Whether or not something qualifies as Lawbreaking depends quite a lot on the narration of the event, and quite a lot less on the mechanical representation.Narratively, the end goal of the attack is to prevent their spellcasting. By dealing the stress to the Mental stress track it would innitially limit their attacks, since mechanically that is where spellcasters draw magic power from.
In other words, how does this 'attack' prevent their spellcasting narratively?
I'd go with a block. If the wizard can't beat it with a discipline roll, he can't use his magic.That seems a consensus. Could a block be an over arcing thing? Could I put a block on someone that inhibits all actions or does it have to be specified to magic, movement or the like?
Whether or not something qualifies as Lawbreaking depends quite a lot on the narration of the event, and quite a lot less on the mechanical representation.
In other words, how does this 'attack' prevent their spellcasting narratively?
I'm not convinced that the narrative provided by Taran would qualify as inflicting mental stress, and the narrative provided by Lavecki...well...wasn't narrative.
Block on the mental stress track? What's that?
Was an idea I came up with that is like "i deal 8 stress" instead of dealing actual stress. They cant use that stress for abilities, but can still take that stress for attacks
find appropriate consequences (which can be invoked to prevent casting) when they are inflicted.
Because of Spirit's flexibility it isn't really unbelievable to imagine a caster could utilize it to hit the mental stress track,...Not unbelievable, just unfair. And in this case, narratively inappropriate.
...or set up a block on Discipline for preventing spellcasting.You don't set up blocks on skills. That's not how blocks work.
Not unbelievable, just unfair. And in this case, narratively inappropriate.
I dont believe that it is unfair. Mental stress doesn't come up that much (at least in my games) unless you are a caster. The fact that I am cutting off their magic, which they need mental stress track to do, is why I suggested it. So it does make narrative sense.No, that's what makes it make a little bit of mechanical sense.
I dont believe that it is unfair.
I'm with sancta here. I have a really hard time with a punch altering how I see myself or the world (on its own anyway). And if you cause a consequence, someone needs to go to a councilor or psychiatrist to fix it? You have to admit that is a bit off.
One of the sample spells in YS requires you to tag a "tree aspect" in order to entangle people and prevent movement. So without that narrative aspect you can't cast the spell.
...
EDIT: I left the computer and thought about it some more.
IF you require an aspect to tag (by declaring/guessing/assessing) - an aspect indicating that your target is a spell caster - then it limits how much you can attack doing mental stress. The first one would be a free tag, but every attack after that would require a FP.
It certainly makes it a lot less OP, if that's your concern.
So far as I'm concerned, the whole connection between chi and mental health sounds like a religion I don't follow. Therefore, sketchy.Not relevant. We're talking about a setting with wizards, werewolves, fomor, dragons, vampires, and even mythical gods. Adding the concept of chi isn't exactly a stretch.
It assumes that a specific mystical belief is actually The Real Big Truth behind The Way Things Work.Close but not quite. Butcher does a good job of pulling together many myths, putting his own spin on them, and stirring up a good story. What you're objecting to is simply one more myth and one more interpretation of many.
Having proper chi flow be essential to people's mental health is totally a stretch.
It'd be like revealing that everything in the universe is actually composed of Fire, Earth, Air, and Water in accordance with classical Greek theories.
It assumes that a specific mystical belief is actually The Real Big Truth behind The Way Things Work.
If someone says to me that they 'fire off a mental evocation', or whatever, I'd be asking them what that evocation is trying to DO. And 'deal mental stress' doesn't qualify as an appropriate answer, here.
It's not the fact that it's being delivered 'through a fists attack' that makes it seem 'less realistic' to me, it's the explanation of HOW it's dealing the stress: by interfering with the flow of energies. Such interference, to me, does not seem to justify mental stress.
...Who are you to tell me one beleif is more valid than another?...
...It's a universe where every myth has a basis in reality....
My issue with this entire thing is actually pretty simple:
You're trying to prevent an action (casting a spell).
Blocks exist specifically to prevent actions.
But you don't want to use a block. THIS here is where the whole thing gets fishy for me.
Attacks don't prevent actions, they damage your opponent in some way. If you're trying to say that you're breaking down his connections to his magic, I'd buy it. But you're not. You're very clearly trying to do what chi-blockers do on the Avatar cartoons. That comes off as a block (with a specific duration). But you don't want to block.
Whenever I'm GMing and I have a player who wants to do something that there's a rule for, or pretty much a rule for, but wants to do it using different rules, I assume they're either trying to pull something over on me (like bypassing Toughness powers and the majority of the defensive capabilities of OW, in this case), or they just don't understand the rules.
I'm not sure which it is, so let me be clear. IF YOU'RE TRYING TO PREVENT AN ACTION, USE A BLOCK. Maybe a maneuver to place an aspect you can compel for effect. But blocks were designed for this type of action. It's how the system works.
I don't care what justification you're trying to use for mental stress, it's starting to seem like you really do know how powerful dealing mental stress is and want "the forums" to tell you it's okay and reasonable.
I'll say it one last time.
USE A BLOCK.
With a touch the energy pulses out from my palm into my opponent. Like a small detonation weakening a mountainside, the flow of the wizards energy is stymmied. The wizard, reaching down for his power realizes, with fear, that his reserves have been ever so slightly depleted. The constant torrent of energy that makes him a powerful force of nature has been reduced to a steady flow.Allow me to provide you the following hypothetical narrative:
Fear creeps in knowing that another hit could bring his reserves to a trickle. There is hesitation and doubt as he realizes that his connection to his power could be disconnected permanently - that the very thing that makes him extraordinary is slowly being locked away.
The issue now is whether a Spirit attack, directed via Fists, can deal mental stress. I think it can, Taran provided a fairly decent narrative of how that could work.As much as I believe that a spell delivered via fists is capable of delivering mental stress, I do not believe THIS spell is.
Is that workable, or does it still need more refinement, or complete reconstruction/rejection and why?If you want mental stress, reflavour the spell.
Meh, there is one issue with using a block. A non-thaumaturgy block has a maximum duration of a scene (and usually lasts quite a bit shorter). If you want a longer lasting effect and you don't have thaumaturgy, then the only solution is consequences. Of course as Tedronai has pointed out, that's a poor solution too.
Thinking about it this way, I think there just isn't any good option that can reliably do what you want within RAW. A consequence is the only long term solution, and it's not something you can guarantee. The block is something you can guarantee, but it doesn't have any duration.
Maybe the best solution would be evothaum. A thaumaturgy block can last like you want.
Allow me to provide you the following hypothetical narrative:
Your spell is entirely, fully, ideally effective. It completely severs the target practitioner's access to their magic. But they realize what's going on. They see your workings, and understand them, and so are not struck with doubt and fear. They know their magic will return, and how to make this come about.
In the meantime, how is your successful spell represented in this practitioner who is not fazed by the changes?
Meh. By that argument mental stress never does what it's supposed to accomplish.No, most mental magic works quite directly to achieve its desired goals.
Also, completely severing one from their magic would be represented by a take out and, an extreme consequence.Completely severing someone from their magic COULD be represented as part of a take-out result. Or they could keep on fighting in that conflict utilizing other means at their disposal. Being cut off from their magic would not in itself necessitate them being taken out. Nor would it necessarily require an Extreme Consequence. The severity of a Consequence is primarily a question of how long the problem is intended to last, not a matter directly of the severity of the problem.
The mental stress with chi thing only makes sense if you buy into a particular belief. So having it work tells people that that belief is more valid than any other (in-game), on account of being true (in-game).This is observably false in the Dresdenverse.
Pretty much every myth lacking a White God-figure is out of luck. As is every myth without room for Outsiders. As is every myth where mortal magic as Harry does it is impossible.False again. Start with the two you mention - the "White God" and "Outsiders" aren't from the same set of sources. I don't believe either includes the other. This is common in Butcher's writing. He draws inspiration from many different cultural sources, adds his own spin, and combines them. How else would you get fomor, fae, pagan gods, valkyrie, angels, ghosts, were-creatures, various vampires, and magic of several traditions?
Completely severing someone from their magic COULD be represented as part of a take-out result. Or they could keep on fighting in that conflict utilizing other means at their disposal. Being cut off from their magic would not in itself necessitate them being taken out. Nor would it necessarily require an Extreme Consequence. The severity of a Consequence is primarily a question of how long the problem is intended to last, not a matter directly of the severity of the problem.Taran has a point - whether or not they could continue w/o magic, imposing a lack of magic should require a take out. Even with a take out, loss of magic may not be an acceptable outcome. See "Dictating Outcomes" on YS203.
imposing a lack of magic should require a take out. Even with a take out, loss of magic may not be an acceptable outcome. See "Dictating Outcomes" on YS203.
Allow me to provide you the following hypothetical narrative:
Your spell is entirely, fully, ideally effective. It completely severs the target practitioner's access to their magic. But they realize what's going on. They see your workings, and understand them, and so are not struck with doubt and fear. They know their magic will return, and how to make this come about.
In the meantime, how is your successful spell represented in this practitioner who is not fazed by the changes?
If you want a longer lasting effect and you don't have thaumaturgy, then the only solution is consequences. Of course as Tedronai has pointed out, that's a poor solution too.
Your whit court Incite Lust power is entirely, fully, ideally effective. But the Target practitioner realizes what's going on. They see your workings, and understand them, and so are not struck with lust and desire. They know the emotion will pass, and how to make this come about.The emotion that will pass is lust and/or desire. For it to pass it must first be present. Thus it must now be present and this is represented by mental stress and consequences.
In the meantime, how is your successful power represented in this practitioner who is not fazed by the changes?
My point being, you've described an attack and the person should take consequences based on that attack. If they only take stress and no consequences, the attack is still successful.To get back into the physical comparisons, and narrative descriptions of success/failure, I most assuredly disagree. If the target takes only stress, the attack most likely failed (though in a way that carried a nebulous cost to the target). The RPG almost certainly did not strike it's target, nor catch them in its blast, nor riddle them with shrapnel. The 18-wheeler almost certainly failed to so much as clip their trailing ankle as they removed themselves from its path. The spray of gunfire almost certainly failed to find aerate their soon-to-be-corpse. And if any of that did happen, it did so in such a way as to have no appreciable effect. Thus, narratively, the attack most likely failed.
Indeed, consequences are defined by the attack, however they can also be defined by how one avoids the attack. Using the above example, what if I avoid your lust vamp's attack by thinking about grandma and now I'm "awkwardly disposed to grandma".
The emotion that will pass is lust and/or desire. For it to pass it must first be present. Thus it must now be present and this is represented by mental stress and consequences.
To get back into the physical comparisons, and narrative descriptions of success/failure, I most assuredly disagree. If the target takes only stress, the attack most likely failed (though in a way that carried a nebulous cost to the target).
Then really every attack is useless. I use fire, the creatures catch. He bumps his head trying to get out of the way, "mild consequence" and since the fire didn't cause the consequence, he heals it up as a suplemental action.Well, the consequences also have to pass a 'reasonableness test' from the table, so if you're playing with a like-minded group, those consequences won't 'fly' in your game. If the table agrees, though, RAW backs them up.
It seems a bit cheap to me. It also makes WC vamps a bit silly and useless. THey're trying to inspire an emotion with mental attacks so that they can feed but the players are taking physical consequences "I ram my head into the wall so I don't think about sex". It just doesn't fly with me.
O.k, I see your point there. In other words, using an attack that takes up a wizards resources, (stress boxes), isn't really doing much narratively since stress boxes reflect a failed attack. I see this. Although, stress boxes also represent the person becoming more fatigued to the point where they can't dodge anymore (use up their stress boxes and take a consequence). So I can also see where a wizard is becoming more fatigued trying to fend off attacks.Yes, but 'tired wizard' isn't the goal of your attack. It's just a convenient byproduct of almost-success that makes future success more likely.
Yes, but 'tired wizard' isn't the goal of your attack. It's just a convenient byproduct of almost-success that makes future success more likely.yes, that's what I was saying.
This is observably false in the Dresdenverse.
...
False again. Start with the two you mention - the "White God" and "Outsiders" aren't from the same set of sources. I don't believe either includes the other. This is common in Butcher's writing. He draws inspiration from many different cultural sources, adds his own spin, and combines them. How else would you get fomor, fae, pagan gods, valkyrie, angels, ghosts, were-creatures, various vampires, and magic of several traditions?
Maybe let's get away from blocks and attacks. There is a great method to impose a reality on things in this game: fate points.
So I could see a chi blocker make a fists maneuver on a wizard, tag the resulting aspect to justify him blocking the wizards magic, and then paying a fate point to compel the wizards high concept, so he won't be able to use his magic for the scene. I think this is a big enough issue, to have the chi blocker pay a fate point for.
Now the wizard can either accept the compel, or he can buy it off per the standard rules.
You could either justify this method by pointing to the characters high concept, or you can give the chi blocker a stunt that let's him do this. Maybe even give a bonus on placing the maneuver.
Then really every attack is useless. I use fire, the creatures catch. He bumps his head trying to get out of the way, "mild consequence" and since the fire didn't cause the consequence, he heals it up as a suplemental action.
It seems a bit cheap to me. It also makes WC vamps a bit silly and useless. THey're trying to inspire an emotion with mental attacks so that they can feed but the players are taking physical consequences "I ram my head into the wall so I don't think about sex". It just doesn't fly with me.
I think that's too much power for a maneuver. Against a dedicated wizard, it's basically an instant fight-ender. A save-or-lose, in D&D terms.I think my suggestion already lies within the realm of possibilities. Keep in mind, I did not say, that the maneuver itself shuts the wizard down, it just give the justification to spend a fate point to do so. If the chi-blocker is an NPC, that means the wizard will accumulate quite some fate points in the course of the campaign, when he is fighting him, and will eventually be able to defeat him. If he is a PC, and he uses it all the time, he will be pretty much starved on fate points. Either way, I think it works out. Especially, since you can buy out of the compel by spending fate points yourself.
Maybe make it require a stunt, and a big margin of success. Landing a maneuver by a margin of 4 or so might earn you an effect that huge.
I think my suggestion already lies within the realm of possibilities. Keep in mind, I did not say, that the maneuver itself shuts the wizard down, it just give the justification to spend a fate point to do so. If the chi-blocker is an NPC, that means the wizard will accumulate quite some fate points in the course of the campaign, when he is fighting him, and will eventually be able to defeat him. If he is a PC, and he uses it all the time, he will be pretty much starved on fate points. Either way, I think it works out. Especially, since you can buy out of the compel by spending fate points yourself.
Also keep in mind, that the wizard would still be able to use his enchanted items, and since a wizard is all about being prepared, that should be something for every wizard to consider.
If just the maneuver could shut him down, yes that would be drastically overpowered. I could even compel the wizard to not use his powers without the maneuver, if I had another justification.
As I pointed out earlier, the compel doesn't have to be a total block of magic, it could be a limitation on power. It could also be negotiated that the wizard is limited while such an aspect exists, so if the wizard, or one of his allies has a justifiable means to reverse the maneuver, then the wizard would be free to cast again. It certainly isn't save or die.
It may not be exactly 'save or die' but creating compels that specifically shut down that one thing you use Wizards for (who as a consequence don't have a lot of fate points to avoid compels to begin with) and causing stress on the same track they cast spells as a 'happy side effect' is pretty suspect. And you want to use your fist skill, from what I'm gathering? Presumeably so they have to use athletics to defend, which isn't going to be as tough as Disc (their stat for mental defenses). It's hard not to feel that's a bit overpowered.
I disagree with this, of course, because I beleive that a persons magic is intrinsically connected to their sense of being. In fact it makes up WHO they are (usually because being a wizard MUST be represented in their High Concept). Therefore damaging their magic is also damaging their sense of being.
You know, that's a good point. Every time a wizard casts a spell, he gives himself mental stress. If he casts enough spells, he forces mental consequences. So after a big fight, he probably needs to go see a psychologist or something to start curing the damage on his psyche.I don't know about that. I don't think that all mental consequences need attention from a counselor. A mental consequence--particularly a mild one--is more than likely just a bad mood or a headache from the strain or something that the wizard is going to get over in due time. Just like you wouldn't force someone to go see a doctor before you let them get rid of the Mild consequence of "Twisted Ankle."
I don't know about that. I don't think that all mental consequences need attention from a counselor. A mental consequence--particularly a mild one--is more than likely just a bad mood or a headache from the strain or something that the wizard is going to get over in due time. Just like you wouldn't force someone to go see a doctor before you let them get rid of the Mild consequence of "Twisted Ankle."
About the maneuver idea: I'd let a BLINDED Aspect Compel prevent one attack or set one defence to Mediocre. Maybe more than one. But your proposal seems to be scene-long. That's just too much.
people out.
About inflicting mental stress: The issues are
1. It's overpowered
2. It doesn't actually do much to stop spellcasting
and
3. Its narrative appropriateness is questionable given the description provided.
Also there was some weird thing about a special kind of stress which can't take people out.
Ok so 1. What makes it more overpowered than attacking physical stress track. If anything it balances out because they can defend with higher abilities as opposed to defending with ones that they might have as throw aways.Most characters just aren't set up for mental defense. So you're proposing being able to directly attack what's almost always going to be a weak spot with what's likely an apex skill for your own character.
The main issue that I see with it though is simply the narrative weirdness of not hitting someone and still achieving your goal. One of the things that you have to understand in fate conflicts is that a successful attack may still completely miss. Stress is just energy expended avoiding an attack (or casting a spell, or whatever). If you haven't inflicted a consequence then you haven't even hit your target. Even if you do inflict a consequence, you still may not hit. I can flavor the consequence to be a result of escaping your attack. That's how we wind up with consequences like "sprained ankle" when you're shooting a gun at me.
Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm a little surprised that no one has brought up the fourth law yet. I mean wizards cast using their being as fuel, yes? Their emotions, thoughts, inclinations? Isn't altering that against the fourth law? Even moving away from the DV throughout the Asian mythos, chi attacks that alter in such a way are invariably considered wrong or evil.
Once again, I don't like this argument. It makes WCV's useless. The point of Lasting Emotion is to inflict consequences so that the Vamp can tag/compel victims in later scenes and feed. I think it goes against RAI if you just say, "well, I can choose any consequence I want and therfore I'm going to choose something that screws over the baddie". Also, the GM is making the choices for the NPC's. IF the GM and the player have an agreement that this specific Rote is designed to attack a casters magic, then he'd be a bit of an ass to always make victims of an attack take consequences that are not in flavour of the attack. I mean, what's the point of having 5 elements, when targets are just going to choose consequences like, sprained ankle, bashed head etc..that have nothing to do with the element in question? IF I'm shooting someone with a "crushing despair" spirit attack, I'm expecting a consequence that will be in line with that narrative. Otherwise it's just a crap-shoot and I might as well have Hit Points.
The nature of any Consequence suffered is primarily in the hands of the victim's player subject to the approval of the table as a whole.
I never proposed scene long. I proposed it work like a maneuver: If you succeed by more than one shift, it's sticky, if not it last one exchange.
I would never do a scene long compel on a maneuver. I'd do a compel for as long as the maneuver lasts, which could be the full scene if no-one takes efforts to remove it.
Ok so 1. What makes it more overpowered than attacking physical stress track. If anything it balances out because they can defend with higher abilities as opposed to defending with ones that they might have as throw aways.
2. It does something. It may not stop them completely but it makes them reconsider doing bigger moves because they have less stress to spend on it.
3. Naratively it does make sense. I am flooding their system with magic which would affect them mentally as is shown by when they use magic it hits their mental stress track.
Also where is that last part. If you could find it for me that would be appreciated.
I honestly dont see why it is such a reach for this attack to attack mental stress. If the problem is that I am casting with fists, I had to take a -2 power to do that. I dont see this as being overpowered or out of the realms of posiblility.
@ mr. death.
1. most wizards don't have a toughness power
2. Their mental stress track is their best track and they likely have extra milds
3. They are defending with their apex skill: discipline.
So I don't see it as being Over Powered. It is actually more advantageous to attack their physical track, I would think and force them to defend with endurance or athletics.
It's true that the OP is is attacking with an apex skill. If he was a wizard doing a mental evocation, it would also be using his apex skill, so it doesn't really make a difference that he's attacking with fists.
Once again, since he's suggesting it work on casters only, I might require that there be some kind of tag of the targets magic casting Aspect (usually the High Concept). Or at least require an assessment to discover it.
To be honest, I've only ever found mental attacks to be mildly overpowered. Most of the things that are supposed to be tough (like Sue) could probably invoke their high concept to be immune. That being said, things that are more self aware (like ghouls) do go down way easier that way. It is a bit overpowered Lavecki, take it from people who have tried it.
The main issue that I see with it though is simply the narrative weirdness of not hitting someone and still achieving your goal. One of the things that you have to understand in fate conflicts is that a successful attack may still completely miss. Stress is just energy expended avoiding an attack (or casting a spell, or whatever). If you haven't inflicted a consequence then you haven't even hit your target. Even if you do inflict a consequence, you still may not hit. I can flavor the consequence to be a result of escaping your attack. That's how we wind up with consequences like "sprained ankle" when you're shooting a gun at me.
So really, I just find it wonky that you could fail to connect with your target physically, but then still influence them in exactly the way you were trying to. Wonkyness happens when you mix physical and mental actions.
I like how consequences are done in Dfrpg and I like narrative control, but there is more than one person in the pilot seat.
There are powers in the book that are based on the fact that consequences will give the wielder of those powers a long-term advantage. I don't think that a table would or should undermine that fact, otherwise those powers aren't worth the refresh spent on them.
Which Powers are you talking about? I really can't think of any.
Anyway, taking someone out with Incite Emotion is easy because it's mental stress. So if you want a long term advantage, take them out and dictate whatever you like.
1. You know the Power All Creatures Are Equal Before God? 3-4 Refresh, +1 FP/use? Mental stress does almost everything it does. Ignoring worn armour is good for a small stress boost, ignoring Toughness and Recovery and Immunity and physical enchanted armour makes a mockery of durable opponents. Hitting Discipline and Conviction instead of Athletics and Endurance is usually also a perk.
2. It does something, but not much. I can still cast normally after being hit with your anti-casting effect. Just not as many times.
3. It's debatable. That narration sounds okay to me, the old pressure point one doesn't.
4. Reply 20.
5. Basically, mental stress is much more powerful than physical stress. And Evocation already one-shots people all over the place. I'm speaking from experience when I say that against mental evocations every character is made of tissue paper. (Except for Crafters who bought mental defence items, and people using custom Powers.)
6. Did you pay 2 Refresh just to control spells with Fists? Sounds like a ripoff to me.
The main issue that I see with it though is simply the narrative weirdness of not hitting someone and still achieving your goal. One of the things that you have to understand in fate conflicts is that a successful attack may still completely miss. Stress is just energy expended avoiding an attack (or casting a spell, or whatever). If you haven't inflicted a consequence then you haven't even hit your target. Even if you do inflict a consequence, you still may not hit. I can flavor the consequence to be a result of escaping your attack. That's how we wind up with consequences like "sprained ankle" when you're shooting a gun at me.
1. Didn't you design a power that allowed for mental immunity? Why bother create this power if you didnt think anybody was going to use it.Custom powers are in the realm of houserules. Typically, discussions such as these assume as little as possible where houserules are concerned. If your game is making use of houserules that you feel might be relevant, making those houserules readily apparent in the thread is integral to receiving constructive feedback.
Also if I had a character who did Incite emotions, would you really be debating it as much?Personally, I likely would not be debating the narrative description of your attack in that case unless you specified that the narrative description of your Incite power was different from the standard. Somehow I suspect that it would be, and that, as a result, little here would change.
3. Yea the old one was how it was originally thought of but as I thought of it more this is what I went with. Basically the attack is forcing them to take backlash.This is very much different from your original approach, and while I still have some reservations, it is a substantial improvement.
A fireball doesnt ignore armor, why should this attack. The thing is that I am targeting their mental stress. I dont think of it as a psychic attack and thus bypasses everything that they can defend with. Its end result simply would hit the mental stress track.Even mundane attacks can sometimes ignore armour if the armour is not designed with that sort of attack in mind (a conventional kevlar vest will do little to stop a knife, for example).
It's worth pointing out that the cost of that little power with addictive Saliva is a Hunger track.. Not an insubstantial cost for that little trick. You might get an extremely powerful ability, but you pay for it.
That addictive saliva and Incite emotion are NOT attached to a hunger track. Neither of them have a pre-requiste for such a thing. Each of these powers are a 1 refresh power. So you aren't paying much. In fact, channeling is probably a steeper price because it costs 2 refresh and you have to pay a mental stress every time you cast, not to mention what happens if you fail your control. That's balanced by the fact that channelling is more versatile.
Custom powers are in the realm of houserules. Typically, discussions such as these assume as little as possible where houserules are concerned. If your game is making use of houserules that you feel might be relevant, making those houserules readily apparent in the thread is integral to receiving constructive feedback.
@ Thrakkesh :The only time I suggested completely taking away a wizards magic(if it could be done) - which WOULD involve changing their High Concept would be in the event of a Take-Out. The alternative is they could be dead. So maybe alive with no magic might be better.
Whether or not that is Lawbreaker territory is another discussion. But, in essence, that's kind of how I see backlash anyways.
Whether or not that is Lawbreaker territory is another discussion. But, in essence, that's kind of how I see backlash anyways.
And all Molly did was to make a few people afraid.
She took away choice, which is why it violated the fourth law. I am not taking away any choice.
Then you cant do magic as an offensive thing. Whether it is physical or mental. If I do a magical attack, I am affecting my own mind, to the point that I can take consequences because of it. The attack does this exact thing to the reciever. I havent transformed them, I havent enthraled them, I have not invaded their thoughts. All I am doing is opening up their mind to the raw nature around it. Which causes mental stress.
Maybe this is a lawbreaker and I am just wrong. I feel that it could definitly be gray area and that wardens would be watching, but as far as my own interpretation at the moment, I havent been convinced that I am breaking a law.
All I am doing is opening up their mind to the raw nature around it. Which causes mental stress.If their mind was closed and now it is open, it is a transformation in my book.
Think about it this way. There is no "magic" in the DV, no "mana" or "power", there is only your being, your thoughts, your will.
Accepting that, what you are doing is forcibly inserting your thoughts/being into someone else with the intent of disrupting their thoughts/being. How would that not change their natural inclinations and thoughts?
Whereas I would say that damaging a wizard's access to their magic, if not promptly addressed, will cause 'damage' to their sense of being, but is not itself that damage.
If I show it to them in their mind's eye, is it a lawbreaker?Yes, no questions asked. Even if he gets (and succeds in) a defense roll, this is a lawbreaker.
If I use magic to show someone an image of someone else getting tortured and they get traumatized by it, is it a Lawbreaker?This one is sketchier, but I would judge yes here, too. Think about it: you are using your magic to create an image that is horrifying enough for someone else to get traumatized by. Why would that leave you untouched? You either have an issue or will have an issue as a result.
That being said what I am doing is not that. I am basically giving them X shifts to control. If they dont control X shifts when they roll and get Y, they take X-Y shifts of backlash. Which they are used to getting anyway because it happens Everytime they cast as spellSorry I'm confused.
I do like them. I am asking how to do this attack. Which I dont see as broken. I was trying to get my point across as to why it delivered mental stress so I described it as a sort of forced backlash. Obviously you cant force them to take thier own backlash but if there is excess magic inside thier body that is what that is. Also the other ideas are much quicker, much easier ways of shutting down wizards.Even if you force magic into a wizard, that wizard will still always have the option of just letting it go to fallout.
TBH, I think you've lost the spirit of the attack you're going for. (no punn intented).
It might be better to make it a straight physical spirit attack that targets pressure points. It's just a weapon "X" spirit evocation, except you frame the stress as slowly paralyzing the target, hampering their movements, causing excrutiating pain, etc... you know, pressure point, chi stuff.
With wizards, it's actually a more effective attack because you're targeting a weak skill, athletics...maybe endurance.
The thing you can do with this though, is make declarations around chi'ness. So maybe it certain circumstances you can bypass toughness because you're hitting pressure points instead of trying to rip your foe apart. You could even compel a wizards consequences to say that it bypasses his wizards toughness, forcing him to go find someone to get the damage cured. Because it's not a healing wounds, but a matter of realigning energies.
I actually think that makes for a better wizard killer than targeting their highest skill and longest stress track anyways.
Even if you force magic into a wizard, that wizard will still always have the option of just letting it go to fallout.
With wizards, it's actually a more effective attack because you're targeting a weak skill, athletics...maybe endurance.
I actually think that makes for a better wizard killer than targeting their highest skill and longest stress track anyways.
1. Didn't you design a power that allowed for mental immunity? Why bother create this power if you didnt think anybody was going to use it. Also if I had a character who did Incite emotions, would you really be debating it as much?
2. Thats kind of the point.
3. Yea the old one was how it was originally thought of but as I thought of it more this is what I went with. Basically the attack is forcing them to take backlash.
6. The power let me do a couple things. Moved Discipline to Endurance, Conviction to Fists and something else that I cant remember right now.
Also as far as this attack goes, let me see if I can reword this attack so that everyone understands what I am trying to do.
I want to attack an opponent with my fists and imbue them with my magic, basically forcing them to take backlash. I feel now that this could be done to any person, regardless of if they were a caster or not. Now, since it is a fist attack, it could be defended against by athletics and the like, but it is also a magic attack so it could be defended with dicipline and stuff like that as well. I dont feel that it should ignore any armor, because it is a fist attack. A fireball doesnt ignore armor, why should this attack. The thing is that I am targeting their mental stress. I dont think of it as a psychic attack and thus bypasses everything that they can defend with. Its end result simply would hit the mental stress track.
Sorry Levecki, but I just wanted to add some more :P
@ Sanctaphrax: RCV's addictive saliva does the same thing as WCV attack...have a read:
...
You'll notice too that RCV uses FISTS to do MENTAL STRESS. Sorry, now that I read this it sounds like I'm being an ass. I'm actually just trying to point out the relevant parts.
How do you know this? Im curious. Has there been examples of it somewhere that I am not familar with?The wizards' whole deal is moving and expelling magic. That is literally the thing they do that defines them as a wizard. You'd have to do a lot more to force them to take backlash than just putting magic into them.
TBH, I think you've lost the spirit of the attack you're going for. (no punn intented).
It might be better to make it a straight physical spirit attack that targets pressure points. It's just a weapon "X" spirit evocation, except you frame the stress as slowly paralyzing the target, hampering their movements, causing excrutiating pain, etc... you know, pressure point, chi stuff.
With wizards, it's actually a more effective attack because you're targeting a weak skill, athletics...maybe endurance.
The thing you can do with this though, is make declarations around chi'ness. So maybe it certain circumstances you can bypass toughness because you're hitting pressure points instead of trying to rip your foe apart. You could even compel a wizards consequences to say that it bypasses his wizards toughness, forcing him to go find someone to get the damage cured. Because it's not a healing wounds, but a matter of realigning energies.
I actually think that makes for a better wizard killer than targeting their highest skill and longest stress track anyways.
The wizards' whole deal is moving and expelling magic. That is literally the thing they do that defines them as a wizard. You'd have to do a lot more to force them to take backlash than just putting magic into them.
The wizards' whole deal is moving and expelling magic. That is literally the thing they do that defines them as a wizard. You'd have to do a lot more to force them to take backlash than just putting magic into them.
I really dont think so. Its foreign magic. If that were the case then they would be able to simply ignore every attack that hits them because they can control magic.No. You're thinking of it entirely the wrong way. Throwing fire at someone is not forcing magic into them. It's throwing fire at someone.
I was trying to give everyone something to go on so that they could understand where I am coming from.But you aren't. Everything you are coming from is entirely from the mechanical side of things. Describe an attack as you see it work out. Without using things like shifts or backlash. If that makes sense, we can work from there.
But you aren't. Everything you are coming from is entirely from the mechanical side of things. Describe an attack as you see it work out. Without using things like shifts or backlash. If that makes sense, we can work from there.
Even the consequences Harry suggests somewhere in the book, like "seeing purple" sound much more physical to me than mental. It's something that could happen if you overexercise, and has nothing to do with your mental state.
For me, mental things would be something like an opponent shaking my resolve by taunting me before a fight. A pretty girl flirting with me in a bar to play with my mind.I believe these are social things
A loved one dying in my arms. Being the victim of torture. If those things happen to me, then yes, that will probably leave some mental scarring. Sometimes it might not be much and I shrug it off, sometimes it will lead to a consequence. But all the same, that comes from outside. Now if you want to inflict that same "damage" onto me as those kinds of situation might do, but from the inside and by your own magic, then that is going to leave a mark on you as well. Hence lawbreaker.
I will do my best on this: In an attempt to overcharge and drain his opponent Jimmy uses an attack that will inject spiritual energy into his opponent. With a few quick light touches, he injects the energy into what he believes to be focal points for spiritual energies, in an attempt to disrupt them.Okay. This could use a little bit more detail, but it's workable. Of course, 'overcharge and drain' isn't what I would call definitive of an attack inflicting mental stress. Maybe that part is in the 'more detail'?
I believe this is a little of both. The reason you are seeing purple is because your brain isnt getting enough oxygen because it is using that oxygen for your other muscles. Its a combination of mental and physical.That all sounds physical to me. Just because it involves the brain doesn't mean it's mental.
I believe these are social thingsThe difference between mental and social is often one of wording. (Being distraced would be mental, while being seen to be distracted is social.)
Yes, but I am using the same justification as magic so, in my oppinion, its moot.And yet reading your own mind, transforming yourself, and even killing yourself through the use of magic is not Lawbreaking.
Okay. This could use a little bit more detail, but it's workable. Of course, 'overcharge and drain' isn't what I would call definitive of an attack inflicting mental stress. Maybe that part is in the 'more detail'?I am using a narative spin that you all want me to use. I have already given my MECHANICAL reasoning behind it and what it does MECHANICALLY. Just because I cant NARATIVLY describe it in a way that you all want does not make the attack wrong or not working in the way that you view it. I understand that this game is a NARATIVE game, yet when making things one must look at the MECHANICAL side of it or else you will never be able to make anything. Every power, every stunt, every attack has a MECHANICAL side, even if the NARATIVE varies between users.
That all sounds physical to me. Just because it involves the brain doesn't mean it's mental.I didnt make the game. Talk to the guys at Evil Hat.
The difference between mental and social is often one of wording. (Being distraced would be mental, while being seen to be distracted is social.)I dont get the difference. If someone distracts me and its internal thats supposed to be mental but if I show it openly thats social? Thats more confusing than a physical attack doing mental stress. At least mine has mechanical justification (which apparently doesnt matter so nevermind).
And yet reading your own mind, transforming yourself, and even killing yourself through the use of magic is not Lawbreaking.
Even the consequences Harry suggests somewhere in the book, like "seeing purple" sound much more physical to me than mental. It's something that could happen if you overexercise, and has nothing to do with your mental state.This is description. He may be seeing an aura. The backlash has made him sensitive to those, usually, invisible energies. Kind of the spiritual version of what happens to your ears after listening to loud music: psychic tinitus.
The major problem, I repeat, is the mixing of conflicts. If you are in a physical conflict, deal physical stress. Or, if you don't want to do that, for whatever reason, change the pace. Turn the physical conflict into a mental one, I've proposed a way to do so as well. Otherwise, things will just become too complicated on a number of levels.
I am using a narative spin that you all want me to use. I have already given my MECHANICAL reasoning behind it and what it does MECHANICALLY. Just because I cant NARATIVLY describe it in a way that you all want does not make the attack wrong or not working in the way that you view it. I understand that this game is a NARATIVE game, yet when making things one must look at the MECHANICAL side of it or else you will never be able to make anything. Every power, every stunt, every attack has a MECHANICAL side, even if the NARATIVE varies between users.If what you're really after is the mechanical effect of mental stress, I'd be glad to help you come up with the narrative descriptions of several attacks that would suit that effect. The objections you are receiving (from me, at least) are derived primarily from the disconnect between your descriptions and the mechanics you have chosen to represent them.
I dont get the difference. If someone distracts me and its internal thats supposed to be mental but if I show it openly thats social? Thats more confusing than a physical attack doing mental stress. At least mine has mechanical justification (which apparently doesnt matter so nevermind).Being seen to be distracted doesn't require you to be actually distracted. The problems it causes for you are derived from how people react to you, believing that you are distracted.
And yet, I am not doing any of those things to the target.I was pointing out the difference between doing something to yourself (such as taking mental stress/consequences as a byproduct of spellcasting) and doing something to someone else (invading their mind in a traumatic and harmful manner). One is Lawbreaking, the other is just dangerous
If what you're really after is the mechanical effect of mental stress, I'd be glad to help you come up with the narrative descriptions of several attacks that would suit that effect. The objections you are receiving (from me, at least) are derived primarily from the disconnect between your descriptions and the mechanics you have chosen to represent them.I dont feel that they are. I am pushing in a spirit spell that invades the magic users system causing an effect akin to if they had miscast their own spell. Is that better?
Being seen to be distracted doesn't require you to be actually distracted. The problems it causes for you are derived from how people react to you, believing that you are distracted. Actually being distracted doesn't require that those around you perceive your distraction. The problems that it causes for you are derived from the information that you fail to perceive while you are focused on the object of your distraction.So basically, my social character designed to distract you hasnt actually distracted you because he is attacking your social stress but not your mental stress?
I am using a narative spin that you all want me to use. I have already given my MECHANICAL reasoning behind it and what it does MECHANICALLY. Just because I cant NARATIVLY describe it in a way that you all want does not make the attack wrong or not working in the way that you view it. I understand that this game is a NARATIVE game, yet when making things one must look at the MECHANICAL side of it or else you will never be able to make anything. Every power, every stunt, every attack has a MECHANICAL side, even if the NARATIVE varies between users.Yes, but you are still putting the cart before the donkey here. Different narrative descriptions can be pooled into the same mechanics (and vice versa). That does not mean, that it is a good idea to start with a mechanic and wrap the narrative around it. It will almost always be wonky at best.
I will do my best on this: In an attempt to overcharge and drain his opponent Jimmy uses an attack that will inject spiritual energy into his opponent. With a few quick light touches, he injects the energy into what he believes to be focal points for spiritual energies, in an attempt to disrupt them.It's not the best, but it'll do for now. I agree with Tedronai, this is pretty disconnected from what you are trying to do mechanically. As a magically enhanced martial arts attack, a physical attack, this would be just fine. As a mental attack? I just don't see it, sorry.
This is an excellent way of doing it. And it slowly eats one box at a time, which gradually makes spellcasting more risky.It should still be physical stress, not mental, I think.
Does it really require a stunt? By the rules of grappling, any kind of grapple could be justified, depending on the attack...there's that side bar. Wouldn't this be an example of a different kind of grapple?Well, since it involves shoving the powers of creation up someone else's chakras, I'd say it should be a -1 power. Since the original idea involved channeling, it actually frees up 1 point of refresh.
Would it be narratively appropriate to have it as a reskinned grapple because I am hitting pressure points? Basically a grapple that requires fists to work instead of might (in this case I would be willing to take a stunt). Thus I am blocking all of thier moves by disabling their muscles.That's exactly, what I was proposing, yes.