ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Skimble on October 09, 2012, 08:45:28 AM
-
Hello all! I'm pretty new to the Dresden Files RPG (ran my first session last night) and I'm trying to get my brain around the magic system with a player of mine.
We think the example of "Entanglement" is incorrect. It states that the spell provides 1 scene of action because of the shift put into Duration, but the book says that you can increase the duration of Evocations by one Exchange per shift. If so, that would put the Duration of this spell at 1 Exchange.
Now, if the entanglement were caused by earth or branches etc. then I'd rule that it would remain after the spell itself had finished, leaving the victim needing to Manoeuvre to clear the tag, but as it is it describes a 'band of force' which should surely dissipate in the usual timeframe.
Are we right?
-
Yep. If the spell created a real condition then the resulting aspect would have no difference than one being created with a real maneuver. I.e. if you used a 10-shift telekinetic effect to bury someone under a truck then the resulting "buried under a truck" aspect would be used for effect, resulting in a 10-shift block against movement until someone lifted the truck off the victim - which would require 10 shifts of effort.
If you used the exact same telekinetic effect to hold someone in place with magical force rather than a real condition - imposing the "magically held" aspect or a 10-shift block, then the spell would only last for as long as you fueled magic into it; 1 exchange plus the number of additional shifts you paid to extend it.
So you're right, the spell in the book should only last 2 exchanges (1 normal plus 1 for extra duration). That's a limitation magic has compared to actual skills and it is why wizards should have other skills in addition to magic. Do note however that the smart wizard should always attempt to use real effects - effectively using his magic to do skill effects rather than magic effects - when they give an advantage.
In our telekinesis example, the wizard using the TK to put a truck on the bad guy is effectively using magic to mimic a high Might skill for one action while the guy using the TK to hold someone down is building a magical block instead.
-
Of course, the wizard using TK to drop a truck on someone needs to have a 'truck' aspect of some kind to tag or invoke in order to make that spell work (and if I were GMing, the extended duration would be the whole of the effect that invoke would provide), while the wizard using TK directly doesn't have any such restriction.
-
Belial666: Thanks for an excellent and comprehensive reply. That's certainly how I thought the system worked from the previous system information (and that's definitely how it works in the novels; Harry's stated similar stuff outright in the past).
This means that for Earth users it's probably often better to erupt a chest-high wall of earth/concrete etc. from the ground than to erect a magnetic forcefield to defend him or herself, though that depends on whether movement is required at the same time or not.
I'm really loving the combat system in this game. It's appropriately 'deadly' but mitigates that with the cinematic use of Aspects and Consequences. One of my players was unlucky enough to take a six-stress hit in literally the first hour of the game last night (taking a Moderate consequence of 'Bullet in the Thigh') and I enjoyed how that spiralled into a scene where he needed to get the bullet removed and the wound taken care of. Giving the control over the exact consequence taken to the player makes them much more invested in the injury, it seems.
Best of all, a combat exchange that probably would've taken half an hour in the World of Darkness to resolve took just a few minutes and nobody got bored.
-
Of course, the wizard using TK to drop a truck on someone needs to have a 'truck' aspect of some kind to tag or invoke in order to make that spell work (and if I were GMing, the extended duration would be the whole of the effect that invoke would provide), while the wizard using TK directly doesn't have any such restriction.
That makes sense; they certainly don't get to use the truck as an Attack because they're using it as a Block. The rules get a little fuzzy here however as certainly it would seem that you might want to combine an Attack with a Block or a Manoeuvre; I suppose the way to do that would be to just attack and suggest that a logical Consequence of being hit by a telekinetically hurled truck might be "Pinned by a truck".
I'm not sure if the system already allows for this, but what about occasions where a manoeuvre or block would logically not only apply an Aspect but also stress of some kind? e.g. a truck hurled with the intent to apply "Pinned by a truck" as a manoeuvre seems likely to also cause some stress.
-
That makes sense; they certainly don't get to use the truck as an Attack because they're using it as a Block. The rules get a little fuzzy here however as certainly it would seem that you might want to combine an Attack with a Block or a Manoeuvre; I suppose the way to do that would be to just attack and suggest that a logical Consequence of being hit by a telekinetically hurled truck might be "Pinned by a truck".
Actually, 'Pinned by a truck' is a horrible consequence.
Consequences are not meant to be able to be removed by a sufficient 'counter-maneuver' (such as telekinetically pushing the truck off of yourself).
I'm not sure if the system already allows for this, but what about occasions where a manoeuvre or block would logically not only apply an Aspect but also stress of some kind? e.g. a truck hurled with the intent to apply "Pinned by a truck" as a manoeuvre seems likely to also cause some stress.
I would direct you to the 'special effects' section on YS326. These probably should not normally or easily be available to practitioners using evocation-based attacks, though. At the very least, I would suggest requiring an invoke/tag of an appropriate aspect.
-
Actually, 'Pinned by a truck' is a horrible consequence.
Consequences are not meant to be able to be removed by a sufficient 'counter-maneuver' (such as telekinetically pushing the truck off of yourself).
Good point, but the basic concept of what I said is sound. "Crushed by a Truck" might work better as it's a lasting consequence even after the truck is removed. Having said that it's a bit flavourless compared to "Shattered Ribcage" or other consequences that might arise from such an attack.
I would direct you to the 'special effects' section on YS326. These probably should not normally or easily be available to practitioners using evocation-based attacks, though. At the very least, I would suggest requiring an invoke/tag of an appropriate aspect.
Thanks for directing me to that, it does seem appropriate. I take it that normally if a Wizard uses, say, Air magic to telekinetically hurl a knife the damage of the Evocation is added to the damage of the knife to determine its damage rating? I thought I'd seen an example of something like that in the book but on a quick scan through the relevant section just now I couldn't find it. Combining that idea with the Special Effects section I guess they would sacrifice the large damage bonus of having hurled a truck to instead inflict basic damage for the spell and also apply the Aspect of "Pinned by a truck". I do note however that quite a few shifts would be needed to lift the truck in the first place due to its mass, so the damage would be quite high anyway.
Does that seem about right or am I horrifically mangling the rules?
-
Damage from an attack is determined by: accuracy (in the case of evocation, this is the same as control) - defense + (if the above is at least 0) [weapon rating] - [armour rating]
damage from a Special Effect attack is: accuracy - [defense+armour rating]
what would usually be the weapon rating in such an attack is instead used to determine the difficulty to remove the resulting maneuvered aspect
-
If you use a spell to throw an object, you don't get any additional stress to your attack - unless you specifically tag/invoke an aspect to get a +2 to attack; you use the normal weapon rating and accuracy of your spell regardless of the object. That is explained easily enough; unless the object in question is in a specifically advantageous position for that attack (i.e. the tag or invoke of an aspect) then all the kinetic energy of the blow comes only from your spell and is exactly the same in both cases. A spell used to throw a car could crush someone with that blow. The same spell used to hurl a knife will impart the same energy to the knife and where the car slammed into the target at a few MPH, the knife will hit at a few miles per second... hitting like an antitank kinetic projectile.
The result? No matter what object you throw, the weapon rating will be the same for the same spell. The advantage of throwing objects instead of blasting directly with magic is not extra damage - it is your attack ignoring magical defenses. The target is behind a threshold? That won't mean much for that knife thrown at him at 5 miles/second. Neither will a magic circle that blocks magic or the target having outright magical immunity.
When you create special effects instead, you use your shifts of power towards that effect instead of weapon rating. Your control is no longer your attack roll because you are not attacking with the spell as a weapon. You create an effect and that effect then becomes the attack (it usually doesn't have a weapon rating)
Ditto for creating a real effect with magic as a maneuver. You don't get any bonuses in the size of the effect - you just get to treat the effect as nonmagical. If you use water magic to turn the ground into mud, it remains mud even after the spell ends (as Harry learned when the Summer Lady tried to drown him in the mud - which remained mud after the Lady left Faerie and drowned him even within a magic circle). If you use earth magic to raise a wall of stone, it remains a wall of stone. If you use fire magic to superheat some rock so it bursts from the ground in a wall of magma, it remains magma even if your spell is instantaneous (as Harry did in a certain cave) and so would turning water into ice by draining heat instead.
Last but not least, there are some more complicated spells - thaumaturgies and thaumaturgies as evocations with sequenced effects. Depending on how you build them, their effects and how they are resolved can vary wildly. For example, a thaumaturgy-as-evocation spirit spell that throws an invisible dart. Assume you got 8 power and 8 control. The spell's power is 7 shifts for a temporary veil on the dart plus 1 shift for weapon 1 on the throw itself. When you cast this spell the following happens;
1) Roll control. That is for controlling the total power and will also be your attack roll.
2) The defender rolls Awareness against the 7-shift veil to notice the dart.
3) If they noticed the dart, they roll dodge normally. If they did not, they roll a 0 for their dodge!
4) They are hit by a weapon 1, attack +8 dart. Calculate stress according to the defense they rolled.
This fairly complex spell is something someone like Molly might use and it is no less lethal for being a mostly-illusion spirit effect. It is quite effective if you expect your enemy to be a fast, agile guy (like a vampire) and also extremely effective if you want to assassinate people in broad daylight without anyone noticing it was you who killed them.
-
When you create special effects instead, you use your shifts of power towards that effect instead of weapon rating. Your control is no longer your attack roll because you are not attacking with the spell as a weapon. You create an effect and that effect then becomes the attack (it usually doesn't have a weapon rating)
I am unaware of support for the bolded claim.
Could you please elaborate?
Last but not least, there are some more complicated spells - thaumaturgies and thaumaturgies as evocations with sequenced effects. Depending on how you build them, their effects and how they are resolved can vary wildly. For example, a thaumaturgy-as-evocation spirit spell that throws an invisible dart. Assume you got 8 power and 8 control. The spell's power is 7 shifts for a temporary veil on the dart plus 1 shift for weapon 1 on the throw itself. When you cast this spell the following happens;
1) Roll control. That is for controlling the total power and will also be your attack roll.
2) The defender rolls Awareness against the 7-shift veil to notice the dart.
3) If they noticed the dart, they roll dodge normally. If they did not, they roll a 0 for their dodge!
4) They are hit by a weapon 1, attack +8 dart. Calculate stress according to the defense they rolled.
This fairly complex spell is something someone like Molly might use and it is no less lethal for being a mostly-illusion spirit effect. It is quite effective if you expect your enemy to be a fast, agile guy (like a vampire) and also extremely effective if you want to assassinate people in broad daylight without anyone noticing it was you who killed them.
This requires playing rather fast-and-loose with the Ambush mechanics, which may or may not be acceptable to any given gaming group. It is by no means a clear-cut as-written option.
-
The result? No matter what object you throw, the weapon rating will be the same for the same spell. The advantage of throwing objects instead of blasting directly with magic is not extra damage - it is your attack ignoring magical defenses. The target is behind a threshold? That won't mean much for that knife thrown at him at 5 miles/second. Neither will a magic circle that blocks magic or the target having outright magical immunity.
That certainly makes it easier to adjudicate such events; it means I don't have to try and work out the 'weapon bonus' for a truck!
When you create special effects instead, you use your shifts of power towards that effect instead of weapon rating. Your control is no longer your attack roll because you are not attacking with the spell as a weapon. You create an effect and that effect then becomes the attack (it usually doesn't have a weapon rating)
So GM allowing they could sacrifice the 'weapon' damage of their evocation to instead create a temporary Aspect sorta-kinda per the Special Effect rules?
To use a concrete example let us say that Harry channels 6 points of Spirit to pick up a nearby SUV and hurl it at an enemy ghoul. Normally that would be a +6 damage attack (because he doesn't need to channel any of the Shifts into area effect etc.). He decides that he doesn't want to outright kill the ghoul with this attack because he wants to ask some questions, but he thinks a few broken bones might soften him up some.
He therefore decides to channel those Shifts of 'weapon damage' into creating a Special Effect/Aspect of "Pinned by an SUV". If he gets past the ghoul's defence he then applies his excess shifts as damage (as the weapon rating is now 0) and also applies the Aspect he desires. The difficulty for the Ghoul to clear the Aspect will be 6.
This example is complicated some by the fact that "Pinned by an SUV" really sounds more like a Block (against moving, if nothing else) but I'm not sure how I would resolve that element. Perhaps he could split his excess shifts between damage and a Block? That would mean he's applying an Attack, Manoeuvre and a Block all in one action (albeit at reduced efficacy for each), making it perhaps over-powered? Surely the ghoul shouldn't be able to just spend a Fate point to ignore the compel on "Pinned by a truck" when he tries to run away?
How would you chaps deal with this specific example?
The main reason I might want to allow this sort of thing is for realism. It seems likely that hurling a car at someone should have the chance of hurting them as well as applying an Aspect.
-
Hmm, looking at the rules this sort of thing is pretty much a textbook example of an "Indirect Attack", where the two options are to either treat it as an Attack, a manoeuvre or a Block (cf "Indirect Attacks", YS209). On the other hand, weapons that do 'special effects' like a Tazer should be fairly replicable by Evocations (a bolt of electricity for example) so I'm in two minds as to whether to allow the sacrifice of damage to place Aspects on a person as well as doing any shifts of damage over and above the 'weapon damage' of the Evocation.
It does make magic more versatile and theoretically scenes more interesting though.
-
@Tedronai;
Look up the examples of landmines and entropy curses. Those are spells where the power of the spell is its attack roll - and it is a flat number which you don't roll. It is used in Thaumaturgy because there your control rolls are usually very low for the effort you put into the spell and you don't want the effect to miss - hence the spell's huge number of shifts is an attack roll rather than weapons rating.
This is not used in evocation because usually you already have a control roll as high as the spell's power thus you put the spell's power into weapon rating. That does not mean you can't use your spell's power as an attack roll the same way you could use it as defense roll in a defensive spell if for some reason you wanted to and it was advantageous to do so.
For the second thing (the ambush scenario), someone attacking from hiding would use the ambush rules. It's just that the spell combines the hiding and the attack in a single action - and that's why it requires it to be thaumaturgy or thaumaturgy as evocation and not a simple evocation. It is still less efficient than putting on a magical veil ahead of time and then hitting the target (like Harry has had many times done to him since Summer Knight)
-
I must haved missed the part where you transitioned from talking about Special Effects attacks to talking about Thaumaturgical Landmines.
Allowing Thaumaturgical attacks (and even moreso with EvoThaum attacks) to make use of the Ambush rules at all is a prospect I would be highly warry of, essentially allowing the attack to target the lower of Alertness or [otherwise-appropriate-defense] at the option of the caster.
-
Evocation attacks already target various skills. There are examples in the book that target athletics, might and endurance.
-
Yes, some of the example spells do seem to ignore the rules. I was under the impression that this was commonly understood.
-
They don't ignore the rules. There's no rule that says athletics must be used to defend against magical effects. You use the skill that is appropriate for the flavor of the attack.
-
No, you use any skill that is appropriate to the flavour of your defense, with the obvious requirement that the narration of your defense make sense given the flavour of the attack.
-
The key is to build your attack in a way that only the defense you want to target can be justified.
For example, if you nail an entire zone with a gravitic hammer or fill its air with a magical toxin or turn its air into vacuum, the victims can't justify an athletics defense - there's nowhere to dodge to. They can only justify endurance or (in the gravitic hammer case) might as a defense.
Similarly, when a vampire is manipulating your emotions at range, you can't justify an athletics defense - you got to use discipline instead. If the vampire was manipulating your emotions at melee instead, you could justify an athletics defense if you wanted to.
-
The key is to build your attack in a way that only the defense you want to target can be justified.
I'm sure you'll have great luck with that against unimaginative opponents.
For example, if you nail an entire zone with a gravitic hammer or fill its air with a magical toxin or turn its air into vacuum, the victims can't justify an athletics defense - there's nowhere to dodge to. They can only justify endurance or (in the gravitic hammer case) might as a defense.
The freediver rolls Discipline to avoid inhaling any of your magical toxin until such a time as it returns to its ectoplasmic origins (and, if it persists into subsequent exchanges, uses athletics to escape the cloud).
A vacuum just isn't a particularly effective 'attack' (as represented by the combat mechanic of that name), inflicting very little harm over short durations and naturally resolving itself over otherwise-effective durations unless actively maintained, and would be more appropriately represented with some other mechanic. I would suggest a modified and balance-restored Orbius derivative.
The pixie declares that 'You Missed a Spot', tags the resultant aspect, and uses Athletics to dodge your gravity hammer by hiding under ledge you had considered to be too small for them to make use of. They further decide to flavour any consequences that result from an insufficient athletics roll as coming from debris that your hammer pulls off the ledge and the area above, and not as from direct exposure to your spell. Because that is their right. (it actually took me maybe a minute of thinking to come up with this one...but then again, I did just wake up, and I've never claimed to be the most imaginative person in gaming)
-
Have to agree with Tedronai here. In many ways it's 'narrative first' and use the mechanics on a 'best fit' approach. This is explicit with magic.
-
Most effective airborne toxins don't care if you hold your breath - they're contact toxins, not inhaled ones.
The pixie will only declare that I missed a spot once. In every following use of the spell ever I'll remember to declare that I didn't miss a spot first.
Vacuum is a fairly effective attack. If it's physical, you get explosive decompression of targets that breathe and boiling internal fluids on targets that don't. If it is a power vacuum, you get people's lives or souls torn out. If it is an energy vacuum, you get areas and people flash-frozen.
Basically, an attack is something you introduce into the story. You get to describe the effect you want - not the defender. And if your storytelling is up to snuff, you can paint enemies into corners for their defense. Even if you don't, they'll have to expend resources (such as declarations, aspects and fate points) to avoid being cornered in that way.
-
... In many ways it's 'narrative first' and use the mechanics on a 'best fit' approach. This is explicit with magic.
...Basically, an attack is something you introduce into the story. You get to describe the effect ... And if your storytelling is up to snuff, you can paint enemies into corners for their defense. Even if you don't, they'll have to expend resources (such as declarations, aspects and fate points) to avoid being cornered in that way.
You're both right.
And that's why its called a game, folks! :-D
It's creative thought, narration, problem solving and posturing.
I'm sure you'll have great luck with that against unimaginative opponents.
^This.
-
Note that declarations are generally free, and if I was GMing and tried to paint an enemy into a weak defense (or a player tried this to me) I would absolutely allow a declaration on the spot to justify a different defense, unless the power in the book explicitly says otherwise.
I would generally not allow anything other than discipline to defend against incite emotion at range (in mele any type of defense against mele attacks would be fine), because the power explicitly says that the target defends with discipline. On the other hand if there is a particularly good reason for some other skill (maybe conviction) to come into play that may be acceptable. However, evocation does not specify any defense. The spells in the book say what they are targeting, but I tend to think of that as a rough guideline for a "brute force" defense, a clever player or GM will get around this.
-
Basically, an attack is something you introduce into the story. You get to describe the effect you want...
Agreed. My point is simple - there are two rolls and the owner of each gets to describe the action / reaction as they wish. Within reason!
The actions and descriptions need to make sense in context. This gives the initiator / attacker a significant advantage in setting the beginning criteria. But he's not acting in a vacuum. The reacting party also gets input...and creativity occasionally makes for some unexpected changes. A good thing! It'd be boring without surprises.
-
Agreed. My point is simple - there are two rolls and the owner of each gets to describe the action / reaction as they wish. Within reason!
The actions and descriptions need to make sense in context. This gives the initiator / attacker a significant advantage in setting the beginning criteria. But he's not acting in a vacuum. The reacting party also gets input...and creativity occasionally makes for some unexpected changes. A good thing! It'd be boring without surprises.
I tend to follow this line of thought as well. I'm typically against letting a player arbitrarily deciding what skill is used in defense of an attack they make. It treads into areas where every player will start trying to argue why their attack should have to be blocked with (blank) skill.
The exception for me would be of the PC had the time and forthought to make declairations and maneuvers in place to where it makes sense. In short I would make them role play it out. A PC saying "because it's my attack and I say so" doesn't cut it for me.
Honestly, I don't even treat the RAW of use discipline to defend against incite emotion as being absolute. It treat it as more of the default skill to go to, muh like athletics is for physical attacks, or how dicipline also is for magical effects. However these are by no means the ONLY skills you can use for defense against them given proper justification.