ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Taran on October 09, 2012, 04:36:40 PM
-
I have a new player who's never Rp'd before. She watched one of our sessions and this is what she wants:
"I want to be emotional"
"I want to kick ass!"
"I want to fly... oh and grab someone and fly up and drop them onto fences and stuff." (When I was describing Declarations, she asked "So, can I say that there is a hot air balloon filled with dogs and the dogs attack the thug?")
"I want to be a fairy"
"I want to be empathetic"
O.k...so most of this is pretty easy, except for the flying and dropping people. How would you do that?
-Start with a grapple
-supplemental in next exchange to carry a person up one zone
Might vs appropriate skill (Endurance to hold on?)
Failure = falling damage. 1 zone = roughly 5 stress. (use the athletics roll to minimize damage)
OR
-Use a Might or Fists attack to represent the damage of falling? Defend with Athletics?
If it matters, we're Feet in the Water
-
I have a new player who's never Rp'd before. She watched one of our sessions and this is what she wants:
"I want to be emotional"
"I want to kick ass!"
"I want to fly... oh and grab someone and fly up and drop them onto fences and stuff." (When I was describing Declarations, she asked "So, can I say that there is a hot air balloon filled with dogs and the dogs attack the thug?")
"I want to be a fairy"
"I want to be empathetic"
O.k...so most of this is pretty easy, except for the flying and dropping people. How would you do that?
-Start with a grapple
-supplemental in next exchange to carry a person up one zone
Might vs appropriate skill (Endurance to hold on?)
Failure = falling damage. 1 zone = roughly 5 stress. (use the athletics roll to minimize damage)
OR
-Use a Might or Fists attack to represent the damage of falling? Defend with Athletics?
If it matters, we're Feet in the Water
That seems to work well enough. I'd allow either Might to defend against the grapple/action as normal (trying to hold on) and Athletics to mitigate damage (so stress would be 5/zone -Athletics roll result).
I think the grapple makes sense. You'd have to have the character in your hands.
-
I'd add that Might should restrict it--human beings are heavy, and most of the monsters in Dresden are heavier. I'd look up the lifting table for some idea of how much of a Might score the character would need to pull this off. Probably somewhere around 4 or 5 would be appropriate, I'd say.
Of course, if the character's going to work through grapples, a high Might score is a must anyway, but it's something to keep in mind.
-
I think she's going to take Inhuman or Supernatural Strength, so I don't think lifting regular sized creatures will be much of an issue.
Here's another situation:
She grapples and pulls the person up into the air. While up in the air, on the opponents turn, he chooses to grapple her.
On her turn, she releases the grapple to drop her opponent. Unfortunately, the opponent is hanging on to her...maybe choking her out.
How would you run this? It's easy enough to say, "I use endurance/Might to hold on so she can't release me" But what about actively trying to grapple someone who already has you grappled? Technically a grapple blocks all actions...would it block a grapple attempt? They already have the "grappled" aspect to tag....
-
We had a discussion about this before, I think, and it was determined that just being grappled wasn't a suitable aspect for putting a grapple on yourself. I'd say in that case, the victim would have to put an aspect on her (Reversal or something) that beats her grapple block, and then tag that for the grapple.
-
How would you run this? It's easy enough to say, "I use endurance/Might to hold on so she can't release me" But what about actively trying to grapple someone who already has you grappled? Technically a grapple blocks all actions...would it block a grapple attempt? They already have the "grappled" aspect to tag....
This recently (well, within the last six months) happened in Canada. Of course it wasn't a flying creature dropping someone but a trajic error in strapping someone into a tandem hang glider.
After the strap let go both the passenger and pilot did everything they could to keep the passenger on the glider - and couldn't keep her there for more than 30 seconds. See http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/06/hang-gliding-accident/ (http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/06/hang-gliding-accident/) for the real world result of not being secured to a flying object.
Of course, real world "Bang you're dead" results are rarely enjoyable in a game... So maybe an Epic might roll would be enough to hang on?
Richard
-
Once the flier got the grapple and we worked out whether they could carry their victim, I'd say each exchange flying up adds the flier's Athletics score to the potential damage. That'd be in lieu of any fixed stress-per-zone-fallen numbers.
If you ARE going with a fixed stress per zone fallen, then I rule that flying up while wrestling is a supplemental move, moving you up 1 zone and imposing the normal -1 penalty to your primary action. By contrast, however, if your victim is not fighting back, you can roll Athletics and cover WAY more altitude per exchange.
-
Once the flier got the grapple and we worked out whether they could carry their victim, I'd say each exchange flying up adds the flier's Athletics score to the potential damage. That'd be in lieu of any fixed stress-per-zone-fallen numbers.
If you ARE going with a fixed stress per zone fallen, then I rule that flying up while wrestling is a supplemental move, moving you up 1 zone and imposing the normal -1 penalty to your primary action. By contrast, however, if your victim is not fighting back, you can roll Athletics and cover WAY more altitude per exchange.
1 zone above the combat area doesn't need to be that high. It just needs to be higher than people can reach. 5 stress every 10 feet is the rule, so I was going to rule that you can only go up about 10 feet while carrying something heavy (that's actively trying to escape).
So, a 10 foot fall *shouldn't* kill anyone outright. The people on the hand-glider were considerably higher.
Also, I probably wouldn't allow anyone without a STR power to do this. SHe's going to have a Might Score of 4 and Inhuman STR, which gives her a lifting capability of 7 (a motorcycle...around 400lbs?). Now, just because she can lift it, it doesn't mean she can fly with it, which is why I was going with the 1 zone movement as a supplemental which is part of the grapple rules. I don't think she'd be able to to take-off 3 zones with an athletics roll...maybe if the person wasn't fighting, as you say.
The issue I have is this:
Exchange 1:She gets an aspect and tags it for a grapple
Exchange 2: she moves as a supplemental and then has the choice to drop the victim (Might vs Might) or continue to grapple (block)
Exchange 3: she moves up another zone as a supplemental.
What can the victim do? If he holds on, she'll just keep moving up and if he breaks the grapple, he will suffer a 10 stress fall.
She'll probably be able to control most grapples anyways. Do you think it's fair to do it this way? She's essentially taking herself and one other target out of the fight. She's not doing any damage until she drops them...it also takes her several exchanges just to do damage.
-
First, in order to start a grapple there must already be an aspect on the target, so unless you have allowed a free declaration it will take a full round to place such an aspect.
Second, you cannot do a supplemental movement the round you initiate a grapple, you can only do that in subsequent rounds. So it will take her 3 rounds to get off the ground (unless she got a free declaration of Surprised or something before/in the first round) and the Opponent will have at least one round to try to break the grapple (with pretty much any skill that makes sense, the book even says it may be possible to use Intimidate to break a grapple). If she does not start with an aspect to tag to start it the opponent can also spend their turn trying to clear the aspect.
5 or 10 stress wont take out a major villain, so 3-4 rounds to take out a mook seems fairly weak. Against a villain, it will take much longer. Inflicting one 10 stress hit after 4 rounds seems weaker IMO than just doing two 2 stress hits and allowing mele members of your party to be involved also. In any circumstance where a PC can easily grapple your villain you will have this type of issue and this does not seem to exacerbate it, so if that is what she wants her character to do seems fine to me.
-
First, in order to start a grapple there must already be an aspect on the target, so unless you have allowed a free declaration it will take a full round to place such an aspect.
Second, you cannot do a supplemental movement the round you initiate a grapple, you can only do that in subsequent rounds. So it will take her 3 rounds to get off the ground (unless she got a free declaration of Surprised or something before/in the first round) and the Opponent will have at least one round to try to break the grapple (with pretty much any skill that makes sense, the book even says it may be possible to use Intimidate to break a grapple). If she does not start with an aspect to tag to start it the opponent can also spend their turn trying to clear the aspect.
5 or 10 stress wont take out a major villain, so 3-4 rounds to take out a mook seems fairly weak. Against a villain, it will take much longer. Inflicting one 10 stress hit after 4 rounds seems weaker IMO than just doing two 2 stress hits and allowing mele members of your party to be involved also. In any circumstance where a PC can easily grapple your villain you will have this type of issue and this does not seem to exacerbate it, so if that is what she wants her character to do seems fine to me.
You have it right, I just didn't describe it properly, I guess. So it doesn't seem overpowered. Is it a fair way of doing it? In a situation where you'd use a grapple anyways, it seems useful to bring the person up. Once you've got someone up, you're guaranteed to do damage. You're effectively doing 2 things: Neutralizing one enemy, then doing damage to them even when they succeed. There's an advantage of being in the air as well: melee can't hurt you.
I'm thinking of making it a supplemental to stay in the air every round. That way you can't fly someone up, then do stress in consecutive rounds as your supplemental.
I wonder, though, about making the "drop" an attack...or if that's just more complicated. Or just flavour a fists or Might attack as a grab and drop - but that seems cheesy.
Edit: @Centarion: I should have read your whole post. You specifically stated you thought it was fine.
-
I would make it a grapple. You can then move them straight up after grappling them. It takes three rounds to do any damage, but the fall builds quickly...
Also the falling rules are way harsh. Even with athletics 3 and endurance 2 its got about a 50/50 chance of a take out for people who aren't special enough to take consequences. That's a bit harsh.
-
I think 3 rounds to take out mooks is absolutely fine, maybe underpowered. In my Up to your Waist game most of the combat focused characters 1 shot mooks with their normal fists/weapons attacks (at least the type of mook where you have 7 per fight and they take no consequences). This seems like an option the character would only want to use on a tougher bad guy (with inhuman strength she probably already one shots the normal mooks).
I like making staying in the air a supplemental, for the reasons you stated. Also, I agree that it may be better to model the falling as an attack, but I am not sure how I would do it. If they are falling any significant distance the attack certainly shouldn't miss.
-
Also, I agree that it may be better to model the falling as an attack, but I am not sure how I would do it. If they are falling any significant distance the attack certainly shouldn't miss.
That's a good point.
Here's one problem I see, but maybe it's just me being paranoid:
End of Adventure Boss: "I grapple, then start flying up...I keep flying up....I keep flying up..." Meanwhile, if the boss can't get out of the grapple within the first couple rounds, he's pretty much screwed.
Is it paranoia? Or is it an issue?
Lastly, would there be some kind of penalty for allies to shoot grappled enemies while they are airborn?
-
The question you have to ask with your scenario is: "Is grappling the boss and then flying up with him actually better than just grappling him and staying on the ground?"
My answer is that he would be screwed either way if he cannot break out of a grapple for several turns. The only problem with this that I see is that flying away with him puts the spotlight squarely on one person while having everyone beat him up while one person holds him seems to highlight everyone more. In any case if my players were prone to using high strength grapples I would make sure my challenging fights had a way to interact with that. Remember that breaking the grapple (on the boss's turn) does not require him to win a Might vs. Might, just to beat the grapple strength with something that could reasonably break a grapple. This could be fists, weapons (if he has some small weapon he can get), intimidate, spell casting, really anything if you are creative.
I know that in D&D shooting any ranged thing into a mele carries a penalty and attacking someone who is grappled can cause you to hit the grapple and vice verse, clearly this is not D&D, we do not have strict mele engagements like that. On the other hand, it could make sense to impose situational modifiers or other effects if someone tries to attack a grappled foe, either in mele or range (or both). Nothing about this subject is actually in the rules afaik but whenever something like this comes up we discuss how best to handle it at our table and just do that, if you ahve a method you like just tell your players before it comes up so you all have the same expectations.
-
We had a discussion about this before, I think, and it was determined that just being grappled wasn't a suitable aspect for putting a grapple on yourself.
(bolding added)
I do not recall this being concensus. I do recall some members stating this to be their opinion.
-
End of Adventure Boss: "I grapple, then start flying up...I keep flying up....I keep flying up..." Meanwhile, if the boss can't get out of the grapple within the first couple rounds, he's pretty much screwed.
Naw, if a lone enemy gets grappled for several rounds against a team their a goner. Aspects will start to build and it will quickly become impossible to break the grapple. Then other PC's join the fun, the aspects spiral out of control, and the baddie dies.
Consider the following scenario: Due to a hilariously large number of fate points being spent, the shagnasty gets grappled by 6 squirrels.
Round 1: Shagnasty can't do anything to to the large blocks from a fate point spam.
Round 2: The shagnasty gets 6 aspects placed on it. Which ever squirrel rolled well tags a few of the aspects to get a block of lots. Shagnasty can't break free.
Round 3+: The aspects start to build up and up until the squirrels have a nice pile of backup tags.
Final round: Squirrels switch to stress, and tag to increase the stress to an absurd level. The shagnasty is finally gnawed to death. Also very upset that it was defeated by a pack of squirrels.
-
Naw, if a lone enemy gets grappled for several rounds against a team their a goner. Aspects will start to build and it will quickly become impossible to break the grapple. Then other PC's join the fun, the aspects spiral out of control, and the baddie dies.
Consider the following scenario: Due to a hilariously large number of fate points being spent, the shagnasty gets grappled by 6 squirrels.
Round 1: Shagnasty can't do anything to to the large blocks from a fate point spam.
Round 2: The shagnasty gets 6 aspects placed on it. Which ever squirrel rolled well tags a few of the aspects to get a block of lots. Shagnasty can't break free.
Round 3+: The aspects start to build up and up until the squirrels have a nice pile of backup tags.
Final round: Squirrels switch to stress, and tag to increase the stress to an absurd level. The shagnasty is finally gnawed to death. Also very upset that it was defeated by a pack of squirrels.
I think this happened to Doctor Doom once. :)
-
I know that in D&D shooting any ranged thing into a mele carries a penalty and attacking someone who is grappled can cause you to hit the grapple and vice verse, clearly this is not D&D, we do not have strict mele engagements like that. On the other hand, it could make sense to impose situational modifiers or other effects if someone tries to attack a grappled foe, either in mele or range (or both). Nothing about this subject is actually in the rules afaik but whenever something like this comes up we discuss how best to handle it at our table and just do that, if you ahve a method you like just tell your players before it comes up so you all have the same expectations.
I'm just going to leave it up to declarations and compels.
-
(bolding added)
I do not recall this being concensus. I do recall some members stating this to be their opinion.
We didn't exactly take a vote or anything, but as I recall, that part of it wasn't long disputed. There seemed to be general agreement that reversing a grapple needed more justification than just being grappled--meaning either a maneuver or another aspect to tag, or a stunt to that effect.
-
We didn't exactly take a vote or anything, but as I recall, that part of it wasn't long disputed. There seemed to be general agreement that reversing a grapple needed more justification than just being grappled--meaning either a maneuver or another aspect to tag, or a stunt to that effect.
It would seem to me that this would be dependant on the specific nature and narration of the original aspect and resulting grapple, rather than being a default ruling.
Should it be hypothetically possible that the same aspect be invoked on the part of both grapplers to justify their access to the mechanics? I believe it should.
Should it be relied upon without question that the above is possible? I do not believe it should.
-
I'm not overly clear on the grapple rules but wouldn't both the player and the baddie fall if the baddie successfully pulls a reversal and the player doesn't beat the block?
-
I'm not overly clear on the grapple rules but wouldn't both the player and the baddie fall if the baddie successfully pulls a reversal and the player doesn't beat the block?
I'd flavour it like this:
Flyer tries to drop baddie and instead the baddie grabs the flyer around the neck and waist and starts choking him. He's blocking all actions except movement, basically. So he can start using his supplemental each round to do stress, which might cause the flyer to want to land.
I'm not sure what physical options someone would have while in the air. Maybe, as a supplemental, you could put on a maneuver like "steering my ride" and tag it compel the flyer to land...dunno.
You certainly wouldn't want to block movement because then you'd both fall, I think...but depending on how much stress you're both going to take and how tough you are compared to the flyer, it might be the best option...
-
If they could wriggle a weapon free and hold it point blank to the flier, they could also try to Intimidate their way down safely.
-
Maybe we could add a "throw" action to the general rules for grapples and include a bonus for throwing someone into something sharp or from a high height.
Add some better falling rules for cases where the grapple simply ends, and bob's your uncle.
We didn't exactly take a vote or anything, but as I recall, that part of it wasn't long disputed. There seemed to be general agreement that reversing a grapple needed more justification than just being grappled--meaning either a maneuver or another aspect to tag, or a stunt to that effect.
I think it's best to let people judge for themselves what the thread said. Unless I screwed up my search, this (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,30805.0.html) is it.
-
Maybe we could add a "throw" action to the general rules for grapples and include a bonus for throwing someone into something sharp or from a high height.
That bonus is called 'an invoke or a tag of an appropriate aspect'
-
You could do it that way, but I was thinking of letting the things you throw people at count as weapons for a Might attack.
-
You could do it that way, but I was thinking of letting the things you throw people at count as weapons for a Might attack.
She specifically said she wants to drop enemies on fences and other nasty stuff. After the declaration, I don't know how I'd do it.
Since I'm going to do a Might vs Might to release the victim, I could add the difference as added stress on top of the fall damage.
Or I was just mostly thinking a Might attack at weapon 0 vs athletics. If she misses, then she fails to drop them on the fence, if she succeeds, she gets to do extra damage = to shifts gained (on top of the stress for falling). It's an extra roll, but I think it's appropriate for the circumstance.
-
She specifically said she wants to drop enemies on fences and other nasty stuff. After the declaration, I don't know how I'd do it.
Since I'm going to do a Might vs Might to release the victim, I could add the difference as added stress on top of the fall damage.
Or I was just mostly thinking a Might attack at weapon 0 vs athletics. If she misses, then she fails to drop them on the fence, if she succeeds, she gets to do extra damage = to shifts gained (on top of the stress for falling). It's an extra roll, but I think it's appropriate for the circumstance.
I would simply let it do +2 stress to account for the declaration tag. Alternatively, it might meet a specific catch (cold iron) instead of added damage.
What if she dropped the baddie on another baddie though?
-
What if she dropped the baddie on another baddie though?
Sounds like a Spray attack.
-
I would simply let it do +2 stress to account for the declaration tag. Alternatively, it might meet a specific catch (cold iron) instead of added damage.
Good point
What if she dropped the baddie on another baddie though?
Huh...yeah, I hadn't thought of that - and probably should have since it seems like a no-brainer to try to do that.
-A Targeting(Might) role vs athletics. Success means both targets take the falling damage (athletics result would mitigate some of the damage)?
-Allocate the damage like a spray attack? (Tedronai: you beat me to it)
Gah. None of this seems very intuitive.
-
I think this happened to Doctor Doom once. :)
One of my favorite comics ever. Gotta love Squirrel Girl. The best panel is one where her squirrels are swarming all over his armor and he's managed to grab one and fling it away... the look on the temporarily airborne squirrel's face is hilarious. ;D
Of course, when you have a Silver Age level character in the modern age... is it any wonder she always wins? It's like building a Submerged character for a Feet in the Water game.
-
How about this for basic throwing rules:
When grappling an opponent, you may choose to end the grapple with a throw. (You can't take a grappling supplemental action as you do so.) This is effectively an attack. Might (including grappling bonuses) is used to hit, and Athletics or Might may be used to defend. If the attack hits, you may move your target one zone plus one zone for each level of Strength you have in addition to inflicting stress. The weapon rating of a throw is determined by what you throw your target at, plus strength bonuses.
Still need to include falling rules there, but that's a start.
Throwing people into each other would require a stunt, because normal people can't do that.
-
How about this for basic throwing rules:
When grappling an opponent, you may choose to end the grapple with a throw. (You can't take a grappling supplemental action as you do so.) This is effectively an attack. Might (including grappling bonuses) is used to hit, and Athletics or Might may be used to defend. If the attack hits, you may move your target one zone plus one zone for each level of Strength you have in addition to inflicting stress. The weapon rating of a throw is determined by what you throw your target at, plus strength bonuses.
Still need to include falling rules there, but that's a start.
Throwing people into each other would require a stunt, because normal people can't do that.
I like the idea for a throw attack option for grapplers, but in this case wouldn't adding fall damage on top of that break the fall damage rules? I can't site the page but I do remember YS saying fall damage is considered to be part of the attack. This you never get to have your attack damage plus fall damage on top of it.
-
I prefer to ignore the falling rules whenever possible...but that part is quite sensible for most attacks.
Throws are an exception because they actually move you. Suppose I toss you one zone straight up. You can't fly so you fall. Is it fair to make you take stress again? And why are you taking stress from the throw when you didn't hit anything?
And throwing people downwards ought to do extra damage. But how to implement that? What if the throw misses or the grapple ends another way? Does the grapple-ee fall?
-
Ok, Ok...how about this:
Once you've got your opponent in the air via the grapple, you can make a Might or Fists attack against the opponent who defends with althletics. (I like athletics because it's the same skill that lets you negate falling damage) You get a free tag for every zone up you are from the ground. The attack automatically breaks the grapple.
This way it's a normal attack and instead of 5 stress/zone, you get +2/zone. Some of these can be removed via declarations by the victim "there was a tree and I used the branches to slow my fall".
If the victim successfully defends then, narratively, he landed safely in some water or mud - a tree broke the fall or maybe he chooses to stay in the air. He's still clinging to the flyer etc..
-
-Allocate the damage like a spray attack? (Tedronai: you beat me to it)
Gah. None of this seems very intuitive.
The more I think of this the more I like it. It's a spray attack because the guy at the bottom breaks the fall of the other guy and they both get hurt less each than the guy who was dropped would have been if he hit the floor.
Regarding throwing people around, I have a problem with stating that you can throw an opponent 1 +1/strength power zone away, because zones are a very fluid thing. I've been in fights where a football field was cut into a 2 zone fight. So if someone got thrown from the 25 yard line to the 25 yard line in the other zone it would be a flight of around 150'. That would be a 1 zone throw which a pure mortal could do.
I would prefer to just narrate that the stress from a successful grapple was the result of the defender being thrown within the same zone.
-
The more I think of this the more I like it. It's a spray attack because the guy at the bottom breaks the fall of the other guy and they both get hurt less each than the guy who was dropped would have been if he hit the floor.
Right. It makes sense if you actually hit. The problem is when you drop a person, they're DEFINITELY going to hit the ground but they're not necessarily going to hit the other person who's walking around. Therefore, you need some kind of targetting role to hit the guy on the ground. Also, if you do some kind of targeting role and you allocate shifts to each opponent, it makes it easier for the person falling to avoid damage....even if you missed your target. In fact, he's less likely to take damage if you try to target someone else despite the fact that he still fell and hit the ground.
-
Right. It makes sense if you actually hit. The problem is when you drop a person, they're DEFINITELY going to hit the ground but they're not necessarily going to hit the other person who's walking around. Therefore, you need some kind of targetting role to hit the guy on the ground. Also, if you do some kind of targeting role and you allocate shifts to each opponent, it makes it easier for the person falling to avoid damage....even if you missed your target. In fact, he's less likely to take damage if you try to target someone else despite the fact that he still fell and hit the ground.
For targeting I would think that it should be your grappling check. The amount of control of your grapple would dictate how well you are able to drop him when you want to drop him. The target would then check athletics to dodge. If he succeeds then the grapplee takes the full damage, if the target doesn't dodge then you split the damage as per the spray attack rules.
-
For targeting I would think that it should be your grappling check. The amount of control of your grapple would dictate how well you are able to drop him when you want to drop him. The target would then check athletics to dodge. If he succeeds then the grapplee takes the full damage, if the target doesn't dodge then you split the damage as per the spray attack rules.
Except, technically, you're supposed to split the attack BEFORE they dodge. Then they dodge based on how you allocated the shifts.
-
How about this:
We go back to the 5stress/zone the victim falls. It's a might check to drop your victim.
If you want to drop the victim(opponent1) on another opponent(2), the Flyer makes a might check to release opponent 1. This same check is opposed with athletics by opponent 2 (who is on the ground) . IF he succeeds all stress goes to opponent (1), who can do an athletics to soften the blow. IF opponent(2) fails, the number by which he fails is taken in stress and subtracted from the total stress inflicted on opponent (1). (1) can still do an athletics to aleviate some of that damage. (2) cannot take more than the total damage inflicted -1.
Basically, you can't do MORE damage to the person on the ground than the total from the fall and the person dropped has to take at least 1 point of damage.
So lets say you roll 8 Might and you're dropping someone 3 zones (15 stress). If the person on the ground only rolls a 5, then he takes 3 stress and the other 12 stress goes to the person who fell. The person who fell can still do athletics to soften the fall. At least 1 point of stress has to be allocated to the falling person, so the max damage the person on the ground can take is 14.
It's simple but it Seems complicated to me...and not very smooth. And it uses the falling rules, which no-one likes.
-
How about this for basic throwing rules:
When grappling an opponent, you may choose to end the grapple with a throw. (You can't take a grappling supplemental action as you do so.) This is effectively an attack. Might (including grappling bonuses) is used to hit, and Athletics or Might may be used to defend. If the attack hits, you may move your target one zone plus one zone for each level of Strength you have in addition to inflicting stress. The weapon rating of a throw is determined by what you throw your target at, plus strength bonuses.
Still need to include falling rules there, but that's a start.
Throwing people into each other would require a stunt, because normal people can't do that.
Why not have the weapon value be equal to X*Zone thrown? Maybe it's 1 stress/zone, so if you throw them 3 zones, it's weapon 3. That way if you throw someone down they'll take more damage.
I throw him 1 zone over the edge of the cliff (which is 5 zones deep), so the weapon value for the attack is 6. Keep different objects(like iron fence posts) as declarations...less book-keeping that way.
-
Once you've got your opponent in the air via the grapple, you can make a Might or Fists attack against the opponent who defends with althletics. (I like athletics because it's the same skill that lets you negate falling damage) You get a free tag for every zone up you are from the ground. The attack automatically breaks the grapple.
Amusingly, this is less dangerous than just falling if you go by the 5 stress/zone interpretation.
Which is probably a good thing, give how silly-deadly falls are.
Why not have the weapon value be equal to X*Zone thrown? Maybe it's 1 stress/zone, so if you throw them 3 zones, it's weapon 3. That way if you throw someone down they'll take more damage.
I throw him 1 zone over the edge of the cliff (which is 5 zones deep), so the weapon value for the attack is 6. Keep different objects(like iron fence posts) as declarations...less book-keeping that way.
I'd rather have things that you throw people into be weapons. If they're Declarations, then what do you do if the SPIKED FENCE Aspect is already there? And why is it easier to throw someone when there's a fence to throw them into?
Remember, the target only moves if you hit under what I wrote.
Which contributes to the issue with dropping people. If you just end the grapple normally or miss your throw, do they fall? Or do they automatically manage to cling to your leg or something?
Making throws automatically move their targets might fix that, I suppose.
Regarding throwing people around, I have a problem with stating that you can throw an opponent 1 +1/strength power zone away, because zones are a very fluid thing. I've been in fights where a football field was cut into a 2 zone fight. So if someone got thrown from the 25 yard line to the 25 yard line in the other zone it would be a flight of around 150'. That would be a 1 zone throw which a pure mortal could do.
I would prefer to just narrate that the stress from a successful grapple was the result of the defender being thrown within the same zone.
1. All zone ranges have this issue. Fortunately, it's usually easy to narrate things into making sense.
2. That would defeat the purpose. The whole reason these throw rules is being made is to represent attacks that forcibly move their targets into different zones.
How about this:
We go back to the 5stress/zone the victim falls. It's a might check to drop your victim.
If you want to drop the victim(opponent1) on another opponent(2), the Flyer makes a might check to release opponent 1. This same check is opposed with athletics by opponent 2 (who is on the ground) . IF he succeeds all stress goes to opponent (1), who can do an athletics to soften the blow. IF opponent(2) fails, the number by which he fails is taken in stress and subtracted from the total stress inflicted on opponent (1). (1) can still do an athletics to aleviate some of that damage. (2) cannot take more than the total damage inflicted -1.
Basically, you can't do MORE damage to the person on the ground than the total from the fall and the person dropped has to take at least 1 point of damage.
So lets say you roll 8 Might and you're dropping someone 3 zones (15 stress). If the person on the ground only rolls a 5, then he takes 3 stress and the other 12 stress goes to the person who fell. The person who fell can still do athletics to soften the fall. At least 1 point of stress has to be allocated to the falling person, so the max damage the person on the ground can take is 14.
It's simple but it Seems complicated to me...and not very smooth. And it uses the falling rules, which no-one likes.
I have a simpler, and in my opinion better, idea.
Take the extra shifts from your attack vs guy 1 and apply them to an attack against guy 2. You don't necessarily have to use all of the extra shifts, but you can if you want.
If you worry about the power of this, you can make people declare how many shifts they're dedicating to hitting which guy before knowing whether they hit guy 1. And if they miss, the whole attack fails.
(This is very similar to the existing spray attack rules, by the way.)
-
Remember, the target only moves if you hit under what I wrote.
Which contributes to the issue with dropping people. If you just end the grapple normally or miss your throw, do they fall? Or do they automatically manage to cling to your leg or something?
Making throws automatically move their targets might fix that, I suppose.
I like the cling to your leg thing...then they can initiate a grapple on their own turn. Or maybe they just fell harmlessly down.
I have a simpler, and in my opinion better, idea.
Take the extra shifts from your attack vs guy 1 and apply them to an attack against guy 2. You don't necessarily have to use all of the extra shifts, but you can if you want.
If you worry about the power of this, you can make people declare how many shifts they're dedicating to hitting which guy before knowing whether they hit guy 1. And if they miss, the whole attack fails.
(This is very similar to the existing spray attack rules, by the way.)
I don't know what you mean. Is the stress based on the attack or the falling damage?
So the Fly-Girl would throw the Fally-McPlunge by rolling a contested might. IF successful, Fally would take stress based on the Falling Damage only and the target on the ground (I can't think of a clever name) would take stress based on the extra shifts (assuming he failed to defend)?
-
I think the biggest problem that people are encountering has been reached because they are looking at this as a mechanical problem rather then a narrative issue. It shouldn't be a question of how do I mechanically model this flyer vs walker event but rather how do I narrate it.
Being in the air does not have to place you in a different zone. A zone can be as small as an outhouse or as big as a parking lot, and its dimensions are determined by the narrative value rather then the square footage. Being airborne doesn't place you in a different zone unless that air space has some narrative value (like say a complex air and ground battle with combatants spread through out).
(Falling out of a airspace zone is better modeled as damage from an environmental hazard aspect rather then a fall damage event, where the smart person simply concedes out of the fight rather then try to absorb the damage of the hazard.)
Additionally a 'grapple' the fancy block is not definitively the same as two people grappling. Narratively all it indicates is a struggle that starts with some initial advantage as described by the first aspect. All the other movements of that struggle are created by the grapple aspects or by the stress generated.
If you want to snatch someone up and drop them to the ground then all it really needs to be is a starting aspect "grabbed" done as a maneuver and then each round you place aspects like 'aloft', 'up in the sky', 'its so high up here', on the target on each free grapple maneuver. Then tag them all when you drop his ass to the ground using a regular old attack.
Remember simply breaking the grapple by successful attack doesn't remove the aspects that have been placed, so the victim can still be 'grabbed' even if he ends the grapple by some successful action, (a smart person does it by maneuver of grabbing them back, or removing one of the grapple maneuvers).
(PS a smart flyer would use their athletics to make declarations about their altitude or aerial placement in flight each round and then tag to invoke for effect against people trying to attack them in ways that wouldn't hit a flying target.)
You don't need a huge series of extra rules to adjudicate this unusual situation just a little creativity.
-
I don't know what you mean. Is the stress based on the attack or the falling damage?
So the Fly-Girl would throw the Fally-McPlunge by rolling a contested might. IF successful, Fally would take stress based on the Falling Damage only and the target on the ground (I can't think of a clever name) would take stress based on the extra shifts (assuming he failed to defend)?
The attack. These rules should work for someone on the ground who's throwing people at each other. Once we add something to the throw rules I suggested to account for falling, they'll also work for dropping people onto one another.
Example: Bergelmir the half-giant is grappling a zombie and wants to throw it at a demon. He rolls a 9 on the throw roll, against an Athletics defence of 4. He allocates 5 shifts to the zombie, hitting it with one threshold success. Then the zombie is launched into another zone, and the demon in that zone faces an accuracy 4 attack. Both attacks are weapon 6 from Bergelmir's Strength.
I think the biggest problem that people are encountering has been reached because they are looking at this as a mechanical problem rather then a narrative issue. It shouldn't be a question of how do I mechanically model this flyer vs walker event but rather how do I narrate it.
...
You don't need a huge series of extra rules to adjudicate this unusual situation just a little creativity.
Wrong.
This stuff is easy to narrate. The mechanical bit is substantially more problematic.
If you're high up enough that you can't be punched, you're in another zone. Accessing aerial zones is much of what Wings does.
And with a grapple you can move people.
So what happens mechanically if you grapple, then move upwards, then drop?
-
I have to agree with Sanctaphrax. While I see the maneuvering as very useful, it doesn't make sense to be "at a dizzying height" and have the melee guy walk up to you and smack you, forcing you to use your tag to invoke your Dizzying Height aspect just to make sure he can't.
I like the Throw rule for the grapple. I'm not sure about moving someone 1 zone being automatic. According the lifting rules, you can't even throw anything 1 zone unless its weight is 2 levels below your might score...So it might have to be decided on the fly whether you can throw an opponent at all, and it might require a STR power.
As for throwing someone down, it'd be nice to keep some aspect of the the falling rules:
1. Armour doesn't protect from falling damage. Instead shifts in an athletics roll adds to armour.
2. It does piles of damage (maybe reflected by a high Weapon rating?)
3. It does this damage per 10feet (which I like to translate as "per zone")
4. Did I miss anything?
Edit: Maybe you could have the weapon damage scale based on the height.
A short fall(falling off a ladder or short wall/1 or 2 zones): 2
A High fall(off the top of a 1 story building/ 3 zones ): 4
A Great fall: A cliff/ multi-story building): 8
A skyscraper: 16
A skydiving accident gone wrong: 32
Falling from the edge of the Atmosphere: 64
I'm just throwing out adjectives and numbers, to give you a sense of what I mean. Obviously, they would need to be hammered out. I'd also use those values for falling damage, in general.
So for a grapple, you'd throw someone 1 zone AND down a Great Fall
-
I figure that the very abstract nature of zones can justify the ability to move someone a zone. Maybe you drag them over to the next zone before kicking them away and running back.
As for falling, I don't see any reason to preserve anything from the falling rules.
Measuring damage based on feet fallen is pretty awful, because nobody should have to keep track of that stuff. Zones is better, but it seems iffy in non-combat situations.
I don't see why falling should be any more damaging or dangerous than gunshots and monster bites and the like.
And making defence rolls provide armour removes the distinction between accuracy and weapon rating entirely for no benefit. If you want to do that, just make "weapon rating" add to the attack roll. I'd rather not do that, though, because it seems too brutal.
As for the weapon values, that stuff is giving me trouble. It seems logical for attack accuracy to scale based on height fallen, because it's harder to land safely from a big fall. But then maybe you'll end up with a situation where falling is more dangerous than being thrown downwards.
-
I keep finding myself coming back to this paragraph in the Falling rules.
The falling rules are not an invitation for super-strong characters and spellcasters to start picking people up and tossing them to a great height, only to fall down and take egregious falling damage. That’s an attack, and the stress dealt by any falling component is already included in the stress of the attack. If your
force-bolt “uppercuts” a guy so he flies up and then falls back down with a crunch of bone, the damage dealt by the attack itself accounts for the “fall back down” part—essentially, in this case, falling is a special effect, a detail of color. Additionally, knocking characters off of high places should have plenty of escape clauses.
Add in the actual mechanics of physically lifting an object up off the ground and you really end up needing a lot of strength, maybe even Super-strong character kinds of strength.
he isn’t really going to be able to move much more than a zone carrying something that’s equal to his base Might. A character can carry something two levels below his Might for a short distance (allowing him to make a sprint roll restricted by Might, with the item’s difficulty as a border value). He can carry something four levels below his Might with no real penalty or can toss it a distance of one zone. Something six levels below his Might could be used as a thrown weapon.
Note the actual movement that you may take during a grapple is only one shift, this means you have to beat the lifting value of the object by 4 to negate the carried item border value.
if you so choose, you can freely make an unopposed attack, movement, or maneuver on your opponent as a supplemental action, which has a value of 1 shift.
In other words, whenever your turn to roll the grapple comes up again, you can automatically choose to inflict a one-shift hit to the target, drag the target with you one zone, or inflict a maneuver (like Tangled Up), and then you must roll the grapple at –1 (the other action you take is considered supplementary because it
doesn’t require a roll).
-
As you pointed out yourself, a grapple need not involve physically carrying someone. Given that the text says you may automatically drag the target with you one zone, I think it's reasonable to assume that you may automatically drag the target with you one zone.
The part of the falling rules you quoted is sensible, and goes a long way towards preventing the badness of the falling rules from infecting the rest of the game. But it does precisely nothing to alleviate the need to work out what happens mechanically when a flying grappler drops someone while in an aerial zone.
-
I keep finding myself coming back to this paragraph in the Falling rules.
The falling rules are not an invitation for super-strong characters and spellcasters to start picking people up and tossing them to a great height, only to fall down and take egregious falling damage. That’s an attack, and the stress dealt by any falling component is already included in the stress of the attack. If your
force-bolt “uppercuts” a guy so he flies up and then falls back down with a crunch of bone, the damage dealt by the attack itself accounts for the “fall back down” part—essentially, in this case, falling is a special effect, a detail of color. Additionally, knocking characters off of high places should have plenty of escape clauses.
Add in the actual mechanics of physically lifting an object up off the ground and you really end up needing a lot of strength, maybe even Super-strong character kinds of strength.
he isn’t really going to be able to move much more than a zone carrying something that’s equal to his base Might. A character can carry something two levels below his Might for a short distance (allowing him to make a sprint roll restricted by Might, with the item’s difficulty as a border value). He can carry something four levels below his Might with no real penalty or can toss it a distance of one zone. Something six levels below his Might could be used as a thrown weapon.
Note the actual movement that you may take during a grapple is only one shift, this means you have to beat the lifting value of the object by 4 to negate the carried item border value.
if you so choose, you can freely make an unopposed attack, movement, or maneuver on your opponent as a supplemental action, which has a value of 1 shift.
In other words, whenever your turn to roll the grapple comes up again, you can automatically choose to inflict a one-shift hit to the target, drag the target with you one zone, or inflict a maneuver (like Tangled Up), and then you must roll the grapple at –1 (the other action you take is considered supplementary because it
doesn’t require a roll).
This is why I said that in order to throw someone using a grapple, at the very least, you have to be strong enough. We're trying to design it as an attack - it's just an attack using Might instead of fists and it ends a grapple.
And so far, we've used the grapple rules exactly per RAW.
I have wings and I can carry a human sized object/person because I am strong enough. I grapple and, on the next exchange, use my supplemental to move one zone - it just happens to be up.
There still should be something for falling, though. Why fly up and drop people if it's just as easy (actually easier)to throw them around, or punch them in the face?
1. Because it's cool
2. It brings you and your target away from melee
3. Falling hurts?
I figure that the very abstract nature of zones can justify the ability to move someone a zone. Maybe you drag them over to the next zone before kicking them away and running back.
I'm not sure. There's already a way to move them one zone. I guess you're trading it off for the risk of "missing". I really think that you need to be strong enough.
As for falling, I don't see any reason to preserve anything from the falling rules.
Measuring damage based on feet fallen is pretty awful, because nobody should have to keep track of that stuff. Zones is better, but it seems iffy in non-combat situations.
I don't see why falling should be any more damaging or dangerous than gunshots and monster bites and the like.
As for the weapon values, that stuff is giving me trouble. It seems logical for attack accuracy to scale based on height fallen, because it's harder to land safely from a big fall. But then maybe you'll end up with a situation where falling is more dangerous than being thrown downwards.
Not all falls are more dangerous than gunshots and monster bites. The big falls definitely are.
Falling can and, in some situations should, be more dangerous than being thrown down. IF you fall from a skyscraper, it'll probably be more damaging than being thrown down a 10 foot pit.
And making defence rolls provide armour removes the distinction between accuracy and weapon rating entirely for no benefit. If you want to do that, just make "weapon rating" add to the attack roll. I'd rather not do that, though, because it seems too brutal.
If you fall, the ground won't miss. Therefore, there is no target roll, but there still needs to be a way to cushion the damage. That is why Athletics gives the armour.
-
I'm not sure. There's already a way to move them one zone. I guess you're trading it off for the risk of "missing". I really think that you need to be strong enough.
Why?
Not all falls are more dangerous than gunshots and monster bites. The big falls definitely are.
Falling can and, in some situations should, be more dangerous than being thrown down. IF you fall from a skyscraper, it'll probably be more damaging than being thrown down a 10 foot pit.
For any gunshot, there's a more dangerous fall. And for any fall there's a more dangerous gunshot. Point is, I see no reason to make falls an especially dangerous thing.
The issue is not that falling off a skyscraper might be more dangerous than being thrown down a pit, it's that being thrown downwards from a skyscraper might be less dangerous than falling off of one.
If you fall, the ground won't miss. Therefore, there is no target roll, but there still needs to be a way to cushion the damage. That is why Athletics gives the armour.
There is no difference between cushioning an attack with armour and cushioning it with a defence roll unless there's a weapon rating involved. And if you're cushioning everything with armour then weapon rating bonuses are exactly the same as accuracy bonuses.
(I wouldn't bother rolling fall attacks either, by the way. I'd use a flat accuracy.)
Just because it hits you narratively doesn't mean it hits you mechanically. And vice versa, of course.
-
Why?
Because if I had 4 Might and told the GM that I wanted to pick up a car and throw it at my opponent, he'd say no.
By your rules, I could move a car-sized enemy 1 zone and try to target another enemy doing damage. So then people are going to go around grappling cars and throwing them on people.
There is no difference between cushioning an attack with armour and cushioning it with a defence roll unless there's a weapon rating involved. And if you're cushioning everything with armour then weapon rating bonuses are exactly the same as accuracy bonuses.
Just because it hits you narratively doesn't mean it hits you mechanically. And vice versa, of course.
That makes sense. I don't think I'd completely understood what you'd meant.
-
Well, you can already drag car-sized enemies around. Using them as weapons to hit other people doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me. Especially since you need to beat their Might.