3-5 damage, because he'll drop the knives in favour of a better weapon pairing. Unless he's Compelled, of course, in which case he's been rewarded for his (otherwise) silly decision.
@Tedronai: It's not great, but it's not that bad.
But it's just normal bad, not game-meltingly awful.
High weapon value Powers are in fact better than weapon value stunts, just as intended. Your proposed change would make them more so. Thereby weakening Weapons and Guns in comparison to everything. What, if not Fists, is this meant to balance them against?Not so much to balance them against Fists as I simply feel they don't fit the scope and intention of stunts, at least with the broad +2.
Why are you more bothered by a direct, broad, boost to Weapons damage than by a direct, broad, boost to anything else? You've provided no reason that I can see.I'm not for the "anything else," necessarily. I've only just been talking about Weapon ratings because that's the topic we were on when I joined in.
The thing about how you already get a boost from wielding a weapon is so far as I can tell totally irrelevant.See above about the Weapon Rating = all those other factors. It's an escalation factor that I don't think fits with the scope of stunts.
PS: A dual-wielding knife user with Off-Hand Weapon Training will often be doing weapon 3-5 damage, because he'll drop the knives in favour of a better weapon pairing. Unless he's Compelled, of course, in which case he's been rewarded for his (otherwise) silly decision.In other words, they're no longer a dual-wielding knife user. Allowing stunts that broadly add a +2 to the Weapons rating creates an escalation that renders obsolete what should be viable characters, and that's a bad thing.
Someone who dual-wields knives should be able to keep up with someone wielding a Weapon:3 broadsword--but if, for the same price, that Weapon:2 knife combination is put against a single Weapon:5 broadsword, then that broad, powerful stunt has all but removed an an entire fighting style from the playing field.
For what reason would any Weapons or Guns user not take such a stunt?
It's not the +2 weapons stress stunt that's rendered the dual-knife-wielder obsolete. Off-hand Weapons Training did that by being a crap stunt.In comparison to a straight +2 for every usage of the weapon, yes.
So far as the wielder of a single small blade can keep up with the wielder of a single large blade, the wielder of two small blades using a stunt to gain benefit from the second blade should be able to keep up with the wielder of a single large blade using a stunt to benefit their (here left undefined) fighting style.And why should that fighting style be represented by a flat +2 to all swings (no fighting style is going to put all power into every attack without sacrificing something like accuracy or defense), and not something particular to the style like a boost to defense in certain situations, or better accuracy in certain situations, or better maneuvers in certain situations?
Off-hand Weapons Training utterly fails in this task, but that does not mean that other weapons stunts must be brought down to its level.Yes, it fails in comparison to a too-broad stunt delivering a too-strong bonus.
In comparison to a straight +2 for every usage of the weapon, yes.
And why should that fighting style be represented by a flat +2 to all swings (no fighting style is going to put all power into every attack without sacrificing something like accuracy or defense), and not something particular to the style like a boost to defense in certain situations, or better accuracy in certain situations, or better maneuvers in certain situations?Off-hand weapons training is not going to compare favourably to any of those proposed stunts, either, except in the cases where it trounces them thoroughly (see above re: bad stunt design).
The thing I find missing from the broad +2 stress booster is that it applies all the time, and I don't think "when using their main weapon" is a sufficient restriction for so much of an advantage. It might be good enough for a +1 to stress, but it seems stretching the rules at best to give it +2.That's your interpretation and your preference in your homebrew stunts, and that's fine. Off-hand weapons training will still compare erratically to more restrictive +2 stress stunts.
Put it this way: In the absence of the broadly-applicable +2 stress stunt, you've got dual-wielded knives at Weapon:2 vs. a single broadsword at Weapon:3. With the stunt, then you've got Weapon:2 knives vs. a single Weapon:5 broadsword. One stunt with reasonable limits is inferior compared with a stunt with broad application and the maximum benefit from a stunt.No, in the absence of a +2 stress stunt, you've got a character using a sub-par weapons choice benefiting from a stunt that partially compensates them going up against a character using a comparatively optimal weapons choice who has been assumed not to have any stunt at all. This is a horrible comparison.
I mean, the stunt guidelines are pretty clear: Either a +2 bonus for a narrow usage of the skill, or a +1 bonus to a broad usage of a skill. Weapon Specialization is a +2 bonus to the a broad application of the Weapons skill's main usage.That's a valid interpretation, and I might be inclined to agree with you. It does not, however, change the erratic nature of Off-hand weapons training's comparison to more conventional stunts.
It seems to me a lot of people forget that mortals aren't supposed to be as powerful as supernaturals. It's built right into the system that supernatural powers are, point for point, considerably more potent than stunts.
Off-hand weapons training is not going to compare favourably to any of those proposed stunts, either, except in the cases where it trounces them thoroughly (see above re: bad stunt design).Stunts are supposed to be situational. Though I might be misunderstanding what you mean here.
That's your interpretation and your preference in your homebrew stunts, and that's fine. Off-hand weapons training will still compare erratically to more restrictive +2 stress stunts.Erratically, yes, which means sometimes good, sometimes bad--it's a stunt that not everyone will want to take, which is fine. A stunt shouldn't necessarily be something that fits every character.
No, in the absence of a +2 stress stunt, you've got a character using a sub-par weapons choice benefiting from a stunt that partially compensates them going up against a character using a comparatively optimal weapons choice who has been assumed not to have any stunt at all. This is a horrible comparison.Fair enough. I was comparing it weapon-style to weapon-style. I'd say, all other stats being equal, maybe the broadsword user has a +2 to stress, at the cost of a -1 penalty to defense when he attacks. That would be a reasonable stress-adding stunt that gives him an advantage in power at the cost of something that potentially lets a knife-wielder hold his own (especially if you apply that penalty to defenses against maneuvers as well).
If you want to make a fair comparison, include a stunt for the swordsman that you would deem reasonable (and that you have not selected with the apparent intent to skew the results as with the case of leaving out any stunt at all).
That's a valid interpretation, and I might be inclined to agree with you. It does not, however, change the erratic nature of Off-hand weapons training's comparison to more conventional stunts.Nowhere does it say a stunt has to benefit everyone equally. A stunt like Takes One To Know One compares unfavorably to a straight boost to Empathy if it's close in value to the Deceit skill.
Someone who dual-wields knives should be able to keep up with someone wielding a Weapon:3 broadswordWell, not if we're rooting our games in real world capabilities.
Stunts are supposed to be situational. Though I might be misunderstanding what you mean here.You are. Most of the time OHWT it crap. Sometimes it is better than a power. Sometimes, with favourable interpretations of vague portions of other rules, it is better than a power that actually costs more.
Erratically, yes, which means sometimes good, sometimes bad--it's a stunt that not everyone will want to take, which is fine. A stunt shouldn't necessarily be something that fits every character.No, erratically meaning that for some characters who would plausibly use it it is a worthless piece of crap, and for others it is ungodly-powerful.
Fair enough. I was comparing it weapon-style to weapon-style. I'd say, all other stats being equal, maybe the broadsword user has a +2 to stress, at the cost of a -1 penalty to defense when he attacks.
at the cost of something that potentially lets a knife-wielder hold his own
And a dual-wielding knife user might not have the damage output of even a stuntless broad sworder, but damage isn't all that makes something "optimal." The knife user is going to be able to get his knives into a lot more places than someone with a broad sword, for instance, which is the advantage of low-stress weapons.That's a compel against the swordsman, and not particularly relevant to this discussion.
Nowhere does it say a stunt has to benefit everyone equally. A stunt like Takes One To Know One compares unfavorably to a straight boost to Empathy if it's close in value to the Deceit skill.I don't see anyone on here disputing that.
Mr. Death, if you're trying to say that "a specific weapon" is not a sufficient restriction for a stunt, then I can respect that.I've said several times that I'm fine with stunts adding stress. My problem with the Weapon Specialization ones is, once again, that I feel it's too big of a boost for too broad of a usage, too much advantage for not enough drawback.
But if you're trying to say that Weapons stunts should not add to stress inflicted for some reason, then your statements make little sense.
Amusingly, a guy who uses two knives with Off-Hand Weapon Training will actually get more mileage out of a broadsword than he will out of his knives. If he took a non-stupid stunt, that would not be the case.Well, ideally, said knife user would have other stunts to help with defense and making maneuvers--stuff based around disarming, maybe, or boosting defense because you can parry quicker, I don't know. Stuff that you could create and then tag to make up for the relatively-weak power of the weapons themselves.
Remember what I said about not tailoring the stunt to skew the results?You asked for what I thought would be a reasonable stunt. I was just extrapolating one of the effects of said stunt. It's no more "skewed" than the canon Berserker stunt.
That's what this is:
That's a compel against the swordsman, and not particularly relevant to this discussion.It's a compel that the knife-wielder won't necessarily get, at least as often. It was me pointing out that, as I said, "optimal" doesn't just mean "what has the bigger numbers."
I've said several times that I'm fine with stunts adding stress. My problem with the Weapon Specialization ones is, once again, that I feel it's too big of a boost for too broad of a usage, too much advantage for not enough drawback.
Well, ideally, said knife user would have other stunts to help with defense and making maneuvers--stuff based around disarming, maybe, or boosting defense because you can parry quicker, I don't know. Stuff that you could create and then tag to make up for the relatively-weak power of the weapons themselves.
Strength Power pretty much means you can move heavier stuff faster, as your weight is not upgraded the only way inhuman strength is going to add to damage is by increasing the speed of the blade (force = mass x acceleration), fist etc. It also why I argue that strength should modify melee combat faster swords are harder to block.
A Blow with the same amount of skill but more speed and force is going to be both harder to block and harder to dodge (have to react quicker to the blow) as there are no penalty system besides bonuses to the opposing side this is the same as + accuracy.
I've said several times that I'm fine with stunts adding stress. My problem with the Weapon Specialization ones is, once again, that I feel it's too big of a boost for too broad of a usage, too much advantage for not enough drawback.
This really isn't how muscle power works. Those body builders who can lift 500lb weights over their heads do not, in fact, throw a baseball faster or harder than the major league pitcher, and the pitcher will not likely be able to lift the 500lb weights.
Muscle power (ie. Strength) is a far more complicated system than simply f=ma(click to show/hide)
I can't help but feel you're deliberately being vague here.I'm not trying to be. A few posts ago, you said you could respect it if I was saying that "a specific weapon" is not a sufficient restriction for a stunt, and I was clarifying that that I was saying I don't think it's sufficient restriction for a +2 stress stunt. It may be sufficient restriction for other, less powerful stunts.
Tell me, what do you think of the following stunts?I don't have any problems with either of those stunts. They're fairly specific, and logical strengths that someone might have (that first one would be ideal for a knife user/assassin type, for instance).
Defeat Armour: You are a master of finding weak spots in a coat of armour. All of your attacks with the Weapons skill ignore two points worth of worn armour.
Mounted Combat: You know how to fight from atop a horse. Add one to your Weapons skill when using it to attack while riding an animal.
I'd rather wait to address the other problems with your posts until you've answered this.
Taking that Mounted Combat stunt for example, how often can you have a horse? Most certainly never inside, and it will often be problematic outside.Now I'm getting funny ideas about the Pixie PC in one of my games.
Defeat Armour: You are a master of finding weak spots in a coat of armour. All of your attacks with the Weapons skill ignore two points worth of worn armour.
I'd change that to be "All your attacks with piercing weapons", for added complications (and realism).
Now I'm getting funny ideas about the Pixie PC in one of my games.
Za Lord cavalry, perhaps?
And yet bludgeoning implements were used to great effect in the final stages of the medieval arms race because their effectiveness was so much less diminished by the wearing of armour as compared to slashing, chopping, and even much piercing, weaponry.
I don't have any problems with either of those stunts.
(And honestly I'm iffy on the whole notion of stress-adding stunts for Weapons in the first place, but that's neither here nor there.)
I'm not trying to be. A few posts ago, you said you could respect it if I was saying that "a specific weapon" is not a sufficient restriction for a stunt, and I was clarifying that that I was saying I don't think it's sufficient restriction for a +2 stress stunt. It may be sufficient restriction for other, less powerful stunts.
So you've reconsidered your previous statement thatMore that I spoke far too generally when I said it the first time. Apologies for being unclear.
?
Are you saying that +2 stress is, in physical combat, better than +2 defence or +1 accuracy?I'm saying it's too big a benefit with the restrictions attached to it. It makes it so that there's no reason for any weapons-using character not to take it. I'd be very wary about a player giving himself what amounts to a permanent +2 to defense or a permanent +1 to accuracy as well.
I'd be very wary about a player giving himself what amounts to a permanent +2 to defense or a permanent +1 to accuracy as well.
Please.Do you realize how fallacious this type of faux debate is? Asking leading questions simply to set someone up in a false dilemma is annoying at best.
Answer the following question directly.
Do you believe that +2 stress is, in physical combat, better than +1 accuracy or +2 defence?Whichever I need at the time is 'best'. ;)
You must really hate casters, then, who can relatively easily give themselves 'permanent' bonuses to accuracy and damage in excess of +5 each.
Do you realize how fallacious this type of faux debate is? Asking leading questions simply to set someone up in a false dilemma is annoying at best.
Whichever I need at the time is 'best'. ;)
Seriously. Each of the above is relative to the character / situation. If my accuracy is low I want any bonus I can get. If it's high I'd far rather have the stress bonus. And if it will stop me from getting injured, defense is best.
That's part of why I like the situational stunts - they're interesting beyond simple numbers. They also drive actions...you want to set up the situations which reward.
I'm not trying to set up a false dilemma. I just want to know what the heck Mr. Death is trying to say.Understandable, but anytime someone wants a specific type of answer to a question with broad implications there's potential for a false dilemma.
You must really hate casters, then, who can relatively easily give themselves 'permanent' bonuses to accuracy and damage in excess of +5 each.Not really. A caster needs at least 2 or 3 refresh spent already before they can get to that point, and pay the price in stress whether their attack hits the mark or not. Plus, as I've said before, I'm of the opinion that casters are supposed to be able to do more damage than a vanilla mortal.
I'm not trying to set up a false dilemma. I just want to know what the heck Mr. Death is trying to say.Ah, I see now. It's not that I think one is more problematic than the others so much as I simply wasn't thinking of the others. Just because I'm focusing on one doesn't mean I approve of the others--it just means I'm only talking about the one.
He seems to regard Weapon Specialization as more problematic than Weapon Focus or Weapon Mastery. I'm trying to work out why.
I still think it's worth noting that the game designers felt that "Social Attacks" are enough of a restriction to double the power of social stunts, especially since it bypasses your zero-sum attack problem.
Ah, I see now. It's not that I think one is more problematic than the others so much as I simply wasn't thinking of the others. Just because I'm focusing on one doesn't mean I approve of the others--it just means I'm only talking about the one.
For the record, though, I see the same problems with those as I see with a flat bonus to stress: Too strong of a benefit with the given conditions. If the conditions are "when the PC is wielding the weapon he's built around," that means the stunt is going to come into play the vast majority of rolls, so it should have a weaker effect. Hell, the only direct-defense boosting stunt I can think of offhand is Duelist, which is only a +1 to Weapons defenses, and it still has more of a condition than wielding a given weapon.
I don't think they did.
I think they just screwed up. There's nothing in the actual rules that suggests social stunts are doubly powerful. The only way to arrive at that conclusion is to extrapolate from the examples given.
If they wanted to make social stunts an exception from the normal stunt rules, don't you think they'd say so?
So your problem actually has nothing to do with +2 stress stunts and everything to do with stunts that reward specializing in a specific weapon?
So your problem actually has nothing to do with +2 stress stunts and everything to do with stunts that reward specializing in a specific weapon?
Too strong of a benefit with the given conditions. If the conditions are "when the PC is wielding the weapon he's built around," that means the stunt is going to come into play the vast majority of rolls, so it should have a weaker effect.
PS: Duelist doesn't actually boost defences. It boosts blocks. It's also fairly worthless, though it has a niche application in when you and your buddies are ganging up on a dude. Which is not what you'd expect from a stunt called Duelist.I'll have to check, but I seem to remember the Notes section on Shiro's write-up including it when talking about his defenses. And even if it doesn't, honestly, I think your interpretation is the result of being far too literal. When in doubt, go with the option that makes sense.
And what exactly is your problem with Killer Blow? +3 stacked on top of whatever other damage bonuses you have (like Lethal Weapon or a Strength power) seems like a pretty alright deal to me.
But a +1 to defense against a single opponent makes more sense.
More on topic, I think part of the reason social stunts might be higher power is because they expected physical conflict to be much more prominent, and therefore those skills would end up on the top of the heap, while social skills would be lower on the totem pole.
PPS: If your objection is to weapon specialization stunts, then your argument is actually sane.Are you saying that my arguments up to now have been insane? I don't really see how.
First, because writing a deliberately-unbalanced skill system and then patching it with stunts is just silly. Why not write a balanced system? It's not as if they're incapable; in fact, I think they did it.Have to disagree with this. I don't think balance was a primary goal. A secondary goal perhaps, but very much secondary to maintaining Dresden flavor.
Second, because nobody sane puts secret rules into an RPG and then doesn't tell the players about them. That's just nuts.Hehe, you do realize one of the D&D 3.x designers stated this as a goal, right? He stated it after the fact, so it may have been more justification than goal, but it was a "feature".
Are you saying that my arguments up to now have been insane? I don't really see how.
Have to disagree with this. I don't think balance was a primary goal. A secondary goal perhaps, but very much secondary to maintaining Dresden flavor.
Hehe, you do realize one of the D&D 3.x designers stated this as a goal, right? He stated it after the fact, so it may have been more justification than goal, but it was a "feature".
While I'm not going to claim that Killer Blow is a great, or even a good power, I think you're missing an unspoken benefit to the power, in that it allows you to spend a Fate point to boost an attack without invoking an aspect.
But balance costs nothing.Not true actually. If a werewolf had the same power as a prepared wizard, it wouldn't be true to the books. That's only one example of many.
That's not true, assuming you're talking about this (http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mc_los_142). They were aiming at secret interactions and optimization theories that could only be unveiled through system mastery. Secret rules would have been something likeI think you're conflating 'secrecy' with 'deception'. They're not the same thing.
"You know how it says Toughness gives +3 hp? That's a lie. It actually gives +10. If you look at the hp totals of monsters that have Toughness and calculate backwards, it becomes obvious.
While I'm not going to claim that Killer Blow is a great, or even a good power, I think you're missing an unspoken benefit to the power, in that it allows you to spend a Fate point to boost an attack without invoking an aspect.Even if you don't have any relevant aspects on your character sheet, declarations are easy. In fact, since we're spending a fate point, the declaration wouldn't even need to be rolled for if crafted appropriately. Besides, all the other possible aspect sources are also in play - opponent, consequences, maneuver, scene, city, etc.
I dunno about you, but I like to spread out aspects to be applicable to different things--after all, a character should be about more than just what they do in a fight.
Not true actually. If a werewolf had the same power as a prepared wizard, it wouldn't be true to the books.
I guess they basically decided that the "virtual aspect" was worth a shift, reducing the effective bonus to +1 stress. But yes, it's still a very weak stunt.
@Sancta: It's not a secret rule or anything. The stunt creation rules clearly state that if the situation is restricted enough, then one may increase the benefit beyond two shifts (or one shift of accuracy). If the rules say that, and then all stunts of a specific type have an increased benefit, then it's logical to assume that the developers considered that restrictive enough. Much more so than assuming a mistake was made many times, but only in that specific circumstance, and not in any other conflict stunt.
Actually the rules don't state that.
They say that non-attack stunts can be boosted to +3 or +4. There's no allowance for attack stunts beyond +1.
The rules actually say "very, very, narrowly defined situations". "Whenever I'm trying to make someone angry" is not a very narrow situation at all.
In fact, it's arguably too broad for a non-attack +2. Bear in mind that the rules say stunts boost applications of trappings, not entire trappings.
So since the book is contradictory, we have to decide for ourselves what we think is appropriate. In this case, I prefer to side with the rules against the examples. It's better for play, in my experience.
True, but not relevant. Werewolves are lower level characters than wizards, as a rule.It is relevant when discussing character balance issues.
Also, if one character can become stronger than another through preparation that's not a problem.Hmm, I could have phrased that better. Put it this way, in direct conflict outside of an ambush or alpha strike scenario I suspect the caster will win at least seven of ten times. Casters get many of the advantages of an alpha strike / ambush without the need to set up aspects in bunches.
And power is a nebulous thing. Are White Court Vampires more powerful than mortals? Narratively, yes. Mechanically, it's the other way around (at least at normal levels of play) because FP are awesome.Have to disagree here...outside of an ambush scenario where the human can set up a bunch of aspects, a WCV will generally mop the floor with a human.
It would be a problem if wizards were simply better than werewolves, but they aren't. Werewolves have significant advantages.Not really sure where you're going with this...but it contradicts your stance on WCVs and humans. After all, WCVs get just about everything werewolves do without having to change shape. On top of that they get direct mental manipulation.
Wait a minute. In this case, you yourself are stating that the rules don't work. My assumption (that the +2 social attack stunts are intentional and should be used as examples of how to make social attack stunts moving forward) solves your problem (though it may add new problems, like are social stress stunts still worth double that of social attack stunts, and if not then how do social stress stunts remain competitive). How is siding with broken rules better for play?
Not sure what you mean by "lower level characters" - there are no character levels. Unless you're equating "levels" with refresh spent...and, if you are, experience shows you're incorrect. (In my experience, players tend to either spend all but one or two refresh or only spend one or two. The game tends to disinsentivize a middle ground.)
Hmm, I could have phrased that better. Put it this way, in direct conflict outside of an ambush or alpha strike scenario I suspect the caster will win at least seven of ten times. Casters get many of the advantages of an alpha strike / ambush without the need to set up aspects in bunches.
Have to disagree here...outside of an ambush scenario where the human can set up a bunch of aspects, a WCV will generally mop the floor with a human.
Not really sure where you're going with this...but it contradicts your stance on WCVs and humans. After all, WCVs get just about everything werewolves do without having to change shape. On top of that they get direct mental manipulation.