The Catch is Cod Iron [+3]
In short magic users are great when being magicy, they are average at best in just about everything else. I would suggest not being too number crunchy, just come up with an interesting character concept and back story. Then take powers that fit the character, you can always refine the character as you play.
The fishiest iron I think would only provide +0. I mean, you have to find a fish working iron to be able to bypass his toughness, which is rare. What about Sturgeon Steel? Would that also work? :DIt could work, provided he's wearing a coat of Scale Mail.
It could work, provided he's wearing a coat of Scale Mail.
Badumpsh.I am concerned and frightened. You sir or madam, have way WAY to much time on your hands. =P
WHOOOOO RULES FROM A PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT. Scale Mail made of Cod Iron as hard as can be! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! A Sturgeon Steel Sword as sharp as you wish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! He stabs you with it and you flop like a fish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob... FISH KNIGHT!
Badumpsh.
WHOOOOO RULES FROM A PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT. Scale Mail made of Cod Iron as hard as can be! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! A Sturgeon Steel Sword as sharp as you wish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! He stabs you with it and you flop like a fish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob... FISH KNIGHT!
Badumpsh.
WHOOOOO RULES FROM A PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT. Scale Mail made of Cod Iron as hard as can be! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! A Sturgeon Steel Sword as sharp as you wish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! He stabs you with it and you flop like a fish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob... FISH KNIGHT!
Badumpsh.I smell something fishy. If this continues, this thread needs a sturgeon general warning.
WHOOOOO RULES FROM A PINEAPPLE UNDER THE SEA! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT. Scale Mail made of Cod Iron as hard as can be! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! A Sturgeon Steel Sword as sharp as you wish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! He stabs you with it and you flop like a fish! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob FISH KNIGHT! Sponge Bob... FISH KNIGHT!
I smell something fishy. If this continues, this thread needs a sturgeon general warning.
Don't be so harsh, Haru. I really think it has Sole.
Template (Focused Practitioner)
Lore and Discipline at Great, Conviction at Good
Powers/Stunts: Channeling [-2] and Ritual [-2] (I'm less sure on the elements/theme for these, but that seems up to player preference)
Now if I've understood this so far, it looks like that means that I get 4 focus item slots. I think (I'm less sure here) that I could use all 4 slots to get a focus item that gave a +4 to offensive control of whatever element I chose for Channeling.
On a more serious note, I'd like to add a clarification to this. As I understand the rules, you have 2 Evocation Focus Item Slots and 2 Thaumaturgy Focus Item Slots, so you can only get +2 to offensive control. The other 2 slots need to be spent on bonuses for Control or Power of your Rituals, or for Enchanted Items.
On a more serious note, I'd like to add a clarification to this. As I understand the rules, you have 2 Evocation Focus Item Slots and 2 Thaumaturgy Focus Item Slots, so you can only get +2 to offensive control. The other 2 slots need to be spent on bonuses for Control or Power of your Rituals, or for Enchanted Items.
I don't actually have a rules reference for the focus slots being separated. That's just the way that always seemed to make sense to me and the people I've played with. Even if it's just a house rule, I feel that enforcing the split does help encourage a little more variety in how spellcasters are built, but this isn't really the thread to be getting into that whole can of beans.
That seems crazy, crazy strong. Fate dice have excellent central tendency, so what your modified skill is is fairly likely to be what you actually get when you roll. With this character, that would mean a typical combat would be tossing out an attack with Weapon: 3,4,5 and 6 each at 8 to control. (Is that accurate? I believe you get up to your Conviction rating in power for 1 mental stress, with each point of overflow increasing the incoming mental stress by 1. Since once the 1 box is filled in on the character's stress track, a stress 1 hit is just as damaging as a stress 2 hit, and he's got control to spare, he might as well ramp up in power each round).
And the wizard needs prep time to be really effective--the best way a mortal can take on a wizard is to avoid a fair fight entirely.
This system isn't made to have pure mortals trade blows on even footing with heavy supernatural hitters (which is why I'm flatly against all the Weapon Specialization type stunts; pure mortals aren't supposed to be swinging Weapon:5 attacks at a +6 attack skill that easily)--but that isn't the same as saying mortals are ineffective.
You know, people say this a lot.Yeah, but the mortal needs to get the drop and fight dirty first. A lot of wizards depend on focus items or enchanted items for their attack and defense, and if they don't have those, they're vulnerable. They're also vulnerable if you can catch them before they put up a block--having your high stats in the magic ones means the physical ones are going to be lower.
But I've never been sure why Wizards are supposed to need prep time. Ritual spells are nice but Evocation is plenty effective without them.
And so far as I can tell Wizards are just as capable of fighting dirty as mortals are.
Dude.I don't recall any that give you a flat +1 to all of your attacks with no drawback, or any that give a flat +2 to the weapon rating.
There are canonical stunts that are like Weapon Specialization except better.
And in a straight-up fight, mortals are actually pretty effective.If their stats are inflated to the point where they're getting for free every round what it costs a wizard stress for every action, yeah.
What exactly makes you so sure about what the system is intended for?The Pure Mortal template is given extra fate points because it can't match supernatural creatures in speed, defense or power--but these types of stunts make it so that any Pure Mortal who picks up a sword is superior to most all of them them, even in a Feet In The Water game.
Yeah, but the mortal needs to get the drop and fight dirty first.
A lot of wizards depend on focus items or enchanted items for their attack and defense, and if they don't have those, they're vulnerable. They're also vulnerable if you can catch them before they put up a block--having your high stats in the magic ones means the physical ones are going to be lower.
I don't recall any that give you a flat +1 to all of your attacks with no drawback, or any that give a flat +2 to the weapon rating.
Weapon:4 and above are supposed to be a big deal--battlefield explosives, spells, grenades, small cars. Likewise, skills of 6 and above are supposed to be verging on superhuman ability. You really shouldn't be getting Weapon:5 attacks every round without some kind of power, and yet with this stunt any and every melee combatant can and will have it.
It's a personal pet peeve of mine that this kind of number inflation seems to be everyone's go-to. The Pure Mortal isn't supposed to be winning straight up melee with ogres and trolls, and with those stunts it becomes not just possible, but probable.
In a system where a skill of 3 is "good" and 4 is supposed to be professional level, this kind of inflation makes 6 the norm and anything less obsolete.
That's the real problem, honestly--it seems like everyone's just totally obsessed with what's optimal. A character can't compete unless they have all of those weapon specializations, because everyone else will have them. It takes choice out of the player's hands because there's a bare minimum that the character has to meet or else he'll be irrelevant next to his optimized companions.
If their stats are inflated to the point where they're getting for free every round what it costs a wizard stress for every action, yeah.
The Pure Mortal template is given extra fate points because it can't match supernatural creatures in speed, defense or power--but these types of stunts make it so that any Pure Mortal who picks up a sword is superior to most all of them them, even in a Feet In The Water game.
I've had issues with players seeking optimal builds before. But not so much in FATE-based games. Still it's something to be aware of. DFRPG is about the characters and their stories more so than how effective they are in a fight.
Don't knock Righteousness or Bless This House though. I've seen them be useful quite a bit.
As for Bless This House, I'd be interested in hearing how it got used. I've had contempt for it ever since I realized that neither Michael nor Charity could actually use it on their own house, and that Father Forthill probably can't use it on his church. And I've never seen it be useful.
What would you say to "If Conviction > Threshold, then +2; if Conviction =< Threshold, then +1"? That gives it an actual effect no matter how high the threshold is.
With Bless This House, I think part of the reason for the restriction is one of balance, and also to reflect that there are some places where God believes the extra help isn't needed to keep people safe. I always figured that places like the Carpenter home should be extremely rare. In practical terms, I wouldn't give even a stronghold of faith like a major church a threshold higher than 3.
Not necessarily. An ordinary gunshot can completely ruin a wizard's day, and beating a wizard's initiative usually isn't that hard.It certainly can--but if that gunshot doesn't take out the wizard, the wizard is going to come back with something much bigger. Hence the need for the pure mortal to prepare more, to try and prevent the wizard from having that chance.
Neither of those has much to do with prep time.Actually, they have everything to do with prep time. It takes time and effort to fabricate them, and the wizard has to think ahead and bring them--if he doesn't have them, he isn't prepared, and he's in trouble.
Way Of The AK, Flying Pointy Bits, and Archer all provide a flat +1 to hit with a particular weapon type. Actually, the former two are probably broader than I would allow a stunt in one of my games to be. I intended the Weapon Focus line of stunts to be clearly weaker than Way Of The AK.I'm not familiar with Flying Pointy Bits off hand, but Archer I can see because a bow is a very unusual weapon in the modern day--unlike a firearm or even a concealed knife, you're really not going to be able to take a bow everywhere, and it completely lacks any ability with spray attacks. Those restrictions, I think, justify being able to have a bonus on using a bow, since a bow is inherently inferior in a lot of ways to a modern firearm.
Off-Hand Weapon Training gives +2 stress with any pair of weapon 3s. This is broader than Weapon Specialization. And in certain unusual situations it can give more than +2 stress.Granted. I will say, though, that it makes a lot more sense to me that being hit with a second sword causes more damage. And it would have to be a very unusual situation for someone to be swinging something Weapon:5 on their offhand weapon. I can't even think of what kind of weapon would have that, except that it would be prohibitively huge for anything smaller than your average house.
Defend My Tribe also gives +2 stress with an easy-to-meet condition. PCs are frequently defending one another.I'll have to check this one before I can get back to you. But on this, and Way of the AK, I seem to remember someone going on at length about how the stunts and powers in Our World aren't balanced and shouldn't be taken as good examples.
Lethal Weapon and Target-Rich Environment give equivalent bonuses, but their conditions are a bit harsher.As you say, the conditions are harsher--and, importantly, not really in the player's control.
Armed Arts can easily give +3 stress if you have the right weapon on hand, but it's a bit of a cheap example.That's a trapping replacement, not a stress booster.
None of these apply all the time. But most of them apply more often than the Weapon Focus line.I think this is where we differ. How is it that Weapon Focus won't apply 99% of the time? It's entirely in the player's control unless the GM tosses a compel of some kind at them--they're going to be using those bonuses for every single attack and defense in the vast, vast majority of their fight scenes.
You keep talking about how things are supposed to be. But for the life of me I can't imagine how you know how things "should" be.Mostly I know from, you know, reading the book, where it says that Weapon:4 is equivalent to battlefield explosives, Weapon:5 is equivalent to being hit with a small car, etc. Weapon:3 is large weapons--hard to conceal if not impossible, things you typically need two hands to swing. +2 to anything is supposed to be the most that a stunt gives, under relatively rare circumstances. "Every time the character swings the weapon that's central to his fighting ability" is not in any way "rare," in fact, it's going to be the vast majority.
The rules say that you get weapon 3 for your average big weapon and that +2 stress is one of the standard stunt bonuses. Those rules don't make weapon 5 all that special.
They just don't.
Murphy wins all kinds of head-to-head fights.Point of fact, she doesn't. In all the books, I can think of one time she wins a physical fight with something with supernatural powers, and she does that by making the fight as indirect as she can manage--after fighting directly, skill vs. skill and strength vs. strength, gets her arm broken. And she's supposed to be the series' prime example of a pure mortal physical fighter.
A straight Pure Mortal combatant is a legal character and totally appropriate to the fiction. I can't work out why you don't think they should be balanced against other characters at the same level.As I said, it's the inflation. Effectively, a character is swinging more accurately than Michael, with more power than one of Harry's normal fire spells, for free every single round, and defending on par with Shiro, who's built up to be one of the best swordsmen in the entire setting, a "Mozart with a blade," against whom even 2000-year-old Knight-killer Nicodemus pauses.
Um, no.Way more competent than most people, yes. And most people are going to have 1s and maybe 2s in their physical stats. This kind of inflation makes every PC more physically able and competent than just about every creature listed in Our World.
See, a PC who's designed to be a badass fighter will have 5s and 6s all over.
But such a PC is a badass among badasses. Even at Feet In The Water level.
I, personally, probably have 10-15 skill points and 4-6 Refresh after the Pure Mortal bonus. And I'm a pretty competent person.
It is normal and appropriate for PCs to be way more competent than most people.
If you have two characters, equivalent except for the fact that one has Weapon Specialization or Defend My Tribe or something, then both will be able to contribute. One will be somewhat stronger, but not crushingly so.That's just it, though. If I'm playing alongside a character who's never swinging anything less than a Weapon:5 sword at 6, the GM is going to balance encounters to make it a challenge for him. If I'm sitting there swinging Weapon:3 at 4 or 5, I'm just not going to be able to keep up.
That generally isn't possible, if we're talking combat wizards here.Again: Per the descriptions in the book, Weapon:4 and above are supposed to be either massively destructive (grenades), or difficult to use and acquire (prohibitively huge melee weapons and guns that Rambo would need a little help moving around). Wizards, however, can toss that kind of power around, but only by taking stress, and always with the risk of backlash.
What? No.With those stunts, every mortal will not only be outperforming, but overwhelmingly outperforming every non-named, non-Nobility-level monster in Our World.
That just does not happen. Trust me, I've built characters of all types. And with these stunts, mortals don't come out ahead of equal-level supernaturals. Especially since supernaturals can take the same stunts...and maybe even the more-powerful canon stunts if the GM is feeling permissive.
Hmm, that's true. I actually hadn't factored in all those additional circumstances. Heck, here in Ireland, where the average house is probably at least 30-50 years old and has seen several generations of families live in it, you'd be looking at +6 being a low threshold.Remember that there can be circumstances that will lower a threshold, too. Some families might not really be that close, or they just sleep in a house, without really living in it. There might be a secret that is tarnishing the threshold. I think wherever you are, +6 is still pretty rare.
Rereading Bless this House, I realized the weird thing that as the "True" Threshold rating raises, its effective rating (including inhabitants BtH-boost) could actually drop when it hits the inhabitants Conviction score.I'd probably do it a bit different in the first place:
Michael and Charity visit someones home with a threshold rating of 4. Their prescens boosts the effective rating to 8 (+2 from each).
However, their own home most likely has 5 or 6 as threshold, thus not allowing their BtH to boost it.
What would you say to "If Conviction > Threshold, then +2; if Conviction =< Threshold, then +1"? That gives it an actual effect no matter how high the threshold is.
FATE, thankfully, is all about story and narrative. It's actually quite difficult to create a character who has no way to contribute to the story.
It's true. Having access to a good threshold is one of the equalizers available to mortals.
Can I ask a related question ?
Is higher discipline always the best way to go?
Actually, they have everything to do with prep time. It takes time and effort to fabricate them, and the wizard has to think ahead and bring them--if he doesn't have them, he isn't prepared, and he's in trouble.
Granted. I will say, though, that it makes a lot more sense to me that being hit with a second sword causes more damage. And it would have to be a very unusual situation for someone to be swinging something Weapon:5 on their offhand weapon. I can't even think of what kind of weapon would have that, except that it would be prohibitively huge for anything smaller than your average house.
I'll have to check this one before I can get back to you. But on this, and Way of the AK, I seem to remember someone going on at length about how the stunts and powers in Our World aren't balanced and shouldn't be taken as good examples.
That's a trapping replacement, not a stress booster.
think this is where we differ. How is it that Weapon Focus won't apply 99% of the time? It's entirely in the player's control unless the GM tosses a compel of some kind at them--they're going to be using those bonuses for every single attack and defense in the vast, vast majority of their fight scenes.
Mostly I know from, you know, reading the book, where it says that Weapon:4 is equivalent to battlefield explosives, Weapon:5 is equivalent to being hit with a small car, etc. Weapon:3 is large weapons--hard to conceal if not impossible, things you typically need two hands to swing. +2 to anything is supposed to be the most that a stunt gives, under relatively rare circumstances. "Every time the character swings the weapon that's central to his fighting ability" is not in any way "rare," in fact, it's going to be the vast majority.
Point of fact, she doesn't. In all the books, I can think of one time she wins a physical fight with something with supernatural powers, and she does that by making the fight as indirect as she can manage--after fighting directly, skill vs. skill and strength vs. strength, gets her arm broken. And she's supposed to be the series' prime example of a pure mortal physical fighter.
That's just it, though. If I'm playing alongside a character who's never swinging anything less than a Weapon:5 sword at 6, the GM is going to balance encounters to make it a challenge for him. If I'm sitting there swinging Weapon:3 at 4 or 5, I'm just not going to be able to keep up.
To paraphrase you when talking about Shields and the Rune Magic power not terribly long ago: Why would anyone ever not take these stunts, if they make a character inherently and objectively better than one without?
It turns the Pure Mortal from a character type revolving around ingenuity and maneuvering to a character type that can just bash its way through fights doing nothing but attack attack attack.
Just chiming in here, but Item slots aren't 'typed' it's one big pool to be filled with foci, enchanted items and potions. This becomes really clear when you look at the existing character write ups or pay attention to sponsored magic (and it's 'discounting').
I don't understand this statement.
I believe it was in response to earlier confusion as to whether or not thaumaturgy-sourced foci slots could be applied to evocation-purposed foci (or the other way 'round; and responding in the affirmative).
It doesn't actually take in-session time to make items. Item dependency is a gear issue, not a prep time issue.Even if it's not in-game time, it's still preparation--the player has to decide beforehand and devote character resources to the items, and the character has to be prepared by having them.
Why wouldn't specializing in a single weapon make as much sense as learning to use two at once?Because to me, the sword itself isn't hitting any harder, or cutting deeper. The person can use it better, but it's still the same sword. I'd allow maybe a bonus to maneuvers, or a circumstantial bonus to the attack roll, but you're already getting a Stress bonus by using a weapon, and it feels a lot to me like stacking stunts to pile another +2 on top of that.
That may have been me.I'm really not a fan of the, "Something I've done makes the game inaccurate. Therefore, it's the game's fault" way of thinking. But put it this way.
Honestly, I think Way Of The AK is overpowered. That's why Weapon Focus is significantly weaker than it.
Your later comments about a mortal with these stunts being able to thrash most of OW are accurate, by the way. (Though you ignore the fact that it won't be every mortal, just every focused mortal combatant. The talky and thinky types are another matter.)
But that's an issue with OW.
A Feet In The Water Focused Practitioner can beat almost all of OW to death.
A Feet In The Water Changeling can beat almost all of OW to death.
A Feet In The Water mortal with no stunts can beat almost all of OW to death.
OW characters are not tough.
It's a trapping replacement that works exactly like a stress booster. Weird, huh?No, a stress booster would give you more than the Weapon's normal rating. This does not.
Mostly for the same reason that a Wizard can't necessarily use their foci all the time. Also because sometimes your weapon isn't suited to the situation.But someone with those stunts has a complete combat advantage over someone without them. It's effectively adding a solid, constant +3 to every attack. And it's something entirely within the player's control--I know I'd spend the fate points to buy out of a compel if it meant the difference between having those bonuses and not, which means that players are always going to take these stunts, and always going to keep their weapons.
Someone who gets +2 stress with their tiny weapon 1 knife has no combat advantage over someone with no stunt and a broadsword, but someone who gets +2 stress with a broadsword will frequently have to use something less flashy. And they'll both have to set aside their bonus if they want to make ranged attacks.
(Also Weapon Focus doesn't boost defence rolls.)I could've sworn there were three of them: Boosting attack, boosting stress, and boosting defense.
It's not the most a stunt can give. It's listed as a standard bonus. And there are canon stunts that give more.The canon stunts that give more all have some kind of significant drawback--either spending a fate point, or taking a penalty to some other trapping while it's in use.
Anyway, a sword wielded by a master can be as deadly as explosives wielded by an amateur. At least, in fantasy stories.Usually because that Master is doing more and different with his sword than just attack. Having these flat bonuses to every single attack means that maneuvers just aren't going to happen. Why spend a turn maneuvering when your every action is already getting a flat +3?
You and I remember the books quite differently.I've been through this argument in the Spoilers section a few times. There are maybe two examples in all of the books where Murphy goes hand-to-hand with something that has supernatural power and wins a straight up, full-on fight: When she bashes the one Raith's head into her coffee table (if you can consider that a Fight), and when she kills the Turtleneck (which she doesn't match strength for strength--grappling with him ends up with her arm broken, and she only beats it by--surprise surprise--maneuvers and declarations).
2 stress just isn't that big a deal. It's well within the system's tolerances. It's nowhere near the combat-skill disparity between a social character and a killy one.Combat, though, is the meat of the system, and that's where most players and characters are going to put their skill points. Hell, my groups eschew Social Conflict altogether. 2 stress is a significant difference--it's the difference between a consequence that clears after a scene and one that takes a whole session. It's the difference between complete failure and a +1 success. And it's not the +2 I'm objecting to--it's the +2 stacking on top of the +3.
Because there are other stunts and Powers that are competitively valuable.I'll take the specialization over not taking it every time. Because it's basically a flat +2 to every time you use the weapon, which is going to be every time I get into a fight, because it sure as hell is worth buying out of a compel.
Would you prefer Defend My Tribe (for Weapons) or Greataxe Specialization? I think that one's a toss-up.
The Pure Mortal is not a character type revolving around ingenuity. Its mechanics don't promote ingenuity any more than those of, say, Werewolves.Per the lore of the series, mortals are supposed to be physically outmatched by the supernatural. It says "they don’t bring any supernatural oomph to the table," but these stunts are just as good as supernatural oomph at half the price.
Ingenuity is for anyone who's outmatched. Not just mortals.
And if you're not outmatched, you can just bash away.Which also runs counter to the gamebook's text, which suggests that most fights are going to come down to maneuvers and blocks more than attacks.
The basic point here is that two characters at the same level should be at the same level. Regardless of template. So if your mortal is designed purely for murder, he should be about as capable as a Wizard designed purely for murder."At the same level" doesn't mean they're capable of the same things with the same mechanics. "Equally capable" doesn't mean they do things the same and on the same level.
Well I don't have much experience with GURPS so I can't really speak for it. Bit with regard to D&D and World of Darkness, I've noticed a marked focus on the importance of choosing the right combinations of abilities to make an effective character.
Ideally, all games should be about character and story, but that just isn't the case. FATE, at least, takes the focus away from combat by offering alternative ways to solve problems from a mechanical standpoint, such as social conflicts, and the combination of Aspects and declarations mean that even a character with no other viable abilities can contribute to his friends' efforts.
Essentially, what about the character creation or even campaign setup of GURPS makes it focus on story? With FATE, and DFRPG in particular, you are not only required to create story elements for your character in the form of their Aspects and past adventures, but you contribute to the creation of the setting and the kinds of stories which will take place there.
Even if it's not in-game time, it's still preparation--the player has to decide beforehand and devote character resources to the items, and the character has to be prepared by having them.
Because to me, the sword itself isn't hitting any harder, or cutting deeper. The person can use it better, but it's still the same sword.
I'm really not a fan of the, "Something I've done makes the game inaccurate. Therefore, it's the game's fault" way of thinking. But put it this way.
Pure Mortal Feet in the Water vs. Red Court Vampire. Without stunts, the Mortal's attack stat is only 1 above the vampire's dodging, and he might have up to a Weapon:3 weapon. Meanwhile, his dodging stat is, at most, only 1 above the vampire's attack stat, and the vampire has 5 stress boxes and Armor:1. That means, rolling evenly, it's going to take the Pure Mortal four hits before he does any consequences. Meanwhile, the vampire has a solid 40% chance of hitting the mortal for a Weapon:4 attack--something that will almost assuredly happen if he has those four turns.
No, a stress booster would give you more than the Weapon's normal rating. This does not.
I could've sworn there were three of them: Boosting attack, boosting stress, and boosting defense.
The canon stunts that give more all have some kind of significant drawback--either spending a fate point, or taking a penalty to some other trapping while it's in use.
My feeling, as I've said before, is the type of weapon choice just does not feel like a restrictive enough circumstance to justify the full +2 bonus.
Usually because that Master is doing more and different with his sword than just attack. Having these flat bonuses to every single attack means that maneuvers just aren't going to happen. Why spend a turn maneuvering when your every action is already getting a flat +3?
I've been through this argument in the Spoilers section a few times. There are maybe two examples in all of the books where Murphy goes hand-to-hand with something that has supernatural power and wins a straight up, full-on fight: When she bashes the one Raith's head into her coffee table (if you can consider that a Fight), and when she kills the Turtleneck (which she doesn't match strength for strength--grappling with him ends up with her arm broken, and she only beats it by--surprise surprise--maneuvers and declarations).
Combat, though, is the meat of the system, and that's where most players and characters are going to put their skill points. Hell, my groups eschew Social Conflict altogether.
2 stress is a significant difference--it's the difference between a consequence that clears after a scene and one that takes a whole session.
You can't stack armor. You can't directly stack weapon ratings. And you can't stack stunts. So why can you stack a stunt on top of a weapon rating?
I'll take the specialization over not taking it every time. Because it's basically a flat +2 to every time you use the weapon, which is going to be every time I get into a fight, because it sure as hell is worth buying out of a compel.
Per the lore of the series, mortals are supposed to be physically outmatched by the supernatural.
It says "they don’t bring any supernatural oomph to the table," but these stunts are just as good as supernatural oomph at half the price.
Which also runs counter to the gamebook's text, which suggests that most fights are going to come down to maneuvers and blocks more than attacks.
The whole rulebook points to a system where the numbers aren't supposed to be that high--where a +2 is a big difference. Where mortals have to find a way around and to overcome a supernatural creature's powers, not just bash through them because you spent half the points for the same--or better--result.
"At the same level" doesn't mean they're capable of the same things with the same mechanics. "Equally capable" doesn't mean they do things the same and on the same level.
Murphy's considered on par, Refresh wise, with Harry, but when she has to face down a wizard, she does it from ambush, with a silenced gun, and lets rip with a blast at his head. She doesn't go toe-to-toe with his flunkies even and expect to survive a physical confrontation.
Edit: Also, man, fix your quote boxes. I had to do a lot of C+Ping in this response >.>
Imagine a stunt that gives you +3 stress with Fists attacks if you happen to be holding a greatsword or a warhammer.The rest of this discussion aside, Armed Arts is actually better than standard stress-boosting stunts, because it can stack with them, while they cannot stack with each other.
Ta-da! Armed Arts as a stress booster!
GURPS has lots of traits and stuff that define your character's nature. I guess maybe those promote story?
I dunno, I'm not really sure what promoting story really is. I've seen this kind of discussion before, and it seems like no matter which game you choose its mechanics are clearly more story-focused than those of other games (according to the people who like that game). So I find such claims a little dubious.
A lot of the time, buying qualities and flaws such as "Heroic" and "Scarred" for your character can come down to min-maxing to get extra build points. It's less of a problem in more mature players, but it can happen.
Basically, systems like GURPS, D&D and WoD let you decide what your character can do. FATE lets you decide what kinds of things will happen to them, through the use of Aspects.
It sounds like you are drawing a distinction between "players who are interested in mechanically optimizing characters" and "more mature players."
I'd say that character-sheet Aspects are more of a way of formalizing a conversation about game-related interests and goals between players and the GM, in order to make sure everyone is sufficiently on the same page so that the resulting game is more likely to be a successful attempt at having fun. (This would be an excellent idea even in non-FATE games; I have had experiences with games in other systems where individual concepts of "this is fun" diverged sharply, were not reconciled, and the game sucked as a result.) It's the GM's responsibility to incorporate characters' Aspects into the game with a nod towards each player's intent in creating the Aspect. It's the players' collective responsibility to make the GM's job reasonably feasible.
Okay, I phrased that wrong. I've had bad experiences with players who focus on stat-optimization. I've seen it turn into "my character could kick your character's ass" all too often. Not saying everyone who enjoys mechanically optimized characters is like that, just that I don't like seeing players get so intensely focused on it, because I've witnessed, and been on the receiving end of, poor behaviour towards players who aren't as interested in it. I have literally been called stupid for making a poor tactical choices in-game or using my character's abilities in a sub-optimal manner.Min-maxing is and should be a seperate issue from story focus. I have had bad experiences who use "story focus" as an excuse for poor character building and making the game un-fun for the rest of the group.
Clearly this is a touchy subject. It looks like I've caused some offence so I'm going to back off.
I'm sorry if I gave the impression I was ragging on particular playing preferences or suggesting that it was okay to make a game less fun for other players in the name of roleplaying. That was absolutely not my intention.
Fair enough. I've never seen anyone make the argument that D&D or WoD's rules are story-focused, myself. Focused on a character's abilities, yes, but not on story.
It is a weakness, but describing it as a need for prep time is misleading. Makes it sound like Wizards are weak whenever a fight they didn't expect shows up, when actually they're just fine as long as they've got their stuff. And if they don't have their stuff, prep time probably won't save them.Tomato tomahto, then. I consider having the foresight to bring their stuff to be more or less the same as prep time. Also prep time helps because, as you pointed out, because of the other stats they need high, a wizard typically has a lower initiative. So being able to take a round or two of prep before a fight properly starts can make a difference if once it does everyone else on the field gets to go before you.
A sword wielded by a strong and skilled person swings harder and cuts deeper.Reflected by a high Weapons stat, by my preference. I just think the flat +2 to damage is too much, and pushes mortal melee weapon damage to a degree it's not supposed to go.
Isn't that obvious?
It's not something I've done. If you just take 5 Refresh points and spend them on being strong and tough with a Catch of Cold Iron, you can probably kill Ursiel 1v1 with Great Weapons.By "something I've done" I mean coming up with these stunts.
I'm not talking crazy munchkin characters here. Just basic "combat skill is in the highest slot, spent some Refresh on fighting" characters.
The mortal has a massive pile of FP and can wear armour. He'll win, no problem.There's a significant difference between "he can win by spending his fate points" and "he'll always win just by hitting attack over and over." The former, to me, is more in keeping with the spirit of the game's world for mortals.
Obviously he'll fight better if he invests Refresh in fighting. But he can win without doing so.
Imagine a stunt that gives you +3 stress with Fists attacks if you happen to be holding a greatsword or a warhammer.A stress booster that, at best, brings you on par with someone just using the Weapons skill. It's not the idea of melee attacks having Weapon ratings that I'm against, it's the idea of melee attacks having weapon ratings of 4 and 5 that I'm against. The book pretty clearly suggests that Weapon:4 and above is, again, either massively destructive or damn near impossible to carry around, unless you're using Supernatural power of some kind.
Ta-da! Armed Arts as a stress booster!
Yes. But they must be bought separately. Weapon Focus just pumps accuracy.For clarification purposes, assume I'm just lumping them all together, because if you're taking one, you might as well take the whole set.
I know.The maximum you're supposed to get without some kind of penalty or additional cost, then. The full +2 shouldn't be for something you're going to be using all the time.
Nonetheless, 2 is obviously not the maximum.
Fair.If a weapon is so central to the character you're taking stunts just for it, then I'd say yes, it's a compellable part of the character. Generally speaking, I tend to hold that any situation that makes your character significantly less effective (like a sword wielder being forced to forgo his sword) is grounds for a fate point.
I think you're wrong though. I mean, I'm pretty sure most games wouldn't let you bring a broadsword or assault rifle everywhere. And that's not necessarily a Compel, since a weapon's not part of your character.
And if you're using a weapon that you can take everywhere, you're weakening yourself.
Maneuvering is still valuable. The only time it's not is when you can easily inflict consequences. Against tough, fast, or magically protected foes, you'll likely maneuver a lot.Not if even that toughness, speed, and protection is already overcome by these types of stunts.
Shooting counts as a straight fight. Her apex skill is Guns, she's better at fighting outside of hand-to-hand.But she's still held up as one of the top physical fighters in the series. She might be better at guns, but she's clearly supposed to be high up there on a physical sense. And yet the only time she tussles with anything supernatural physically and isn't maimed or nearly killed, it's when she's literally got God (and Bob) on her side.
Really?I didn't say it was the only stats they had, just that they focused there. My players put things into stuff like Investigation and stuff as well, we just eschew social conflict mainly because we're primarily free-form roleplayers, and would rather social stuff come down to roleplaying than dice rolling.
I thought my games were pretty violent, but I find people invest plenty in stuff other than ass-kicking. I mean, violence only gets you so far.
It's meaningful, but it doesn't prevent you from fighting alongside one another.No, but it means certain characters are always going to make the meaningful contribution to a fight while others don't.
Because that's how the system works. Things stack unless specifically prohibited. This isn't in doubt at all, it's all over the rules.Where does it say that? If anything, I remember the rulebook having to note specifically where things do stack, especially in regard to stunts.
(Also you can stack armour under certain special circumstances.)
They are. Stunts can't take you to the level that a supernatural combatant will have. Unless, of course, you cripple your supernaturals OW-style.This is the attitude I'm talking about--the thinking that the entirety of one of the rulebooks is "crippled" because of the overinflation of PC abilities.
No they aren't.Most of that isn't going to come into play in a fight. Lifting and breaking are typically out of combat, I honestly find grappling next to useless unless you're built specifically for it (takes at least an extra round to set up, and the target's almost always going to try and break it with their apex skill). But physical attack for physical attack--and this sort of stunt is only going to encourage that--the weapon specialization matches the bonus to Inhuman Strength.
Compare, say, Bow Specialization with Inhuman Strength.
Bow Specialization gives +2 stress with bows.
Inhuman Strength gives +2 stress with bows, +2 stress with thrown weapons, +2 stress with unarmed attacks, +3 to lift, +3 to break, +1 to grapple, automatic +1 when Might modifies, +1 stress to grapple attacks, +1 zone moved in a grapple, and +2 stress with melee weapons.
You can still maneuver if you want. You just don't have to.And with these stunts, you'll rarely have to.
Incidentally, where does it say that?I don't have the page number offhand, but it's a mix of the text and a sidebar, where the text notes that most fights will boil down to a lot of maneuvers and blocks more than attacks, with the sidebar of Harry saying that's how a lot of his fights played out.
It means they are similarly able to accomplish things. Murphy's player has as much power as Harry's does.But not the same way. Look at the story Aftermath, for instance. Murphy outright says if Harry was there, he'd have solved the thing in minutes--put up a tracking spell, waltz in, blast the badguys with fire, then go home and have a beer. Murphy might eventually get to the same result, but she has to do a lot of maneuvering, set up an ambush, several declarations, and in the end she barely scrapes out of it alive. Mortals might make it to the same destination, but they have to take a different route--and these stunts bypass all that.
Min-maxing is and should be a seperate issue from story focus. I have had bad experiences who use "story focus" as an excuse for poor character building and making the game un-fun for the rest of the group.I have to disagree with all of this. It sounds a lot more like you just don't like that they're not playing the game the way you do. There's a lot more vitriol and anger in this post than there should be. Don't get yourself so bent out of shape just because someone else builds and plays a character in a way that you don't approve of.
If you want to roleplay an incompetent twit and the GM has no problems with it, then even if you are a good friend (and the guy whose character was an incompetent twit remains a good friend), I will be quite happy that "my character could kick your character's ass" and have my character do so.
I have called people out for making poor tactical choices in-game and/or using their characters' abilities in a sub-optimal manner because it forces the rest of the players and their characters to pick up the slack. I can do without such self-maturbatory tendencies in games I play. I find such "story focused" (but not optimised) characters incredibly selfish, instead of hogging the spotlight because their characters are uber-capable and moving the plot forward, these characters are hogging the spotlight and bogging the game down because they are uber-incompetent!
And often these are the players who have the gall to whine (to other people and on forums) that they are simply "roleplaying" and the other guys are "min-maxers", "powergamers" or "munchkins". I feel myself wanting more to take a swing at these clowns than those players who bring one-dimensional giant thews barbarians who can benchpress the world or fighters whose roundhouse kicks can kill gods.
Incidentally, where does it say that?
I don't have the page number offhand, but it's a mix of the text and a sidebar, where the text notes that most fights will boil down to a lot of maneuvers and blocks more than attacks, with the sidebar of Harry saying that's how a lot of his fights played out.
The ow creatures are quite weak so using them as a comparison doesn't accomplish much.A WCV who Harry notes was uninvited through a threshold, who Murphy took totally by surprise (probably a Deceit maneuver for an 'ambush' effect), and who we've never seen in a fight. And it wasn't really a fight--Murphy pistolwhipped her, smashed her face in, and it was over. In game terms, probably it was a social ambush (use Deceit so the vampire thinks Murphy's about to give in, and thus isn't prepared to defend), with a Fists attack (or maybe Guns, if you want to sell the Pistol Whip as such), then an Intimidation roll tagging the resulting consequences.
Many types of characters with at least half assed combat abilities can roll the majority of the randoms in ow.
In GS Murphy manhandled a whamp quite effectively without any apparent help from Bob or God.
It was Murphy's house, so I imagine, if we use the rules we were talking about earlier...you're looking at +6We know at least 3 generations of her family lived in that house. Not only that but at that point it had also been warded by the Paranet. So you're probably looking at a 7 or 8 in theory.
I wouldn't think that vamp had much in the way of any powers left.
Thanks. Don't worry, I don't feel like I'm unwelcome. I can just see that this topic is getting some emotional reactions from a few people and aside from the difficulty in having a proper discussion when that happens, I simply don't want to get into an argument with anyone over it.
I believe you're referring to YS199.
It's not too hard to incorporate a useage scale into the basic stunt creation. You get X bonus under Y conditions. So let's say you have a stunt that gives you a bonus to the weapons skill. If you're only going to meet the conditions 25% of the time you make a weapons roll (factoring in any mechanical conditions needed to trigger it) then it's probably worth a +3. 50% of the time or less, +2. Anything over that should never be higher than a +1 bonus IMO.
Tomato tomahto, then. I consider having the foresight to bring their stuff to be more or less the same as prep time.
By "something I've done" I mean coming up with these stunts.
This is the attitude I'm talking about--the thinking that the entirety of one of the rulebooks is "crippled" because of the overinflation of PC abilities.
A stress booster that, at best, brings you on par with someone just using the Weapons skill. It's not the idea of melee attacks having Weapon ratings that I'm against, it's the idea of melee attacks having weapon ratings of 4 and 5 that I'm against. The book pretty clearly suggests that Weapon:4 and above is, again, either massively destructive or damn near impossible to carry around, unless you're using Supernatural power of some kind.
For clarification purposes, assume I'm just lumping them all together, because if you're taking one, you might as well take the whole set.
If a weapon is so central to the character you're taking stunts just for it, then I'd say yes, it's a compellable part of the character. Generally speaking, I tend to hold that any situation that makes your character significantly less effective (like a sword wielder being forced to forgo his sword) is grounds for a fate point.
Not if even that toughness, speed, and protection is already overcome by these types of stunts.
But she's still held up as one of the top physical fighters in the series. She might be better at guns, but she's clearly supposed to be high up there on a physical sense.
I didn't say it was the only stats they had, just that they focused there. My players put things into stuff like Investigation and stuff as well, we just eschew social conflict mainly because we're primarily free-form roleplayers, and would rather social stuff come down to roleplaying than dice rolling.
Where does it say that? If anything, I remember the rulebook having to note specifically where things do stack, especially in regard to stunts.
Most of that isn't going to come into play in a fight.
But not the same way. Look at the story Aftermath, for instance. Murphy outright says if Harry was there, he'd have solved the thing in minutes--put up a tracking spell, waltz in, blast the badguys with fire, then go home and have a beer. Murphy might eventually get to the same result, but she has to do a lot of maneuvering, set up an ambush, several declarations, and in the end she barely scrapes out of it alive. Mortals might make it to the same destination, but they have to take a different route--and these stunts bypass all that.
And really, what's the fun in making all the right tactical choices? Can you imagine how boring the books would be if Harry did everything right?
I have to disagree with all of this. It sounds a lot more like you just don't like that they're not playing the game the way you do. There's a lot more vitriol and anger in this post than there should be. Don't get yourself so bent out of shape just because someone else builds and plays a character in a way that you don't approve of.I do not mind that they do not play the game the way I do per se. I do mind that their playstyle reduces my (and other peoples') enjoyment of the game. I know I was striking a discordant note in my post, but I think I might have underestimated how jarring my counterpoints were. I think you are attributing anger and vitriol where there is none intended. Don't get yourself so bent out of shape just because someone else advocates gaming in a way that you don't approve of.
And really, what's the fun in making all the right tactical choices? Can you imagine how boring the books would be if Harry did everything right?
1) Can a vanilla mortal, through the proper use of stunts (I will ignore reality for a moment since the entire game is about over the top action), be an 'optimized' character? My answer is 'yes' with the qualifier that you and I may have differing opinions of what 'optimized' means. I'm hoping it means more than "I see it, I kill it." My idea is that it means "She's good at what she sets out to do and what she puts her mind towards doing." There. That said, my optimizing may look like story-focusing to you.1) Yes, I agree with you. A Pure Mortal can be an "optimised" character.
2) That said, am I story-focusing when I role-play my sorcerer into making bad or stupid moves because that's part of who/what he is? When I use my abilities in a sub-optimal manner? If I use my hard-won skill points to buy up my Performance instead of Guns, Weapons, Resources, Contacts or Burglary, am I hogging the spotlight because I'm not making a spell-slinging killmaster? (My sorcerer Crafts musical instruments by hand)
When I GM my campaign, I welcome all types to my table, "Story-focused" or otherwise. If a player wants his character's form of offense to be Social instead of Physical, that's fine with me. If she wants to run someone that's not that good in a fight, fine with me. Hence the 'RP' in the DFRPG. She'll miss out on action and I'll tell her so, but that's her choice--dare I say, Free Will? Likewise if someone wants to run a Kill Master, I'll say fine. Just don't expect to make many friends and be constantly outmaneuvered or duped by NPC's. Hope his buddies will take up the slack.Not only will she miss out on action; if in physical combat, she may well be the weak link that the enemies will target and easily take out first. I think what happens to a social character in physical combat should likewise happen to a physical combatant in a social setting and vice versa.
What I'm afraid of is the concept that a character must be 'optimized' to be effective. IMO, it seems that the dilemma is that people haven't different concepts of what an 'optimized' PC is. That brings us to "vanilla" mortals.
1) Can a vanilla mortal, through the proper use of stunts (I will ignore reality for a moment since the entire game is about over the top action), be an 'optimized' character? My answer is 'yes' with the qualifier that you and I may have differing opinions of what 'optimized' means. I'm hoping it means more than "I see it, I kill it." My idea is that it means "She's good at what she sets out to do and what she puts her mind towards doing." There. That said, my optimizing may look like story-focusing to you.
2) That said, am I story-focusing when I role-play my sorcerer into making bad or stupid moves because that's part of who/what he is? When I use my abilities in a sub-optimal manner? If I use my hard-won skill points to buy up my Performance instead of Guns, Weapons, Resources, Contacts or Burglary, am I hogging the spotlight because I'm not making a spell-slinging killmaster? (My sorcerer Crafts musical instruments by hand)
When I GM my campaign, I welcome all types to my table, "Story-focused" or otherwise. If a player wants his character's form of offense to be Social instead of Physical, that's fine with me. If she wants to run someone that's not that good in a fight, fine with me. Hence the 'RP' in the DFRPG. She'll miss out on action and I'll tell her so, but that's her choice--dare I say, Free Will? Likewise if someone wants to run a Kill Master, I'll say fine. Just don't expect to make many friends and be constantly outmaneuvered or duped by NPC's. Hope his buddies will take up the slack.
Given the last two responses, it would seem that the problem is less optimized/story-focused characters and more problem players.I would say that less optimized/story-focused characters are one of the prime symptoms of problem players.
And often these are the players who have the gall to whine (to other people and on forums) that they are simply "roleplaying" and the other guys are "min-maxers", "powergamers" or "munchkins". I feel myself wanting more to take a swing at these clowns than those players who bring one-dimensional giant thews barbarians who can benchpress the world or fighters whose roundhouse kicks can kill gods.
That note is quite correct regardless of what abilities you have, by the way. Attacking isn't usually a good idea unless you think can do real damage.And my point is, with these stunts you're guaranteed to do real damage almost all the time.
As I said before, it happens without these stunts. Look at the first post of this thread, and think about how much in OW could survive one of the rotes of the character sketched out there.The difference being that people with access to magic are implicitly and explicitly supposed to have access to more dangerous abilities than pure mortals. If a wizard is throwing around a Weapon:5 attack, that's one thing. A pure mortal doing so is, I feel, beyond what they're supposed to be capable of.
People make characters that can murder pretty much everything in OW all the time, without using these stunts or even really trying to optimize.
The book suggests that getting weapon 4+ for free is a big deal. Once you start spending Refresh it's obviously a different matter.I disagree. A supernatural creature getting Weapon:4 in melee is at least three refresh--with these stunts, getting Weapon:5 is only one refresh.
You're wrong about that. It's often optimal only to take one.I'd think it would be more optimal to boost your attack and defense if at all possible. If I have the refresh to spend, why on earth would I not want to directly and flatly boost one of my most important skills?
Well, if you specifically alter the rules of the game to compensate people every time their stunt's limitations come up, obviously their stunt is going to be broken.Not "every time their stunt's limitations come up." I said when they're significantly disadvantaged. A character losing access to his main weapon--which has several stunts directly boosting its performance--for the duration of a scene is a significant disadvantage.
Which raises the question. Why would you do that?
They generally can't be.The attack stunt is worth +1, yes? Equal to the Inhuman Speed bonus to defense. The stress stunt is +2, equal to Inhuman Strength's stress bonus, and enough to balance out Inhuman Toughness.
She's like five feet tall, female, and ageing. She is not the pinnacle of fist-fighting ability.Regardless, it's practically a running gag that she's one of the most physically skilled characters in the series--and the only time she wins a stand-up, physical fight with anything supernatural, it's only after breaking her arm and it's with a mess of declarations.
Fortunately she has guns.
Yeah, that's gonna shake up the game balance a bit. Probably not enough to wreck a game, but enough that things will be noticeably over/under powered if you don't throw in some additional houserules.We haven't had to houserule anything as far as social stuff goes. I just make the villains to match, and for the most part, the OW monsters provide an appropriate challenge.
You're ditching a major part of the rules, after all.
They note it for stunts because of the other note saying stunts don't stack.I know I'm a writer and I always say I don't do numbers well, but yes, I'm familiar with normal math.
But for the most part bonuses like the Speed Athletics boost are just thrown out there and assumed to stack with whatever.
This is perfectly in accordance with normal math, where 1 + 1 generally equals 2. Though of course there are exceptions to that.
As I said, Inhuman Strength is only equal to Bow Specialization if your game is 100% combat and players are always able to use their preferred tactic.Yeah, I think the last time I did anything with vectors was somewhere in ninth grade, so I probably wouldn't get it.
Inhuman Strength is broadly potent. A +2 stress stunt gives you about 1/7 of its effects for 1/2 of its price. That's a good deal if and only if you really want to specialize.
Do you know much math? I have an analogy I like, but you have to understand vectors to get it.
No, they really don't.That's close enough as makes no difference at that level. Weapon:5 accuracy 5 is enough to kill or seriously wound a ghoul on an even hit. Ghouls are supposed to be very tough to hurt, tough to kill, and tough just to survive against. So instead of that, a mortal character on the lowest refresh level can just straight up fight a Ghoul and has the advantage?
A mortal can get accuracy 5 weapon 5 at Feet In The Water. A pyromancer can get weapon 7 accuracy 7. (Actually a pyromancer can go past that, but I'd rather not use an extreme example.)
Fortunately mortals have FP to make up for the discrepancy.
I do not mind that they do not play the game the way I do per se. I do mind that their playstyle reduces my (and other peoples') enjoyment of the game. I know I was striking a discordant note in my post, but I think I might have underestimated how jarring my counterpoints were. I think you are attributing anger and vitriol where there is none intended. Don't get yourself so bent out of shape just because someone else advocates gaming in a way that you don't approve of.I assume there's anger and vitriol because you say things like you want to "take a swing at these clowns" for having a different play style from you, and having slightly different priorities from you when it comes to what they want to get out of a game.
What's the fun in making all the right tactical choices? I find the right tactical choices lead to less headaches for one, less stress for another, and a higher likelihood of success in the third. I game for fun, I find success fun, I find failure stressful. I am a simple person and can do with less stress and more fun.
In DFRPG, it's o.k to have bad stuff happen! It might change the original vision of the story, but the story goes on. I'd been so used to trying to avoid the TPK's that ended whole campaigns. Concessions are awesome! Aspects let you RP your foibles and advantages and you get rewarded for doing so. RPing and story is built into the min/max experience.I think this is a big part of why Fate is called story centric. In your average RPG, people mostly take disadvantages for points they can spend on increasing other stuff (the "max" part), while trying to minimize the effect of those disadvantages (well, the "min" part). It pretty much comes together all the time. Since you only get compensated once for your troubles, you are naturally inclined to reduce the impact those have. I'm not saying that's a bad thing, I'm saying that it comes with the way the games are designed. I am "guilty" of that myself, even if I don't really like that, it kind of is the nature of the beast. Fate circumvents that, by paying up when a disadvantage comes up, and just ignoring them, mechanically, if you don't bring them into play.
EDIT: Maybe the worste players are the "Maxers" - nevermind the "min" because they are trying to get as much as possible for nothing. Maybe that would better reflect the type of player I described above who cheats.
With that said, in my experience the best role-players were min/maxers.
2) That said, am I story-focusing when I role-play my sorcerer into making bad or stupid moves because that's part of who/what he is? When I use my abilities in a sub-optimal manner? If I use my hard-won skill points to buy up my Performance instead of Guns, Weapons, Resources, Contacts or Burglary, am I hogging the spotlight because I'm not making a spell-slinging killmaster? (My sorcerer Crafts musical instruments by hand)
And my point is, with these stunts you're guaranteed to do real damage almost all the time.
I disagree. A supernatural creature getting Weapon:4 in melee is at least three refresh--with these stunts, getting Weapon:5 is only one refresh.
I'd think it would be more optimal to boost your attack and defense if at all possible. If I have the refresh to spend, why on earth would I not want to directly and flatly boost one of my most important skills?
Not "every time their stunt's limitations come up." I said when they're significantly disadvantaged. A character losing access to his main weapon--which has several stunts directly boosting its performance--for the duration of a scene is a significant disadvantage.
The attack stunt is worth +1, yes? Equal to the Inhuman Speed bonus to defense. The stress stunt is +2, equal to Inhuman Strength's stress bonus, and enough to balance out Inhuman Toughness.
Regardless, it's practically a running gag that she's one of the most physically skilled characters in the series...
We haven't had to houserule anything as far as social stuff goes. I just make the villains to match, and for the most part, the OW monsters provide an appropriate challenge.
The examples don't bear up with that kind of stacking from what I've seen.The Tentacled Horror, for instance, has one stunt for its tentacles to boost its grappling, and a strength power--but its description, if I'm not mistaken, only accounts for the stunt because it's the higher of the two.
The books are pretty consistent in saying that if more than one bonus applies, you go with the higher one unless otherwise indicated.
That's close enough as makes no difference at that level.
In the first part of the paragraph you slam someone for having an opinion based on the people he's played with which, apparently, insults your sensibilities but in the second part of the paragraph you feel it's perfectly acceptable to call another poster a "clown". I think that's a bit of a double-standard.Of course, you would. I think it is simply a function of where you stand on the kind of gamer you are. I call such people clowns because I find their behavior laughable and to show what it looks like from the other side of the line. If it is a bit of a double standard, then so be it, I can live with that.
I assume there's anger and vitriol because you say things like you want to "take a swing at these clowns" for having a different play style from you, and having slightly different priorities from you when it comes to what they want to get out of a game.I want to take a swing at those people because I often find such people trying to justify their characters' mechanical lack with "roleplay" and trying to tar other people whose characters actually function well mechanically with terms like "min-maxer", "powergamer" or "munchkin" and often these terms are used derogatorily.
It's not the style of gaming that I don't approve of--it's you insisting that other players are doing it wrong, to the point where you say you want to take a swing at them for it. Some people find the drama that comes with not always succeeding to be fun. Instead of saying, "They're making it less fun for me, therefore I want to smack these clowns," maybe consider that they're thinking, "This guy yelling at me for not being a tactical genius is making it less fun for me."
I want to take a swing at those people because I often find such people trying to justify their characters' mechanical lack with "roleplay" and trying to tar other people whose characters actually function well mechanically with terms like "min-maxer", "powergamer" or "munchkin" and often these terms are used derogatorily.It all depends on what you mean by "mechanical lack". In a game where swords do +3 damage and fencing weapons +2, is a fencer mechanically lacking? Even if I am playing a master fencer, with everything that accompanies that, not a bumbling idiot who just likes to fence?
It all depends on what you mean by "mechanical lack". In a game where swords do +3 damage and fencing weapons +2, is a fencer mechanically lacking? Even if I am playing a master fencer, with everything that accompanies that, not a bumbling idiot who just likes to fence?
Other examples of "Gold-allergy" or "addicted to the moon" or similar nonsense just to gather more building points is just something that bothers me.
Or to come back to fate, is, for example, a wizard lacking, if he takes a stunt instead of refinement? What if it is a knowledge stunt about comic books?
Both, the character I play and the character I build should fit together, in my opinion. minmaxed characters often don't, because they focused more on getting the highest numbers than being an intriguing character.
This is probably the main reason players who are interested in systems design and character optimization can get really bent out of shape when other players mock them as "immature" for being good at something. Arrogant and judgmental "I'm a proper role-player and you're doing it wrong" attitudes are annoying. The same attitude used to mock competence and defend incompetence is infuriating.I agree and thank you for putting what I have been trying (and perhaps unsuccessfully) to say in a more polite and less confrontational manner.
Of course, you would. I think it is simply a function of where you stand on the kind of gamer you are. I call such people clowns because I find their behavior laughable and to show what it looks like from the other side of the line. If it is a bit of a double standard, then so be it, I can live with that.
No. You completely missed my point. It was a double standard that you get insulted by something, yet find it acceptable to throw insults at other people on the boards.Now I get your point. I will say that if I find someone stating something insulting, I find it acceptable to return the favor. In such a case, in that I get insulted by something, yet not allowed to throw insults at other people on the boards, is where I would find the double standards.
I'm a min maxer...the term min/maxing is used to describe cheaters and people who bend the rules and use broken stunts and powers in an attempt to outdo everyone at their table.
Now I get your point. I will say that if I find someone stating something insulting, I find it acceptable to return the favor. In such a case, in that I get insulted by something, yet not allowed to throw insults at other people on the boards, is where I would find the double standards.I feel the need to point out that there's a huge difference between feeling insulted by a general statement someone idly makes (even ifit may have been poorly worded), and being directly and personally insulted by someone. The former means you're being hyper-defensive and out of line. The latter, you actually were I sulted and have every right to be offended.
If someone disagrees with me politely (as you have), I will be courteous.
EDIT: I use the terms "min-maxer" to describe somone who maximises his character's strengths while minimising the character's weaknesses. "Powergamer" I use to describe people who bend the rules and use broken stunts and powers in an attempt to outdo everyone at their table (note: the important thing to me for "powergamer" is the attempt to outdo everyone at their table, a min-maxer would also push the RAW to their limits without breaking them and use mechanics that while are As Written but may be terribly unbalanced). A munchkin breaks the RAW.
I feel the need to point out that there's a huge difference between feeling insulted by a general statement someone idly makes (even ifit may have been poorly worded), and being directly and personally insulted by someone. The former means you're being hyper-defensive and out of line. The latter, you actually were I sulted and have every right to be offended.True. However, I was making a general statement in response to another statement made by someoone else. I read a statement that I felt was incorrect and was degoratory in tone. I made a general statement in counterpoint, not targeted at any single person or at the person I made the post in response in particular.
There are some players and/or GMs who are biased against character optimizing at all, and ignore distinctions in terminology. "You only read the rules so you can abuse them." No, players that know the systems encourages intended game balance and speeds up playtime devoted to mechanical details so we can all spend more time on character interactions. "Your character killed more enemies than anyone else; you're just a munchkin." No, I built a well-designed character that is effective in combat, while you made a bard that tries to kill orcs with his violin; it is not shocking that my way worked and yours didn't. "Rules get in the way of role-playing; ignoring them and just going free-form is always better." No, this argument is usually made by someone who never bothered to learn the rules, slows the entire group down by trying to do things he can't, and wants it to be someone else's fault.Reading this, I think we actually agree on most of what is discussed here. The only thing we differ is what part of the continuum (see your previous answer to my previous post) can be considered an effective character. As far as I understand you, you prefer the top notch, the most optimized character, mechanically, I myself am ok with a lot of what follows below that.
There are other boosts that might be better.Eh. Maybe it's a personal thing, but if I'm investing one refresh to boost a weapon, and I'm a pure mortal, I'm going to invest more.
Ugh. Can't you see you're inflicting this problem on yourself?You're still misunderstanding me. I am not saying they get a fate point every time a stunt doesn't apply. I'm saying that if a character built around using a sword can't use that sword, that's a compel. Because, usually, I find when a character is willing to invest fate points into a specific weapon (usually an IOP in my games), then they've got an aspect referencing that weapon.
These stunts, like all stunts, are balanced by the fact that they're situational. If you compensate people for their situational-ness, you'll break them.
It's the same for all stunts.
The monster can have Supernatural abilities and stunts of their own.I'm not comparing one refresh stunts to four-refresh powers. Because there is no comparison. But with these stunts, a pure mortal can spend two refresh to match the effective melee bonuses of two two refresh powers (+2 stress, +1 to attack). And they have two bonus fate points on top of that...so, in a way, you can almost see it as matching up for free.
I've tested this. Combat stunts let mortals compete, but they don't have anything like the firepower Powers have.
She's still nowhere near peak mortal melee combat ability. She says it herself in Cold Days.Her stats were such in the OW write-up, but that's several books behind Cold Days. And regardless, she's presented as someone who never loses a physical fight against a mortal--she puts Hendricks down with relatively little effort in White Night. Hell, just going stat to stat, she should be able to fight a Red Court Vampire--her Fists are at 3, which match Red and Black court vampires for attack and defense. And yet she doesn't, because their powers give them a decisive advantage. Now, do you think that Karrin's someone who wouldn't take stress boosting stunts like this if she could? You think she wouldn't take a Fists attack boosting stunt if she could? Really, she has refresh to spend, she should. Which means she should be able to take a Red Court vampire apart easily.
And her stats say that Fists is two steps down from her skill cap.
Eh, unbalanced games are often still fun.So...wait. Wait wait wait. With these stunts, a pure mortal at the lowest refresh rating has a decisive advantage over a ghoul in hand-to-hand single combat, which is completely different from everything we've seen in the books, fiction, and write up in both rulebooks. Without the stunts, a ghoul poses a significant challenge even to a Submerged level pure mortal in hand-to-hand single combat, which is pretty well in keeping with the books, other fiction, and the write-up in both rulebooks.
The Horror is clearly a mistake. Stunts can only give +1 to grapple, says so in YS.Well, no. The only example is +1 to grapple, I see nothing in the rules saying it can only give that.
And they don't say that you go with the higher bonus unless indicated. Search the books if you want. You will not find any such statement.Which stunts stack with the basic weapon ratings? There's Archer (which I said my reasons for being acceptable before). The only other stress-boosting stunts I can think of are for Fists, which doesn't have a basic weapon rating to stack with.
But you will find Speed stacking with Size and Echoes Of The Beast for movement, Lawbreaker stacking other spellcasting bonuses, and stunts stacking with basic weapon ratings.
Nope.[/quote]Fine, it's not close enough as makes no difference. It's still way better than a pure mortal should be doing against a Ghoul in a straight up melee fight going by their portrayal in both the fiction and the book's write-ups, at the lowest available refresh level.
Weapon 7 accuracy 7 is clearly superior to weapon 5 accuracy 5. It's not even in question.
Weapon 5 accuracy 5 will do a mild to a (naked) ghoul on average. The ghoul will shrug that off and keep coming. Plus you'll have a significant chance of missing.
Weapon 7 accuracy 7 will a mild and a moderate. That's likely to end the fight, since consequences are taggable. And you're a lot less likely to miss.
You're still misunderstanding me. I am not saying they get a fate point every time a stunt doesn't apply. I'm saying that if a character built around using a sword can't use that sword, that's a compel. Because, usually, I find when a character is willing to invest fate points into a specific weapon (usually an IOP in my games), then they've got an aspect referencing that weapon.
I'm not comparing one refresh stunts to four-refresh powers. Because there is no comparison. But with these stunts, a pure mortal can spend two refresh to match the effective melee bonuses of two two refresh powers (+2 stress, +1 to attack). And they have two bonus fate points on top of that...so, in a way, you can almost see it as matching up for free.
Now, do you think that Karrin's someone who wouldn't take stress boosting stunts like this if she could? You think she wouldn't take a Fists attack boosting stunt if she could? Really, she has refresh to spend, she should. Which means she should be able to take a Red Court vampire apart easily.
And yet, she does not.
So...wait. Wait wait wait. With these stunts, a pure mortal at the lowest refresh rating has a decisive advantage over a ghoul in hand-to-hand single combat, which is completely different from everything we've seen in the books, fiction, and write up in both rulebooks. Without the stunts, a ghoul poses a significant challenge even to a Submerged level pure mortal in hand-to-hand single combat, which is pretty well in keeping with the books, other fiction, and the write-up in both rulebooks.
And the latter one is the unbalanced game?
Well, no. The only example is +1 to grapple, I see nothing in the rules saying it can only give that.
And I'm still a little tired of the, "The canon stunt contradicts my point, therefore it's a mistake" angle. Especially when you have also tried to use stunts from the same book you're always saying is full of such mistakes as evidence that these are balanced.
Which stunts stack with the basic weapon ratings? There's Archer (which I said my reasons for being acceptable before). The only other stress-boosting stunts I can think of are for Fists, which doesn't have a basic weapon rating to stack with.
With the stunts, the vast majority of monsters in Our World are just plain unlikely to pose any kind of physical threat to a mortal PC of any level.
Either you're mistaken about what's allowable for stunts, or the people who spent years working on adapting the game's world--including working directly with the author and I have to assume a significant amount of playtesting--somehow managed to completely low-ball every single creature in Our World.
Reading this, I think we actually agree on most of what is discussed here. The only thing we differ is what part of the continuum (see your previous answer to my previous post) can be considered an effective character. As far as I understand you, you prefer the top notch, the most optimized character, mechanically, I myself am ok with a lot of what follows below that.
If I do make a less than optimized character (not a bumbling idiot character, mind you), I would never do it in a way that would be a drag on the group. And I would be fully aware of that choice and would not complain about the fact that he was weaker than other characters, because that's what I chose to do.
One more question. In my Swordsman vs. master fencer example you commented above, I meant if everything else was equal, every stunt, every trait, everything. I just liked the idea of someone fighting with a fencing weapon rather than a sword, and that choice would mean my weapon did a bit less damage than every other character. Would that be enough for you to call that character mechanically lacking? This is not meant as an attack or anything, I'm just curious where you'd draw the line.
No it isn't. As a mechanic the weapon rating signifies the type of weapon it is. Increasing the damage means that you can inflict more damage with it. A +1 sword if you will, it's still a sword, just in your hands it does more damage. Especially since the damage allies you hit, which means weapon rating stagnant.To determine the effect of an attack: Total # of attacker's skill dice minus total score of defender's skill dice. If positive, add weapon value of attack to determine effect on defender.
Increasing the attack is even less so, as this just increases your skill rating by one when using that weapon.
If positive, add weapon value of attack to determine effect on defender.'If not negative', actually.
'If not negative', actually.You're absolutely right. Darn me. That said, world of difference between a character with +4 to hit using a Weapon:1 attack and a +1 to hit, Weapon:4 attack. Assume for the sake of argument the attacker hit my character as the result of a tie and did only weapon damage, I'd rather take the former than the latter any day of the week, if only because my enchanted duster can absorb the hit better. Yeah, that Armor does make a difference, and maybe that's what differentiates the two attacks.
A tie goes to the attacker; though, in absence of either a weapon rating or GM fiat allowing the attack to be retroactively represented as a maneuver, the resulting 'success' still fails to achieve any real result.
Small pocket weapons,
knives, saps, and “bellyguns” = Weapon:1
Swords, baseball bats, batons, most pistols = Weapon:2
Two-handed weapons, oversized pistols (Desert Eagle and company), rifles and shotguns, most fullyautomatic weapons = Weapon:3
“Battlefield” weaponry, explosives = Weapon:4+
You already have a stress bonus for using a given weapon--the weapon's own weapon rating. These kinds of stunts feel like double-dipping to me, getting two bonuses for one condition.I kind of felt the same way when we had that thread about equipment a while ago. While a flat damage bonus via weapons was perfectly acceptable for everyone, the same bonus for other skills seemed ludicrous to most. I even thought about taking down the weapon rating entirely, and replacing them with stunts for those who want to take them up. Not entirely sure how I feel about that, though.
That's a great way to look at things.
However, how would you factor in the weapon ratings as they are listed in the book? Should a weapon do more damage, regardless of who holds it, or should it just be a justification to use one skill over the other?
To try and condense the discussion instead of replying individually to everything...
I'd be incredibly hesitant about applying compels to anything but Aspects. Aspects are the most important elements of a character; their driving narrative force. That's why Fate Points apply to them.Scene and location aspects apply just as much as character aspects. In this case, if it's a location aspect, it can cut both ways--the compel is that the place doesn't allow weapons, so the player has the choice of either going in with a tactical disadvantage when and if something breaks out, or the character brings the weapons in and complications result from that. In either case, it's fine to make a compel center around the character's equipment because the equipment has an effect on the scene through either its presence or absence.
If a character has an Aspect relating to a particular weapon, then by all means fire off the compels where appropriate. But if Guns McShooter has to leave his weapons behind to get into a night club, he doesn't get a Fate Point. In fact, I'd be more inclined to use compels to make a character refuse to leave their treasured weapon behind, because that causes much more interesting problems than simply being at a tactical disadvantage.
Personally I think certain weapons having higher Stress ratings fits the tone of The Dresden Files, so I like that a broadsword is more dangerous than a knife.Right, I'm convinced. Thanks.
I think that's an important distinction, because not every scene is going to have an aspect that's appropriate for this.If there isn't an aspect that can justify the loss of a weapon, why lose the weapon at all? The "something" that makes you lose the weapon can always be phrased as an aspect, I think.
If I understand you right, you're compelling the fact that the weapon has been lost, not a particular aspect. While this is fine for your game, it is definitely a houserule, since compels can only be used on aspects.To echo Haru, if there isn't any relevant aspect dictating why the PC doesn't have a weapon, then why doesn't he have a weapon?
For example, assuming neither the PC nor the scene had any relevant aspects, if an NPC disarms the PC or the PC gets in a fight and for whatever reason doesn't have his weapon, would you give him a Fate Point? If so, that's a houserule.
I don't know, I just think there are more interesting uses for compels than to offset a tactical disadvantage. "You dropped your sword, have a fate point" isn't as much fun, for me, as "I'm compelling your 'Wrong Place At The Wrong Time' aspect to say you're on your own with no backup when the terrorists take over the Nakatomi Building."I'm not saying, "You dropped your sword, have a fate point," I'm saying, "You won't be able to use your sword--the central point of your fighting style and for which you've spent several fate points--for the entirety of this scene, maybe more. So you can't use your apex skill, and even if you can, you'll still be missing the cumulative +3 in bonuses for it. Here's a fate point to make up for the huge disadvantage you've been handed."
To borrow your example, do you or do you not think that Bruce Willis should also get a fate point if he has to start that scenario without a firearm of any kind?I think that "without a firearm" is part of the "wrong place, wrong time" compel. I would not add an additional compel there. It could be part of an escalation, but I don't think someone would do that this early in a story.
I think that "without a firearm" is part of the "wrong place, wrong time" compel. I would not add an additional compel there. It could be part of an escalation, but I don't think someone would do that this early in a story.Put it this way--McLane has a fighting chance because he has a firearm. The first terrorist he comes up to, he's able to get into fist fighting range because he gets the drop on him with a gun. Not having a firearm completely changes the situation--McLane can't use his apex guns skill and he can't hold up that first terrorist, so he has to approach the situation completely differently using skills he's not as proficient at and which don't have a Weapon rating.
I'd be incredibly hesitant about applying compels to anything but Aspects. Aspects are the most important elements of a character; their driving narrative force. That's why Fate Points apply to them.I tend to agree, if it's not aspect related you shouldn't get a FP. At that point having to give up your gun to get into a night club it's not a compel, it's just role-playing.
If a character has an Aspect relating to a particular weapon, then by all means fire off the compels where appropriate. But if Guns McShooter has to leave his weapons behind to get into a night club, he doesn't get a Fate Point. In fact, I'd be more inclined to use compels to make a character refuse to leave their treasured weapon behind, because that causes much more interesting problems than simply being at a tactical disadvantage.
The risk of losing a weapon or not having one to hand isn't a compel - It's the price you pay for the fact you got a Physical Stress bonus without paying Refresh for it.
But it occurs to me, if the aspect "Disarmed" can be applied with a maneuver, and it automatically awards a fate point as a compel, why would anyone disarm someone? Another aspect like "Off Balance" is far more useful since you get the free tag and the opponent doesn't get a Fate Point. Sure, they can use their weapon, but you could just apply a block against them using their weapon instead of disarming it. Then your buddy swoops in and takes them out.I think in this case, it is important if a fate point was spent to use the disarm aspect. The aspect was placed by a maneuver and comes with a free tag. That tag was used to enforce the character being disarmed, not a fate point, therefore he doesn't get one.
Here's something to consider. You award Fate Points when one of your players can't use a weapon for which they've bought stunts. Do you do the same if they haven't spent any stunts on that weapon at all?I'd look at the situation. If the player doesn't have their Weapon:3 broadsword but can quickly and easily acquire a Weapon:2 short sword, no. If the player doesn't have their Weapon:3 broadsword, can't use their Superb Weapons skill, and have to make due with a Fair Fists rating for attack and defense, then yes.
And what about a werewolf trying to maintain a low profile? Do they get a fate point because they can't change shape in front of a crowd, therefore being unable to use the full range of their powers?Considering that likely amounts to being unable to use all if not most of their powers, yes--it's either a compel on their high concept, or of the crowd aspect.
Giving up your weapon on the entrance to a club, I would not see as a compel. It's the players choice if he wants to go in without a gun or not.
No, I think the compel should be done when it becomes a disadvantage. Having your gun taken as such is only a disadvantage if you get into a serious fight in the club. But if you go into the club, talk to someone, go out, I don't think that warrants a fate point for not having a weapon.Well, yeah. If the GM is compelling you having a gun or not, there needs to be some tangible result of that, otherwise it's just a free fate point. You compel it if it's going to matter. My players have already learned that a compel not to have their weapon/focus item/whatever means they're going to get attacked.
If anyone else is smuggling in their weapons (and you'd therefore need your weapons yourself), the PC should be able to do so as well. Maybe by enforcing a roll when he enters(for example stealth, deceit or resources), or buying out of the compel to not have a gun, when the shit hits the fan. Or maybe by invoking his "always packin'" aspect to declare that the bouncer didn't find the small gun he always carries on his ankle.Well, it all depends on the situation on this point. Is it a neutral ground? Then yes, the characters should have some opportunity to smuggle in if others are. If it's explicitly someone else's territory, it makes more sense for the "hosts" to be secretly armed while enforcing a weapons ban on everyone else.
It's a trivial endeavor--if you're supernatural. For normal mortals, it requires access to military hardware, explosives, or hitting someone with a car.
What weapon you have is dependent on what the player decides to bring. If losing the weapon isn't a compel, then what, exactly, is stopping them from bringing it somewhere?
Nothing says so in the rules, but consider this: No two of the listed canon stunts have the same condition.
A better gauge for how pure mortals kill things with Guns is Murphy...
For the ghouls, that's the thing--the ghoul has also spent refresh on fighting. More refresh than a pure mortal at the lowest level has, as I recall.
By "spending fate points" I mean doing things like making declarations, boosting an individual roll, and invoking scene aspects. To my reading, stunts aren't supposed to replicate powers in form or function--there's not supposed to be a "family" of stunts with requirements and stacking bonuses, so much as a stunt is supposed to be a particular situation in which the character has a slight edge.
"disarming" a PC is the aspect. It would be a maneuver that the NPC would place on the PC. He would then invoke that maneuver aspect to have the PC lose his weapon. This would be a compel that that the PC could refuse or accept.
Sorry, Mr. Death, I'm gonna have to do the quote-splitting thing again. Otherwise this would be too confusing.And Berserker comes with a penalty to defense--a tangible drawback. That's what makes it not-trivial to me. Most of the stunts that do boost stress either have a tangible drawback or limitation (Lethal Blows only works against the unarmored, so just about anything supernatural isn't going to feel it), or don't give the full +2 stress bonus.
Nope. Berserk + a big sword. Or any other +stress stunt paired with a good weapon.
I've got a request, and I'm not sure how to make it politely, so sorry if this is rude.A lot of the time, I'm writing these from someplace that I just don't have the books, so I generalize based on what I remember.
But please, read the rules before you talk about what they are. Because you keep on doing this. You keep on saying things that aren't true. Not because you lie, but because you don't check.
The actions of other characters.Well, no, because that's ridiculous. Few characters are going to build their whole fighting style around a rocket launcher.
Would you let a stunt-less character carry a rocket launcher everywhere without consequences? Would you consider it a Compel whenever a non-rocket-launcher appropriate situation came up? I would not.
Same goes for a broadsword, or a pistol, or a knife. And the same goes for characters with stunts.Not really, because they're completely different classes of weapons--one set you can reasonably have access too and therefore build a character around; one set you can't. I don't know about you, but if I'm being pushed into battle at a major disadvantage (like having to use a different, lower skill and no weapon rating), I'd want a fate point for it--because as was pointed out, it's limiting the character's choices, something that compels are explicitly for.
Weapon stunts don't include an extra benefit which makes the weapon a part of your character. They don't force the GM to use a Compel to separate your favourite weapon from you. If they did they would be unfair.And I think they're unfair if you're allowing just the weapon you're holding to give flat bonuses to every attack and defense with that weapon--and I've already explained my reasoning for compelling people to not take their weapons.
Don't make them unfair.
Nope. Archer and Way Of The Bow. On the same character (Lord Talos).Not the same condition--Archer is specific to Faerie-crafted bows.
Can you please check to make sure these things are true before you say them?
Everyone sensible kills things like that. Not just mortals.Yes, but my point is, mortals are consistently portrayed in the fiction and the descriptions in the rulebooks as needing to do all of that to fight supernatural--with these stunts, they don't. They can just wade in and win through sheer, simple, "I'm better than an immortal creature of the night."
What I was saying is that the mortal with spent Refresh should be better than the mortal without it at the thing the Refresh was spent on.Only when facing supernaturals, or with these stunts. Put it this way: They dodge from 5 and attack at 4 with +4 to stress. Without the stunts, by Submerged the pure mortal is swinging an attack and dodge rating of 5--meaning they've just then got good odds at hitting and avoiding hits. With these stunts, though, a Pure Mortal can be dodging from 6 and attacking from 5 with +5 to stress, at the lowest refresh level--meaning they've got a drastically reduced chance of being hit, pretty good odds at hitting, and every hit they make is going to cause a consequence. I just do not think that a Feet In The Water pure mortal should be able to just slug it out with a Ghoul. It's inconsistent with the setting.
And ghouls are good at fighting. All of their spent Refresh is useful in combat, though little of it is pure combat stuff.
But they're handicapped by the fact that they fight naked. So they're likely to lose against heavily-armed foes.
Powers are supposed to replicate stunts, actually. Says so in YS, on page 158.I'm reading the page, and I don't see that. I see where it says there are similarities, and that supernatural powers are "super-stunts," but nowhere that stunts are supposed to be able to match powers. In fact, it says the whole thing about prerequisites and that powers have multiple refresh is one of the big differences between mortal stunts and power, while the "families" of stunts I've seen are basically multiple-refresh stunts.
+2 is not a slight edge. You said so yourself, in reply #50. +2 isn't enough to put characters in different weight classes, but it's meaningful.It's a cumulative thing. A +2 for one roll out of 10 is a slight edge. A +2 on ten rolls out of ten is a distinct advantage.
And you just referred to stunts as spending Fate Points in reply #135. I don't think you can complain about me doing the same.Apologies. Sometimes I get Fate Points and Refresh conflated, and I'll try to keep them straighter from now on.
A lot of the time, I'm writing these from someplace that I just don't have the books, so I generalize based on what I remember.
Well, no, because that's ridiculous. Few characters are going to build their whole fighting style around a rocket launcher.
...That's what makes it not-trivial to me. Most of the stunts that do boost stress either have a tangible drawback or limitation (Lethal Blows only works against the unarmored, so just about anything supernatural isn't going to feel it), or don't give the full +2 stress bonus.
...
I don't know about you, but if I'm being pushed into battle at a major disadvantage (like having to use a different, lower skill and no weapon rating), I'd want a fate point for it--because as was pointed out, it's limiting the character's choices, something that compels are explicitly for.
And I think they're unfair if you're allowing just the weapon you're holding to give flat bonuses to every attack and defense with that weapon--and I've already explained my reasoning for compelling people to not take their weapons.
Not the same condition--Archer is specific to Faerie-crafted bows.
Nothing says so in the rules
And it's a OW-only stunt, so I have to ask for clarification here: Is it that OW is wrong about every PC and NPC, and therefore I cannot use them as evidence of what the game intends the monsters to be capable of? Or is OW right enough to be used as evidence when it supports your point?
Because you seem to be trying to have it both ways. When I point at something from OW, you dismiss it on the grounds that OW is inaccurate. And then you support your own argument with examples from OW.
Why spend any rounds maneuvering when, through your stunts, you're already getting a cumulative +3 on every attack?
I just do not think that a Feet In The Water pure mortal should be able to just slug it out with a Ghoul. It's inconsistent with the setting.
And all of that refresh spent that's useful in combat makes the ghoul potentially less effective in combat in an objective sense than a character who, by the rulebook's description, has only just now started getting into the supernatural scene?
That's like a professional sports player being objectively worse than a kid on a freshman high school team.
I'm reading the page, and I don't see that. I see where it says there are similarities, and that supernatural powers are "super-stunts," but nowhere that stunts are supposed to be able to match powers. In fact, it says the whole thing about prerequisites and that powers have multiple refresh is one of the big differences between mortal stunts and power, while the "families" of stunts I've seen are basically multiple-refresh stunts.
Apologies. Sometimes I get Fate Points and Refresh conflated, and I'll try to keep them straighter from now on.
I would totally make a character whose fighting style was rocket launcher based. That should not give me the right to take a rocket launcher everywhere.An insufficient one. That is the issue here.
Okay, this is half of the issue in a nutshell.
Stunts have limitations. "Only works with weapon type X" is a limitation.
Sometimes you can't bring your bazooka onto the plane, sometimes your sword is useless because your foe is flying, and so on. This will sometimes, but not always, be a Compel.I haven't changed anything. The rulebook says that a compel happens when an aspect--be it a character's aspect or the scene's aspect--makes it so that a character's choices are limited or their life is complicated in some way.
But for whatever reason, you've changed that. You've made it essentially impossible to deprive people of their chosen weapons. This breaks the stunts founded upon that limitation.
An aspect can also allow you to gain more fate
points by bringing complications and troubling
circumstances into your character’s life.
...
When she
compels one of your aspects, she’s indicating that
your character is in a position where the aspect
could create a problem or a difficult choice.
...
There are a few ways an aspect can complicate
a character’s life via compels: it limits the
responses available to a character in a certain
situation, it introduces unintended complications
into a scene, or it provides the inspiration
for a plot development or a scene hook for that
character.
You should recognize that this issue is caused by your approach and not by some foundational truth of the system.I'm using Compels for exactly the sort of thing that the book explicitly says Compels are for. It's not "my approach" that's the problem.
(The other half of the issue is that you want OW characters to be challenging foes for serious combatants, which they generally are not. And you don't want to change things to make them so.)This whole thing stems from homebrewed stunts. Not something that already exists in the books, but stunts you and others have come up with. OW characters are supposed to be challenging foes--it's these stunts that make it such that they're not even challenging to completely unpowered mortals at the lowest refresh level.
One condition is a strict subset of the other. Don't nitpick like this, okay? The stacking that you were trying to claim does not occur, occurs.It's still not the same condition. There's some overlap, but it's not the same condition.
Honestly, though, I don't much care about the example. For me the whole argument is settled byNo, not really. There's also nothing in the rules saying that you can have multiple stunts with the same condition. And the rules against stacking imply there shouldn't be, or at the very least that they should have reduced bonuses.
I just brought it up because you said something demonstrably untrue.
OW is full of problems. But it is canon.That's where we disagree. OW didn't list all the creatures for shits and giggles, it's listed because that's how the monsters are supposed to be portrayed.
So it's not good to use it as evidence for how things should be. I try to avoid doing that.
But it is nonetheless a fact that it exists. So when you ask if X exists or say Y doesn't exist, I'll tell you if X and Y are in OW.
Does that make sense?
Because that is often not enough.And with these stunts, it's enough more often than it should be.
Okay.Because of these stunts.
Regardless of how things should be, a Feet In The Water pure mortal can just slug it out with a Ghoul.
The rules are what they are. When I don't like them I change them; I suggest you do the same.And I'm saying you're interpreting the rules wrong, and allowing stunts that abuse the rules in order to give more of an advantage than they should. I'm not talking about changing any rules. I'm talking about following the ones in the book. Where we disagree is that you think the type of weapon is enough of a limitation for the full power of a stunt, and I do not.
A professional sprinter is likely to lose a fight with a freshman fencer who has a sword.Well, no. Not at all. Because a ghoul isn't only a good runner. It's, in this analogy, a professional sprinter who's also a boxing champion.
Kinda the same situation here. The mortal is incredibly specialized in straight-up fighting with a single weapon. The ghoul isn't, so in a straight-up fight where you can choose your weapons it will probably lose.
But since it has superior initiative and is a really fast runner, it can basically just leave the fight whenever it cares to. And it will heal from its injuries unreasonably fast. So even if the mortal is better in a straight fight, the ghoul is likely to come out ahead unless it's dumb.Ghouls, in the fiction and the write-up, are supposed to excel at physical fighting. Being big, tough killers who are hard to hit and harder to survive a fight with is their whole deal. They're meant to be a threat to mortals even at high levels, and with these stunts, even a novice in the world of the supernatural can deal with them just through trading blows, and that is inconsistent with the setting.
I didn't say anything about being equal in power. I was just pointing out that the form and function of Powers is directly based on that of stunts.Based on, but still fundamentally different. Powers are meant to build on each other. Stunts are explicitly not supposed to stack with the full benefit. In the homebrew thread, there are several stunts that require another stunt, or which build directly off another stunt--that, to me, is having your cake and eating it too.
I was trying to say, I agree with your conflation. Don't feel obligated to avoid it.But what I'm trying to say is that spending a fate point for an invoke in a fight is different from having spent refresh on a stunt. A single fate point for a bonus is a +2 to one roll. A single refresh spent on one of these stunts is a bonus to every roll.
This whole thing stems from homebrewed stunts. Not something that already exists in the books, but stunts you and others have come up with. OW characters are supposed to be challenging foes--it's these stunts that make it such that they're not even challenging to completely unpowered mortals at the lowest refresh level.
It's still not the same condition. There's some overlap, but it's not the same condition.
No, not really. There's also nothing in the rules saying that you can have multiple stunts with the same condition. And the rules against stacking imply there shouldn't be, or at the very least that they should have reduced bonuses.
That's where we disagree. OW didn't list all the creatures for shits and giggles, it's listed because that's how the monsters are supposed to be portrayed.
Based on, but still fundamentally different. Powers are meant to build on each other. Stunts are explicitly not supposed to stack with the full benefit. In the homebrew thread, there are several stunts that require another stunt, or which build directly off another stunt--that, to me, is having your cake and eating it too.
Some stunts may have prerequisites (other stunts or even aspects).
If the effect of the stunt is really unusual or particularly potent, it may be some-where down the line in a chain of stunts.
But what I'm trying to say is that spending a fate point for an invoke in a fight is different from having spent refresh on a stunt. A single fate point for a bonus is a +2 to one roll. A single refresh spent on one of these stunts is a bonus to every roll.
@Mojosilver: I'm not sure what you're trying to say, there. Could you explain further?We started out chest-deep (8 Refresh, 30 skill points) and have played long enough to earn another point of refresh and three skill points. I think our skill cap is Superb (+5).
@blackstaff67: I haven't seen your character sheets, but I suppose it's possible that you've handicapped your characters even more than Evil Hat handicapped the stuff in OW. The bit about the gun-wizard makes it sound that way.
I suspect that power levels are indeed racially different in my games.
Though I admit it's possible that they intended for optimized characters to shred everything in OW without effort. I don't know why they'd intend that, but it's not impossible that they would.
I think if home-brewed stunts are causing issues with balance, then the fault lies with the stunts, not the stats in OW.
I'm not saying that not being able to use your favoured weapon can't be a Compel.This whole time you've been acting as if me saying that preventing someone from using a weapon through a compel is some gross breaking of the rules through which I'm totally wrecking the balance of the game.
I'm saying it doesn't have to be.
It's a common Compel and a good one. But there are non-Compel situations where you have to go without a (specific) weapon. And having a bunch of stunts that make those situations worse for you does not make them into Compels.
As I keep saying, completely unpowered mortals can run over most of OW using canon stunts or no stunts at all.Yes, but there's a significant difference between a mortal who has to nudge the dice on key rolls with a fate point, make declarations and maneuvers, and one who can just hit attack-attack-attack and plow over monsters that are supposed to be difficult and deadly, without any real effort on the player's part.
If you want, I can demonstrate.
100% of the time he uses Archer, Way Of The Bow will apply. 95% of the time he uses Way Of The Bow, Archer will apply.I'm curious where you're getting that 95%.
There's nothing in the rules saying you can name your character Steve, either. But I'm pretty sure you can.You know what I mean.
And the rules against stacking apply only if the benefits are stacking. Which they aren't.Yeah, they are. One stunt gives a +1 to every swing of the weapon. Another stunt gives a +2 on every successful hit--which is going to be more often with that +1. So on a single hit, the character is getting the full benefit of +3 to stress. Both bonuses applying to the same roll, with the full benefit, no drawback whatsoever.
Evil Hat makes mistakes, you know.There's a world of difference between, "They make mistakes," and "Everything in this rulebook can be thrown out because it's all wrong."
Though I admit it's possible that they intended for optimized characters to shred everything in OW without effort. I don't know why they'd intend that, but it's not impossible that they would.
Yes, that is how stunts work.Right. Spending a fate point to nudge a roll is different from spending a refresh to nudge every roll. The price for being able to nudge every roll is that the bonus isn't going to apply the majority of the time. With these stunts, the bonus is going to apply nearly all the time.
I'm still curious about whether Mr Death applies this only to combat skills, or you give your players Fate Points every time they're in a situation where their best skills either don't apply or can't be used for some reason. Like a hacker who can't get to a computer to override a building's security, a fighter pilot in a fist fight indoors, someone with Superb Resources being unable to bribe an enemy, or if an expert swordsman is ambushed by a sniper and can't get close enough to fight hand to hand.It's not so much about being in a situation where the best skill doesn't apply, so much as being in a situation where the best skill would apply but doesn't because of some factor. The fighter pilot in the fist fight wouldn't get a compel because there's really no way for his fighter pilot skills to apply--but he would get a compel if he was forced to fly some huge jalopy of a plane instead of his F16. I'd consider the expert swordsman vs. sniper to be a compel because the sniper's apparently taking deliberate, tangible advantage of the swordsman's limitations--the swordsman is in a situation where his options are more limited than if, say, he'd gone to the shooting range a little more often.
That is, your focus appears to be on compensating players for a tactical disadvantage, whereas my understanding of compels is that they are intended to change the story in interesting ways that put the player at a disadvantage. Not being able to use a particular stunt doesn't change the story.I consider that a narrow view. And they're really one in the same. A tactical advantage can and does definitely affect the story.
Wizards do not seem all that better to me.
Okay, I see where you're coming from. I'd be more inclined to look at sneaking around the security desk, etc, as a decision the players can make on their own. I wouldn't expect them to buy off a compel just to have the option of trying to find another way through.Certainly, you could do it either way--but buying off the compel wouldn't be to have the option of trying, it would mean they get it through. Remember, either roll, or compel, not both. For me, it'd depend partly on the nature of the character--a sneaking-inclined character might have it as a straight challenge to get through. A sword-wielding bruiser who couldn't sneak his way out of a paper bag would be compelled.
Of course, a player could just accept the compel, then use the Fate Point they got to declare that they find a weapon once the fighting starts.Which is, effectively, the same as buying out, cost wise.
Do you give Fate Points to your villains when your players get them into situations where they can't use their abilities against them? That would seem to be the fair thing.I would, but my players rarely seem to set up those kinds of situations. It's a tactic I've been trying to break them into.
I don't agree that the rules insist every occassion where someone's primary fighting skill is hindered is a compel, but that's because I don't agree that such a thing counts as being part of a scene's Aspects.Could be a scene aspect. It could be an invoke of the character's aspect. Or it could be an invoke on a maneuver. There's plenty of ways it could go down.
Absolutely the unarmed, injured swordsman is going to have a different story to the armed, uninjured one, but no more different than if he'd been armed and faced with an opponent who was proportionally better enough to injure him just as much.Oh, I can see differences happening. In the former, he might look into finding other ways to defend himself, or having a spare weapon. In the latter, he might devote himself even further to training with the sword, or with defeating this specific opponent.
Whereas if Master Swordsman is commanded to hand over his sword, and the GM compels his "My Sword Is My Life" Aspect to make him refuse, and instead a fight breaks out and he offends the Freeholding Lord the group is visiting, that creates a whole series events which would not have happened under any other circumstances.I see no reason why you can't do both, or why the option of doing one has an effect on doing the other. Compels are about choice and conflict, but they're also about complication--if a Master Swordsman is up against three ghouls without his sword, his life is definitely more complicated--potentially shorter, too.
Do you see what I'm getting at? One use of a compel just offsets potential injury and influences how effective the character will be. The other creates new conflict and drama that otherwise did not exist. Compels are entirely about choice and conflict. With your example, the conflict was already there. The fight was going to happen anyway. The only choice is whether the player wants to go into it with their stunt bonus or an extra Fate Point.
The only part of DFRPG I can think of that fits the idea of giving Fate Points when a player can't use an ability is when magic-users can't use their magic because of running water, and even that's only loosely defined. Even thresholds don't count as compels because the value of the threshold simply becomes a penalty to using powers. There's no mention in YS about giving a White Court Vampire a Fate Point when they cross a threshold without an invitation and therefore can't use their powers.I seem to remember YS calling things like that compels against the high concept in general, just like using iron against a Fae is a compel against their high concept.
Buying out of a compel does not necessarily mean that the complication of the Compel does not happen.Beat me to it. Buying out of a compel doesn't negate the situation, it's up to the group as a whole to come up with what happens next. Maybe a character with holy powers just doesn't trip the metal dectectors. Maybe a player who has an aspect "I know a guy for that" knows the head of security there. Maybe a particularly stealthy player finds a way to get around security entirely.
It can simply mean that it somehow doesn't negatively impact their activities despite happening exactly as described.
So they go through airport security, having left their weapons behind.
Sometime before combat becomes reasonably likely, they manage to bribe a security agent, gaining access to new weapons which sufficiently suit their purposes.
Or, as Harry, Michael, and Sanya manage in the novels, they find a way around security and never have to leave their weapons behind in the first place.
Or something else creative that my brain is too mushy to come up with right now.
An aspect can also allow you to gain more fate
points by bringing complications and troubling
circumstances into your character’s life.
...
When she
compels one of your aspects, she’s indicating that
your character is in a position where the aspect
could create a problem or a difficult choice.
...
There are a few ways an aspect can complicate
a character’s life via compels: it limits the
responses available to a character in a certain
situation, it introduces unintended complications
into a scene, or it provides the inspiration
for a plot development or a scene hook for that
character.
@Mr. D: I think the issue with the compel is you're implying you're doing compels that are in no way tied to any aspects. If there is no proper aspect to use then a compel doesn't happen. It's easy enough for a GM to always make sure there is an appropriate aspect to do so. But fact is the GM doesn't need to lean on the compel mechanic to seperate a player from his weapon any more than he does a wizard from his foci.I don't mean to imply that at all. As you point out, it's easy for a GM to make sure there's an appropriate aspect.
In short, if a player doesn't want to tie his weapon to an aspect. He doesn't get the luxury of a FP every time you make it difficult to use said weapon.
Also, Mr. Death, When you quoted this:No, the rules are perfectly clear that you can issue compels for scene aspects. It just doesn't say it in the bit I quoted.
I think you missed this part: compels one of your aspects
The rules say nothing about issuing comels for scene aspects
No, the rules are perfectly clear that you can issue compels for scene aspects. It just doesn't say it in the bit I quoted.I am looking through the compels section and all ones related to it and have yet to find that bit. If you could point me in that direction when you get a chance that would be great.
Compelling
Other Aspects
Being able to interact with the aspects of
others creates a powerful opportunity for the
clever player to set up another character to be
compelled.
If you are aware of and can access anseems to say that you need to know aspects of the players.
aspect on another character or NPC, you may
spend a fate point to try to trigger the circumstances
of a compel (see page 100) on the target.
Scene CompelsBut this seems like a silly thing to have affect one person as they specifically mention mass compels.
Scene aspects may imply some circumstances
that will befall any (or many) of the characters
in the scene—Everything Is Burning! is
a classic example and a frequent aspect in any
scene involving Harry Dresden. In such a case,
it’s entirely apropos to act as if that aspect is on
each character’s sheet and compel (see page 100)
the aspect for each of them, dishing fate points
all around and nicely covering the effects the
aspect has on the characters in the scene.
Technically speaking, a player could try to use
a scene aspect to initiate a mass compel, but it’d
be a pretty expensive proposition—he’d have to
spend a fate point for every character he wants
to be affected by the compel.
I don't mean to imply that at all. As you point out, it's easy for a GM to make sure there's an appropriate aspect.If I'm not misunderstanding you, the difference between the two scenarios is this:
What I keep coming back to is, really, DFRPG seems to me a game that tries to eliminate straight GM fiat as much as possible. So I figure when a GM says something like, "You can't bring a sword in there," the player will ask "Why?" The answer is usually along the lines of, "This place doesn't allow weapons," which is more or less the same as saying "This place has the aspect 'No Weapons Allowed'."
The player is going to want to keep his weapon--after all, it's got his apex skill on it, and he's invested these stunts that make him very powerful with this weapon. So what happens when the player wants to keep the weapon? Even if it's not a compel, the player can spend a fate point for a declaration to keep it...which works out to about the same thing as buying out of a compel.
Lavecki: +1 to the attack isn't gamebreaking, but it's the highest an attack stunt can be, for what I see as extremely easy circumstances--in effect, it's a flat +1 bonus to the skill. Same with the stress bonus--it's going to be used in the vast majority of rolls, and stunts are not supposed to be something that adds a bonus every time. It's supposed to be situational, and to my reading, just the weapon type is not nearly rare enough of a "situation" to justify the full bonus.
No, the rules are perfectly clear that you can issue compels for scene aspects. It just doesn't say it in the bit I quoted.
The difference being that there would be no situation B. Also I feel there are many situation where a PC would not have their weapon. Its the same as not having your cell phone or not having your car. It is probably in a reasonably accessable place, but you simply dont have it all the time.Scenario B is perfectly viable and breaks no rules I'm aware of. The GM isn't required to make scene aspects, and isn't requred to compel every time he puts a choice in front of the players.
This whole time you've been acting as if me saying that preventing someone from using a weapon through a compel is some gross breaking of the rules through which I'm totally wrecking the balance of the game.
I'm curious where you're getting that 95%.
You know what I mean.
Yeah, they are. One stunt gives a +1 to every swing of the weapon. Another stunt gives a +2 on every successful hit...
There's a world of difference between, "They make mistakes," and "Everything in this rulebook can be thrown out because it's all wrong."
And if I had to guess, I'd say they weren't writing the rulebook for optimized characters at all. They were writing it to try and accurately model the monsters in the books, possibly with an eye toward what the average character would be capable of.
I am sorry that my example was not understandable. Sorry all I will try again.
One thing is that when you attack and hit your target. Ever attack point above your target's defend is damage. Then you add your weapon rating to the damage you have already done. Where as in something like D&D you have a attack rating to decide if you hit. Then a Damage rating to decide how much damage you do. What I am trying to say is if Murphy attacks someone with a pistol weapon rating 2. Her guns skill in Our World is Great:4. Now she roll and only gets 4. She gets no plus or minus to her skill from that roll. The defender rolls 1. Because Murphy's attack is 3 over the defender's defense she does 3 stress plus her pistol's weapon rating of 2 for a total of 5 stress. So a pistol can do more damage then say a M60 in the hands the of a of a skilled user or more to the point. A bullet to the head from a pistol kills and a bullet from a M60 to the foot hurts but may not kill you.
The other thing is in Your Story page 251. In the "what you can do with it " for evocation example. Harry attacks a red vampire. His player—Jim—decides he doesn’t want to mess around with this thing too much, so he chooses to summon up 8 shifts of power for the spell. Harry has a power specialization in fire magic, so his Conviction is treated as Fantastic (+6) for the purposes of the spell. That means that casting this spell will give him a 3-stress mental hit—one stress for everything up to 6, and then two more to get to 8.The difficulty to cast the spell is Legendary (+8). That’s high, but fortunately Harry’s blasting rod gives him a +1 to control, so Jim starts by rolling his Discipline at Great (+4). He gets a +2, for a total of Fantastic (+6), and invokes Harry’s Wizard Private Eye aspect to give him +2 more. This controls all the power necessary for the spell, and aims the spell at his target at +8. Harry yells “Fuego!” as he points his blasting rod, sending a column of flame at the vampire, an attack at Legendary rated at Weapon:8. The vampire rolls to defend against Harry’s roll of Legendary and gets a Great (+4), which means the blast strikes home and inflicts a 12-stress hit on him (4 for the attack, 8 for the weapon value). The vampire’s Inhuman Toughness reduces this to 11 stress, and the vampire takes a severe consequence of Extra Crispy and a 5-stress physical hit.
In above example. Harry's spell is an attack at 8 and Weapon is rated at 8. So the vampire rolls to defend against Harry’s attack of 8 and gets a Great (+4), which means the blast strikes home and inflicts a 12-stress hit on him (4 for the attack, 8 for the weapon value). The thing is to do that damage Harry took 3 mental stress to do it and spent a Fate point. Yes he may have taken down the red vampire one hit, one round (maybe) and yes stoping a attacker before they hit you is a good thing. But who is to say someone like Thomas could not do the same damage. Yes it would take a round or two longer but he would not need the fate point like Harry did and maybe even with out the 3 stress Harry took. Not saying Thomas may not spend a fate or take stress. Only saying you he may not. So a wizard the may win in first, second, or even the third round of combat. But can anyone say a super like Thomas or even a mortal like Murphy can not do the same if only taking a round or to more to do it and with out the mental stress wizard takes to cast evocation spells. True Thomas or Murphy could get hit for stress but Harry took or maybe even more and maybe not. You never know how it will be. But to me wizards are not better or worse.
At least that is what I get from the rules.
Hope that was more understandable Sanctaphrax. ;D
But like I said, this is all different play styles. Most gaming groups have their own houserules and interpretations of core rules. It's a bad idea to assume everyone else follows the same interpretation, or that they even should do so.
It says "any or many". If a scene aspect is only affecting some of the characters--i.e., if the aspect is "Heavy Security" and only one or two of the characters carry any sort of weapon--then yes, it makes perfect sense to compel some and not others.Quote from: YS 107Scene Compels
Scene aspects may imply some circumstances
that will befall any (or many) of the characters
in the scene—Everything Is Burning! is
a classic example and a frequent aspect in any
scene involving Harry Dresden. In such a case,
it’s entirely apropos to act as if that aspect is on
each character’s sheet and compel (see page 100)
the aspect for each of them, dishing fate points
all around and nicely covering the effects the
aspect has on the characters in the scene.
Technically speaking, a player could try to use
a scene aspect to initiate a mass compel, but it’d
be a pretty expensive proposition—he’d have to
spend a fate point for every character he wants
to be affected by the compel.
What?Yes. My point is you'd been acting one way about my suggestion about compels, then you said something else that contradicted it. Earlier in the thread, this is how you referred to me issuing compels for depriving people of their weapons:
That sentence doesn't quite make grammatical sense to me. I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
It looks like you might be saying that I've been saying that weapon-deprivation is a balance-wreaking Compel. But you quoted me saying the opposite, so...what do you mean?
But for whatever reason, you've changed that. You've made it essentially impossible to deprive people of their chosen weapons. This breaks the stunts founded upon that limitation.
You should recognize that this issue is caused by your approach and not by some foundational truth of the system.
It would take a pretty weird series of events to put him in a situation where he can get a human bow and not a fey one.Eh, not necessarily. Bows take time to make, so even if he is an expert bow maker, he might need a bow now. Or so might anyone else with those stunts.
Page 147 defines stacking as adding in the same way to the outcome. Accuracy and stress are clearly different ways. Definition not satisfied.Except they affect the end result the same way--by adding stress. And they have the exact same condition, a condition that is going to apply the vast majority of the time that skill is used, something that stunts are not supposed to do.
It's a possibility.To some extent, yes--PCs are supposed to be above average, so it's reasonable to me that they'd be able to fight and win against a relatively common supernatural creature like a Red Court Vampire or a Ghoul--but there's a difference between able to fight and win and guaranteed to fight and win. These stunts push it firmly in the latter category when taken together.
But accepting that interpretation leads directly to the conclusion that Evil Hat intended Feet In The Water mortals to shred vampires and Ghouls in duels. Because with the stats in OW, semi-optimized Feet In The Water mortals can do exactly that.
I wouldn't agree that players being told a place has a no-weapons policy is GM fiat, not in the slightest. GM fiat is the GM making a ruling that ignores game mechanics, like deciding an opponent automatically hits in combat or hides without letting the players roll to spot them. GM fiat is definitely not creating elements of the setting and having the NPCs act in accordance with those elements by refusing to let a character enter an establishment while armed.Saying the place has a no-weapons policy isn't GM fiat, no. Nor is the GM saying the NPCs won't let them in without weapons. When it comes to GM fiat is when the GM declares that the players just cannot take in the weapons no matter what they do--there's a game mechanic in place for creating that kind of complication and disadvantage (compels), and just declaring that your character can't get them in is ignoring that.
What it comes down to is that I see compels as ways of influencing character decisions and circumstance. The Aspect "By The Book" could be compelled to force a character to hand over weapons in situations where they're not allowed to have them. A scene Aspect "No Guns Policy" is, going by the guidelines in YS, a pretty poor and uninteresting Aspect. It adds no flavour to the scene.I disagree. Being armed or not is plenty of flavor--a character who's armed when going in to meet a mob boss is going to act differently than one who knows he's not armed but everyone else is.
I'd happily toss my players a Fate Point for good roleplaying or cool one-liners, but I don't see the need to do so every time they find themselves unable to fight at the top of their game, and for sure I don't consider it a compel, not according to the rules as written. That's just how my group and I interpret the rules and like the game to be.That's fair, but again, I'm not saying "every time they find themselves unable to fight at the top of their game." I'm saying it's when they could and would, but something is forcing them not to.
I've already done the math on this. Without the stunts, even a Submerged mortal has to get creative if he wants to take out a Ghoul without getting hurt--either through invoking scene aspects, his own aspects, making maneuvers, or doing other preparatory or support actions. With the stunts, even a Feet In The Water mortal only has to swing his sword because this just-found-out-the-supernatural-exists beginner is a better and stronger fighter than a supernaturally powerful monster.
Saying the place has a no-weapons policy isn't GM fiat, no. Nor is the GM saying the NPCs won't let them in without weapons. When it comes to GM fiat is when the GM declares that the players just cannot take in the weapons no matter what they do--there's a game mechanic in place for creating that kind of complication and disadvantage (compels), and just declaring that your character can't get them in is ignoring that.
Can you show this math again. Assuming everyone rolls at 0?Honestly, I would probably use GM veto rights if someone made a declairation that they find a weapon minutes after giving up theirs. Especially after it's already been established that everyone inside has had to give up their weapons as well, not just the players.
True but what is the effect of them buying off the compel? What happens if they accept the compel then spend it to find another weapon (which has been pointed out to cost less)? Why would a character go through the front enterance with their weapon if they know there is a no weapons policy? Are you still compelling them on the no weapons policy if they try to sneak in the back?
Can you show this math again. Assuming everyone rolls at 0?A ghoul's attack skill is at 4, their defense is at 5, and they do Weapon:4 damage.
True but what is the effect of them buying off the compel? What happens if they accept the compel then spend it to find another weapon (which has been pointed out to cost less)? Why would a character go through the front enterance with their weapon if they know there is a no weapons policy? Are you still compelling them on the no weapons policy if they try to sneak in the back?Could be any number of things if they buy off a compel--maybe they intimidate the bouncer out of frisking them. Maybe they bribe the bouncer. Maybe they just tell them to go fornicate with themselves and walk in anyway.
A ghoul's attack skill is at 4, their defense is at 5, and they do Weapon:4 damage.
At Feet in the Water, without stunts, a mortal can have his attack and defense at 4, and Weapon:3. Rolling evenly, the ghoul is dodging, while the mortal is taking 4 stress the first hit, and a consequence every hit after. If the mortal wants to have a chance, he's got to either be very lucky, or pull a few tricks.
With the stunts, a Feet in the Water mortal is attacking at 5, defending at 6, and with Weapon:5. This means he's dodging all the ghoul's attacks, and every attack he lands is causing a consequence. The mortal has to do little else besides just swing his sword.
At Submerged, without the stunts, the Pure Mortal can be attacking and defending at 5, with Weapon:3. Meaning if everyone's rolling zero, it's still taking several rounds for him to even injure a ghoul--if he wants to end the fight quickly, he's got to pull some kind of tricks.
Could be any number of things if they buy off a compel--maybe they intimidate the bouncer out of frisking them. Maybe they bribe the bouncer. Maybe they just tell them to go fornicate with themselves and walk in anyway.
They might not know there is a no weapons policy until they get there, and it may not be a meeting where they can sneak in. If they do sneak in, that might engender complications in itself, so it might well be a compel. You send a different message when you come in the front door (you're expected, you're okay with being seen, so on some level you're, well, on the level) than when you sneak in the back (you want to be unseen, with your weapons, implying you're planning to gank someone).
As for finding the weapon later, yeah, it depends on plausibility. If it's something where nobody at all is supposed to have weapons, there'd need to be justification. If it's just the players who're disarmed, then they could grab one from a mook.
So at FiW with stunts the character is 1 better than the submerged without stunts and only in defense. Also assuming that everyone always rolls zero, the ghoul will never hit the submerged character in the same way that the FiW character will never hit the ghoul.The character is one better in defense and two better in stress dealt. A FiW character is causing stress with the first attack, while the Submerged one without stunts is taking three rounds to do the same. Yes, we're assuming everyone's rolling zero, but that's still three rounds where he's being attacked. One thing I've found is able to harm even the most difficult-to-hit character is sheer volume of attacks.
Why not just play this out instead of making it a ton of compels? There are social rules for a reason.Maybe because any conflict takes time to play out--even what should be one-round quickie takedowns have, in my experience, taken a lot longer because the dice refuse to cooperate--and the real point of the scene is what's going on inside the club. Making the interaction just a compel moves things along to the real meat quicker.
Again why is there a need for the compel then? The situation should dictate the actions. Not the other way around.I really don't understand what you're getting at here. The narrative is entirely in the characters' hands--if they want to keep the weapons and they pay off the compel, they have plenty of input on how and why that happens.
If there is a club with "No Weapons Allowed" aspect. The characters walk up to the front and you are compeling them to give up their weapons. This sort of takes narrative away from the characters by forcing them to decide before they could reasonably figure out what to do.
In the same situation they walk up to the club and the guard says "no weapons" then the characters play out what to do (which would inevitably be the same as the buy off) If they are not social characters then they probably have to end up spending FP to win the social combat anyway.Because spending a long time arguing with the bouncer isn't the reason I'm sending them to this club.
The character is one better in defense and two better in stress dealt. A FiW character is causing stress with the first attack, while the Submerged one without stunts is taking three rounds to do the same. Yes, we're assuming everyone's rolling zero, but that's still three rounds where he's being attacked. One thing I've found is able to harm even the most difficult-to-hit character is sheer volume of attacks.
Maybe because any conflict takes time to play out--even what should be one-round quickie takedowns have, in my experience, taken a lot longer because the dice refuse to cooperate--and the real point of the scene is what's going on inside the club. Making the interaction just a compel moves things along to the real meat quicker.
Yes, there is a system for social interactions, but that doesn't mean everything has to be done through it.
I really don't understand what you're getting at here. The narrative is entirely in the characters' hands--if they want to keep the weapons and they pay off the compel, they have plenty of input on how and why that happens.
Because spending a long time arguing with the bouncer isn't the reason I'm sending them to this club.
Im pretty sure that the submerged character is dealing stress on the first attack by your stats....Sorry, I meant consequence instead of stress there.
True, but thats the players choice to sit there and argue with the bouncer instead of just giving up the weapons. They dont have to have a long drawn out situation like that unless they want to.Itbeen my experience that most players don't want to spend a whole time dealing with a low level goon when they know the big boss is waiting for them through the next door. And it's not tactically sensible either--they risk spending more fate points, taking social stress and consequences dealing with the goon, then have to go into social conflict with the boss at a disadvantage because of that? As a player or GM, I'd much rather just get it out of the way to get to the real point of the scene.
Sorry, I meant consequence instead of stress there.
It been my experience that most players don't want to spend a whole time dealing with a low level goon when they know the big boss is waiting for them through the next door. And it's not tactically sensible either--they risk spending more fate points, taking social stress and consequences dealing with the goon, then have to go into social conflict with the boss at a disadvantage because of that? As a player or GM, I'd much rather just get it out of the way to get to the real point of the scene.
And seriously, I've had conflicts long and drawn out that neither the players nor I wanted, just because the dice weren't cooperating. I've had it happen where mooks with a defense of 1 and only two stress boxes--who shouldn't have lasted a full round--kept getting lucky with the dice and took four or five rounds to bring down.
Ok yes. That makes sense. But still, I believe you are arguing on the stacking of these stunts? If so the FIW character hits the same as a Submerged with one stunt, and the Submerged causes consequences on first swing with one stunt.I'm arguing that the stunts act as a flat, continuous bonus to nearly every usage of a given skill, something that the Stunt guidelines say they're not supposed to be. That the stunts, effectively, just inflate the skill rating rather than being situational bonuses.
All things being equal the ghoul should probably take some stunts.The ghoul already has. It's taken several refresh worth of powers in order to hit harder and be harder to hit than mortal creatures. And it's being overwhelmed almost completely by someone who is, per the rulebook, just a beginner in the supernatural.
Thats kind of my point. Why should they waste their time arguing with the goon to keep their weapons when this drains their health and resources when they could just give up their weapons and have more stress and FP at their disposal.You're missing my point. I'm saying why make it a social conflict at all when it's just going to bog down the session and keep you from getting to the real reason that they're going to this place? Making it a compel gives at least some incentive/compensation to the players for playing along, and just moves the whole thing along quicker.
You're missing my point. I'm saying why make it a social conflict at all when it's just going to bog down the session and keep you from getting to the real reason that they're going to this place? Making it a compel gives at least some incentive/compensation to the players for playing along, and just moves the whole thing along quicker.If you don't want to get bogged down by the situation, just don't. I would probably just let them go into the club without even thinking about their weapons, and when they are inside and start to take things apart and I don't like it, that's where I would bring in the compel and say "well guys, don't you think a club like this would be a weapon free zone? You'll get a fate point if you deal with this in a different way." That's a great way to bring it in as a compel.
So at FiW with stunts the character is 1 better than the submerged without stunts and only in defense. Also assuming that everyone always rolls zero, the ghoul will never hit the submerged character in the same way that the FiW character will never hit the ghoul.I'm not sure I follow your reasoning about the compels. By definition all compels force players into making a decision on the spot.
Why not just play this out instead of making it a ton of compels? There are social rules for a reason.
Again why is there a need for the compel then? The situation should dictate the actions. Not the other way around.
If there is a club with "No Weapons Allowed" aspect. The characters walk up to the front and you are compeling them to give up their weapons. This sort of takes narrative away from the characters by forcing them to decide before they could reasonably figure out what to do.
In the same situation they walk up to the club and the guard says "no weapons" then the characters play out what to do (which would inevitably be the same as the buy off) If they are not social characters then they probably have to end up spending FP to win the social combat anyway.
Ok, preferring a chronological order, that I understand. Though fate handles that kind of retcon pretty well, I think.I'm pretty against retroactive compelling, it just feels like a bait and switch. The players depend on the GM to give them a clear and concise idea of the situation. Retconned compels could also potentially make any declairations or maneuvers made entirely useless, complicating things even further.
Yes. My point is you'd been acting one way about my suggestion about compels, then you said something else that contradicted it...
Except they affect the end result the same way--by adding stress...
To some extent, yes--PCs are supposed to be above average, so it's reasonable to me that they'd be able to fight and win against a relatively common supernatural creature like a Red Court Vampire or a Ghoul--but there's a difference between able to fight and win and guaranteed to fight and win. These stunts push it firmly in the latter category when taken together.
I think I see the misunderstanding here. Dunno whose fault it is, but you've got the wrong idea of what I was trying to say throughout the thread.The difference there though is that the player has spend a FP every timethey want to invoke a "Master of Blades" aspect for a +2. Which we all agree is perfectly acceptable. As FP are a limited resource.
What I was trying to say is that some parts of the game's balance require it to be possible for a PC to be deprived of an item without a Compel.
That's what makes an IoP not free Refresh.
Adding accuracy and adding weapon ratings are pretty clearly different ways to add to the same outcome. The rest of this bit has been addressed earlier in the thread.
Nah, you're still not guaranteed. A flukey roll can ruin your day.
And even without stunts, no creativity is needed for a fairly certain win. Just have an Aspect that mentions your weapon of choice and invoke that with the FP you could have spent on stunts.
The difference there though is that the player has spend a FP every timethey want to invoke a "Master of Blades" aspect for a +2. Which we all agree is perfectly acceptable. As FP are a limited resource.
Mr.D's objection sums up as making a character that makes stunts that are essentially "I get a free invoke without needing a FP or aspect every time I swing a bladed weapon" is isn't restrictive enough. Which in a lot of ways I tend to agree.
To be honest, if a particular social interaction is bogging down play, it shouldn't be a conflict or a compel. It should just be the GM deciding on whatever outcome best suits the story.The distinction is that just because an NPC says "you can't come in without weapons" doesn't mean the PCs have to listen to him.
Now, the GM not letting players take in weapons is very different from NPCs not letting them take in weapons. I'm curious about how the distinction would play out, because I'd be very inclined to have the NPCs enforce such rules well before the GM saying "you don't have your weapons."
I personally wouldn't enforce such rules without NPCs there to do it.
The distinction is that just because an NPC says "you can't come in without weapons" doesn't mean the PCs have to listen to him.
Yea but that is why the bonus is halved. I feel this is also about how the game is played. I could have many situations in which the characters don't have their weapons, but apparently you feel as though they always have them no matter what unless you take then away from them. Where as I feel the majority of the time the character does not have their weapons.Maybe it's just a difference in player mentality. In my experience in role playing in general is that players keep their weapons with them as often as they possibly can. Most of the time players don't even think about it. It's just assumed they have their "canon" weapons on them (or very close at hand) unless otherwise stated. IMO it's about as easy to part any player with their weapons as it is to part a Wizard player with their foci.
In the case of the ghoul, he is at 6 defense of moving plus gets a free supplemental action that he can use to move out of the zone. A mortal character using a sword would have to be in the same zine and this gets a -1 to their attack because they have to use a supplemental action. The +1 and -1 cancel out but the ghoul still gets his +1. And yet a mortal is guaranteed a win? I don't think so
The distinction is that just because an NPC says "you can't come in without weapons" doesn't mean the PCs have to listen to him.
Well that's the thing. As a GM, I wouldn't tell the players they couldn't go in with their weapons. I'd have NPCs inform them of the rule, and let the players decide how to proceed.If you don't mind making a potentially long scenario dealing with how the players are going to get inside that's perfectly fine, nothing wrong with that at all. But the initial reasoning for the compel was to actively prevent the players from getting hung up at the door. To move the scene along and to get to the actual point of the scene as a whole.
My players would usually just agree to hand over their weapons, unless they were going in with the intention of starting a fight, in which case they wouldn't exactly be talking to the doorman about it. They'd sneak in, or fight their way through from the start.
Same with my players. In which case there isnt a need for the compel because the scene dictates the actions.You both must have some pretty compliant players. I would say the odds of my group going along with a scene like that is about 50/50. I know another group where it would probably drop to about a 30% change of them going with it. Especially if they even slightly feel a fight may break out.
I suppose it would depend on whether or not they know in advance - before they go - whether they'll have to leave their weapons.An arsenal? No. But it doesn't typically detur people from carrying knives, brass knuckles, or even concealed pistols. Remmeber your players are dealing with things that don't fall in the realm or vanilla mortal laws.
Not having weapons should be the norm, shouldn't it? I don't know many modern cities that let people just carry around an arsenal.
I think I see the misunderstanding here. Dunno whose fault it is, but you've got the wrong idea of what I was trying to say throughout the thread.Possible? Yes. I just think it's unlikely. I tend to assume that players will have their 'standard' equipment more or less by default unless otherwise stated--look at the books. The only times that Michael, for example, is ever without Amoracchius--either to hand or within reasonable distance--is when someone has specifically taken it from him.
What I was trying to say is that some parts of the game's balance require it to be possible for a PC to be deprived of an item without a Compel.
That's what makes an IoP not free Refresh.
Nah, you're still not guaranteed. A flukey roll can ruin your day.Yeah, but we were working under the argument of even rolls. And even with just average rolls (-1 to +1), the stunts create a significant advantage on the player who's supposed to be playing someone who's barely aware that Ghouls exist.
And even without stunts, no creativity is needed for a fairly certain win. Just have an Aspect that mentions your weapon of choice and invoke that with the FP you could have spent on stunts.That's costly, though--getting creative lets you do more without spending your whole pool of fate points. The game should normally reward creativity. These stunts reward complacency.
So with my previous assumption:This is a good rundown. Though I question the assumption that they're going to start in separate zones. My combats tend to start in the same zone. That said, the ghoul can tag the consequences he inflicts, too--that first scenario ought to be over a lot quicker in that case.
Ghoul (per OW):
+4: Fists; Athletics
+3: Endurance; Alertness; Intimidation; Presence
Powers:
Claws (weapon 2 fist attack)
Inhuman Strength & Speed
Supernatural Recovery
Pure Mortal (No stunts) (A)
+4: Weapons; Athletics
+3: Alertness; Endurance
This can go on. In most of these situations the PM without stunts will lose. The only thing the stacked stunts do is bring them onto a similar level. A ghouls block is at 5 so there is a stunt to match that. A ghoul gets +2 to their damage so there is a stunt to match that. A ghoul probably should have taken something to increase its attack because now I have the slight advantage and can fare much better at this game.Brings them past that level, actually--the mortal is dodging at 6 to the Ghoul's 5, and is doing Weapon:5 damage to the ghoul's 4. So if they're rolling evenly, the situation's totally reversed from that first scenario--the ghoul isn't landing any hits, and the pure mortal is dealing consequences each time--even if the ghoul is healing two milds, he's not healing the stress--so that third shot's going to need a Moderate to survive anyway, or two milds, which is in a way worse because he can't heal them now, and the pure mortal can tag his next attack for +4.
This is a good rundown. Though I question the assumption that they're going to start in separate zones. My combats tend to start in the same zone. That said, the ghoul can tag the consequences he inflicts, too--that first scenario ought to be over a lot quicker in that case.
Brings them past that level, actually--the mortal is dodging at 6 to the Ghoul's 5, and is doing Weapon:5 damage to the ghoul's 4. So if they're rolling evenly, the situation's totally reversed from that first scenario--the ghoul isn't landing any hits, and the pure mortal is dealing consequences each time--even if the ghoul is healing two milds, he's not healing the stress--so that third shot's going to need a Moderate to survive anyway, or two milds, which is in a way worse because he can't heal them now, and the pure mortal can tag his next attack for +4.
Apply those stunts to a Submerged pure mortal, and I can't think of anything in OW that can hit them physically (some of the spellcasters can manage it, maybe the Plot Device level characters), and only the ones with Supernatural Speed would ever avoid a hit.
What it comes down to, still, is that just having a particular weapon is not a strict enough restriction for the full bonus to these stunts--most any player, unless they're carrying around some ludicrous monstrosity of a weapon, can figure out some way to keep their weapon on or near them unless specifically otherwise stated. So even if there are going to be times they just don't have the weapon without a compel, that's going to be such a minority that it still plays out as a flat, permanent bonus to the skill.
Sanctaphrax, you say it's okay because Items of Power are balanced based on it, but Items of Power are supernatural powers--which are supposed to be more broadly applicable than stunts. You can't use the same rubric for one as you would the other. Hell, even the one supernatural power I can think of that provides a flat bonus to the attack skill--True Aim in the Sword of the Cross--still has a more strict restriction than "just holding this sword."
Thats what Sanctafrax was saying about IoP's. It may be more restrictive but that is because it is tied to an aspect. I would expect IoP's to be compelled more than just a regular weapon as well.And what these unrestrictive stunts do is try and turn any mundain weapon into a kind of IoP without any of the restrictions.
Um...no. an IoP is a item that has powers, which I have just pointed out are better than stunts, and can get a two refresh discount to those powers. Not only that but the iop can also function as a mundane weapon in its own right. So there is no possible way to make a mundane weapon into an iop just by using stunts.2 refresh worth of stunts that give you comprable combat bonuses to inhuman strength that are always on as long as you posess a general type of mundain weapon sounds pretty similar to an IoP to me. Actually, it sounds better because it's not nearly as restricitive.
What it comes down to, still, is that just having a particular weapon is not a strict enough restriction for the full bonus to these stunts...
That's costly, though--getting creative lets you do more without spending your whole pool of fate points. The game should normally reward creativity. These stunts reward complacency.
Apply those stunts to a Submerged pure mortal, and I can't think of anything in OW that can hit them physically (some of the spellcasters can manage it, maybe the Plot Device level characters), and only the ones with Supernatural Speed would ever avoid a hit.
Sanctaphrax, you say it's okay because Items of Power are balanced based on it, but Items of Power are supernatural powers--which are supposed to be more broadly applicable than stunts. You can't use the same rubric for one as you would the other.
Hell, even the one supernatural power I can think of that provides a flat bonus to the attack skill--True Aim in the Sword of the Cross--still has a more strict restriction than "just holding this sword."
So with my previous assumption:
Ghoul (per OW):
+4: Fists; Athletics
+3: Endurance; Alertness; Intimidation; Presence
Powers:
Claws (weapon 2 fist attack)
Inhuman Strength & Speed
Supernatural Recovery
Pure Mortal (No stunts) (A)
+4: Weapons; Athletics
+3: Alertness; Endurance
Now if we assume all is equal (which will be everyone rolls 0) then Ghoul goes first. Generally you wont be in the same zone as an opponent at start. So ghoul moves toward mortal A and attacks. A takes hit the hit and is down a mild consequence with 2 stress, cant hit them back. A takes another hit next turn now has Mild, Moderate and 2 stress. Same next turn only now we have all but extreme and no stress. And so it goes on.
It applies to a mock fight and I did find one example being in Shiro's write up as a +1 to block, which would make the assumption that they should be limited to just +1 and not +2
Most of my PCs carry their favoured weapons most of the time. Going by my experiences, I'd expect Weapon Specialization's restriction to be slightly heavier than that of Defend My Tribe.I've been acknowledging it. I've referred to it as too light of a restriction or not enough of a restriction since this whole topic started.
It's possible. Though it does depend on the game.
Stunt balance is by its very nature somewhat situational. If you don't think needing a specific weapon is enough of a restriction for your game, you may well be right.
But it is a restriction, even if you think it's too small. Now that you've acknowledged that, I'm satisfied. At least on that point.
Creativity is still useful no matter how good your numbers are. These stunts don't reward complacency any more than a higher skill or a physical Power does.Useful, yes, but with these stunts, unnecessary.
Nope. Read it again.I read it thoroughly the first time. It says:
When swung in keeping with its
purpose, a Sword of the Cross grants a +1 to
the wielder’s Weapons skill.
Yeah, no.Remember, though, that Armor:2 against things like claws is going to be heavy chainmail or plate--and while I think you can justify carrying around Weapon:3 in a dufflebag or something, wearing heavy armor like that is a little more difficult (and uncomfortable). Either you're wearing this bulky armor under your clothes all day, or you've got it in the dufflebag, in which case you'd need time to put it on if something came up.
First, a sensible mortal would wear armour. The fact that ghouls (by default) fight naked is one of their biggest weaknesses, and there's no sense in giving mortals that same weakness.
Third, the mortal would not be well-advised to attack there. A maneuver would be more useful. If the mortal were armoured I'd probably give the same advice to the ghoul.Indeed he would. In fact, that rather proves my point--without the stunts, the pure mortal has to pull tricks, maneuver, and etc. to have a chance. This example was about roll vs. roll, stat vs. stat, to show the difference the stunts make.
Blocks are not the same as defence rolls. So the example isn't really applicable.True, but I could argue that a block could get a higher boost than a defense--after all, if you're blocking, that takes up your whole action, and you have to maintain the block round to round if you want to keep it up, so it makes some sense that if you're going to devote a round to it, it could get a better bonus than a stunt to just boost defense, which is a free action.
What is the difference exactly? I know there is one but why would someone use a block when one on one?Well, a block isn't just defense. You could block them from using a particular technique (e.g., using one of their own stunts or powers), or from using a particular weapon, or from closing the distance to you, etc.
Well, a block isn't just defense. You could block them from using a particular technique (e.g., using one of their own stunts or powers), or from using a particular weapon, or from closing the distance to you, etc.
I've been acknowledging it. I've referred to it as too light of a restriction or not enough of a restriction since this whole topic started.
Useful, yes, but with these stunts, unnecessary.
I read it thoroughly the first time. It says:
...
Whereas the stunt just says when wielding this weapon. Meaning that while Michael can't use that bonus for anything but God Approved smiting, a sword-wielder with the stunt can and will use it against anything and everything.
Hell, in the books, Harry mentions that Michael seems less invincible when he's out with Harry as opposed to fighting his own fights--so you could interpret that to mean that Michael isn't getting that +1 even when he's fighting demons, vampires, and monsters.
Remember, though, that Armor:2 against things like claws is going to be heavy chainmail or plate--and while I think you can justify carrying around Weapon:3 in a dufflebag or something, wearing heavy armor like that is a little more difficult (and uncomfortable). Either you're wearing this bulky armor under your clothes all day, or you've got it in the dufflebag, in which case you'd need time to put it on if something came up.
If anything, I'd say that a mortal at this level--remember, only just learning about the supernatural, so unlikely to have invested in medieval battle armor--might have Armor:1 if they've got a really tough leather jacket.
True, but I could argue that a block could get a higher boost than a defense--after all, if you're blocking, that takes up your whole action, and you have to maintain the block round to round if you want to keep it up, so it makes some sense that if you're going to devote a round to it, it could get a better bonus than a stunt to just boost defense, which is a free action.
You can't make a prediction on different rolls and if you truly did it would still favor the ghoul because he has higher stats in some spots.
There's no reason a low-level character can't be well-equipped. Power doesn't affect the kind of mundane equipment you can use.
And if you own medieval battle weaponry that you actually know how to use, you are likely to own medieval battle armour.
Anyway, I'd expect having armour to be much easier than having a weapon. Wearing chainmail makes people think you're weird, but it doesn't attract the kind of negative attention that carrying a broadsword does.
Really.Yes, really. In previous threads of this discussion I also referred to it as too weak of a restriction.
Maybe this was all a big waste of time, then.
Michael can't use the sword for anything other than god-approved smiting, period. He gets the bonus to 100% of the situations that he can use the sword in. And the limitations on how he can use the sword are not part of True Aim. As is the need to use the sword at all.Perhaps I wasn't clear. I should've said "God endorsed" smiting. Things like him following Harry to smite ghosts and that one demon are things God might approve of, but not necessarily things God is giving his full and conscious support to Michael behind.
So True Aim is not restricted.
(True Aim also adds to both attack and defence, unlike the stunts we're discussing here. It may even add to knowledge, depending on how you read it.)
You're kidding, right?No, I'm simply remembering things that Harry says outright in the books. He says that he thinks that Michael enjoys less benefit from up above when he's out with him as opposed to when he's doing his Wander The Earth knight errant schtick. He says directly that while Michael comes back nearly unscathed on those missions, he more frequently gets injured when he's out with Harry--i.e., that there are things that Michael fights where he can use the sword but does not get the full benefit of the sword.
There's no reason a low-level character can't be well-equipped. Power doesn't affect the kind of mundane equipment you can use.No, but it puts an upper limit to, for example, the Resources or Craftsmanship rating. And if this character is saving his highest stats for in-combat stuff (Athletics, Weapons, Alertness, Endurance) then it's going to be less likely that he has the resources or crafting ability to make Armor:2.
And if you own medieval battle weaponry that you actually know how to use, you are likely to own medieval battle armour.Own, yes. Be constantly wearing? No.
Anyway, I'd expect having armour to be much easier than having a weapon. Wearing chainmail makes people think you're weird, but it doesn't attract the kind of negative attention that carrying a broadsword does.Only if you're carrying the broadsword out and open as a naked blade. As has been pointed out, a broadsword or an axe can be stuffed in a bag, out of sight, and brought to bare in combat relatively quickly. Armor, however, is not. There really aren't very many occupations where you can wear chainmail or plate--hell, even cops only put on the heavy duty vests when they are reasonably certain they're going to get shot at with heavy weaponry.
I don't think it adds to both attack and defense--I'll have to check, but in the Notes section on Michael and Shiro, I believe it notes their defense as being equal to their Weapons skill without any additional bonuses.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I should've said "God endorsed" smiting. Things like him following Harry to smite ghosts and that one demon are things God might approve of, but not necessarily things God is giving his full and conscious support to Michael behind.
...
No, I'm simply remembering things that Harry says outright in the books. He says that he thinks that Michael enjoys less benefit from up above when he's out with him as opposed to when he's doing his Wander The Earth knight errant schtick. He says directly that while Michael comes back nearly unscathed on those missions, he more frequently gets injured when he's out with Harry--i.e., that there are things that Michael fights where he can use the sword but does not get the full benefit of the sword.
True Aim has the restriction directly in its description. Saying it's unrestricted means ignoring that.
No, but it puts an upper limit to, for example, the Resources or Craftsmanship rating. And if this character is saving his highest stats for in-combat stuff (Athletics, Weapons, Alertness, Endurance) then it's going to be less likely that he has the resources or crafting ability to make Armor:2.
The issue with armor is that it stands out more than a weapon (depending on location) and in YS p.202 under armor it states that armor lags behind weaponry as far a availability. I live in Tokyo and it is far more likely/ accepted (Here) to see people carrying wrapped weapons (generally in a cloth case) than wearing/ carrying armor of any kind, though a duffel bag filled with armor is way more common than someone actually wearing it on the subway. This also goes for modern armor/ weapons, not to mention that armor is also generally more expensive by at least one category than most equivalent tier weapons.
People carrying a pistol or having rifle in the window of their trucks might get a few looks but if its legal in their state the looks are less "OMG they have a gun" and more "i dont like that they have a gun."
Now, if your game is set in a big city, like Chicago, New York, or Washington, D.C., the typical reaction would be very different. Due to historically very tight restrictions on gun ownership (that are in the process of going away), usually only criminals and cops will be visibly packing heat.
Wandering around in a constant state of alarm would be rather silly, especially since those parts of the US also have the lowest crime rates.
Don't know where you live but the restrictions are getting stricter in places like that. Though I do agree with the first part of your statement
That's a pretty broad statement and I'm not really sure how accurate it is...
Concerning the state of American gun laws for general background notes on an up-to-date American setting:
You are wrong about Shiro and right about Michael. In all likelihood, though, Michael's description is probably just not counting the bonus that Michael will likely receive from True Aim. It ignores it on attack, too, after all. And it doesn't mention the likely bonus to his Athletics defence from Righteousness.It's debatable anyway. It says when it's "swung" with true purpose, which sounds like it's talking to an attack to me. You don't really "swing" the sword when you're defending.
That aside, the way the Power is written is fairly clear. The writeup should take precedence over the examples if there is a contradiction.
Dude, the way the Power is written is clear. Very clear. The sword cannot be used except in keeping with its purpose, and when used in keeping with its purpose it gives +1 Weapons.Let me put it this way...say the Sword is like a company car. You can use it for whatever you like, so long as it's accepted uses of a car--going places, getting groceries, etc.--and not against company policy or illegal in some manner. But you're only going to get your gas reimbursed when you use the car for explicitly company-backed uses (going to conferences, seeing clients, getting to and from work).
If you want to adjust Michael's power to fit (your interpretation of) his narrative role, use his Aspects. That's what they're for.
The "restriction" does not actually restrict anything.
You don't need high Resources or Craftsmanship to own armour. Characters are assumed to have the tools for their job. And even if you start without armour for whatever reason, once you get some you can keep it until something happens to it.To own armor? No. To own the toughest, sleekest, best available armor? Yes. Having the tools for their job doesn't mean they automatically have Armor:3 that fits under their shirt and is light, breathable, and doesn't restrict their movement.
But I know that I, personally, would have a much easier time wearing chainmail than carrying a battle axe. One would be uncomfortable and likely to get me weird looks, the other would get me arrested.Again: Only if you're being foolish and carrying it around as a naked blade. And...really? Have you tried wearing chainmail? Even football pads, made of comparatively lightweight plastic, are not something you want to wear all day.
Relatively new 'covert' vests can be rated both IIIa (good vs pistols and shotguns) and stab/edged II (which I think is rated for everything other than things like full body charges with a spiked weapon.I think you're really lowballing the cost of armor, there. I'd have to check the chart, but offhand I'd either double the Resources ranking needed for each set of armor, or attach aspects to cheap versions of Armor:2 and 3.
In the game, this is somewhere between armor 1 and armor 2, depending on how you want to model things.
A vest with class III or class IV plates (which will protect against rifle fire) can't really be worn covertly. That is, you can't say, shake hands with someone and have trouble noticing they are wearing armor. That's somewhere between armor 2 and armor 3 in game terms.
If differentiating between various armors became important in the game:
Armor 1:
a variety of 'home made' protective gear, just as motorcycle leathers, jumberjack and/or various tool resistant clothing (lumberjack chaps, etc). Not usually concealable.
Or old/reconditioned modern armor. concealable.
Resources 1 (around 200-300 USD to acquire)
Armor 2:
Actual 'plate' or 'mail' style metal armor. or 'modern' concealable armors
Resources 2 (around 400-800 USD for modern armor, considerably more for metal armor)
Armor 3:
Technologically reenforced plate or mail armor.
Non-concealable modern armors (includes helmet, fragment goggles, etc.
edging into resources 3 (An armor 2 vest, and then another 400-800 USD or so for the strike plates, add several hundred more for things like helmet, goggles, knee and elbow pads, etc.
------------
This would mean that most police you'd meet in the US would have armor 2, and most US troops you'd see in Iraq or Afghanistan would have armor 3.
Also, there's a difference between keeping something from killing you (which most body armor aims to do) and being able to negate the force. Something that protects against handgun bullets is just keeping it from penetrating, but it can and will hurt like hell and potentially injure you. So I'd say that the standard police vest is probably Armor:1, military/swat body armor is Armor:2, and maybe bomb disposal suits are Armor:3.So will a decent punch to the same area.
So will a decent punch to the same area.Body armor that protects against bullets and knives isn't the same body armor that'll protect against percussive/blunt force.
Negating the weapon rating isn't the same thing as 'negating the force'.It kind of is, though. Weapon:3 and Armor:3 cancel one another out entirely, so it's as if he hadn't used a weapon at all. It completely negates the level of stress or consequence that would've resulted without the armor (potentially turning a Moderate consequence into none), indicating that a bullet that would have done serious damage is now doing no real damage at all.
But in any case, there are situations where Michael would want to use the sword, but can't use that stunt because of the restrictions--while a weapons specialization has no such restriction. Ergo, the canon power has a stricter restriction than this homebrew stunt, which is backward.
Carrying around a sword out of sight in a dufflebag isn't going to get you stopped unless you give people reason to check your bag. Walking around in full body armor all the time is going to get you all kinds of attention from everybody, including police officers who wonder why someone is walking around in full tactical gear. It really isn't something you can get away with.
Having readily-available body armor that can simply shrug off the effects of a shotgun or an automatic rifle just doesn't match with reality--ballistic armor primarily prevents penetration, not the full force of the bullet. Even a bullet proof vest that does its job and doesn't let a single bullet through is going to leave you with, at the least, some pretty nasty bruises.
And the cannon power is arguably at "-1" with the sword. And you would only get the bonus from the IoP if it is able to be seen and is obvious most of your argument would make the IoP rebate from a sword at -1 because it can be so easily hidden from sight:No, the discount also takes into account how easily it's recognizable as an item of power, and how noticeable it is while being used. A smaller discount would be for something you can easily hide all the time. The fact the sword needs something as big as a dufflebag means it's that much harder to conceal--and, well, it's a sword. If some muggle finds an interesting pendant, that's all they'll see it as. If they look in your bag and find a sword, there's going to be trouble.
And to take your dufflebag idea, you can easily store chainmail in a dufflebag.As I pointed out before, though, you can just whip out the sword and start swinging in a matter of seconds. You can't say the same thing about chainmail. There's a reason that knights had squires and servants to help them get into their armor, remember.
So armor should have 1 less rating than the thing that it is supposed to stop?Yes. In fact, the book outright says that armor is going to be behind weapons in strength and availability.
You guys ever tried carrying folded-up chainmail? That stuff is heavy. It's designed to spread weight evenly over the body, so as heavy and uncomfortable as it is to wear, it's so much worse to try and carry in a bag.Yes, actually. As mentioned, my brother is part of the SCA and another medieval battling type group, and once or twice I've helped them move equipment. It was very heavy, and very tiring just carrying it once across the length of a football field. And, as mentioned, my brother gave up on wearing chainmail after about half a day at Ren Faire because it was too uncomfortable, and that was just him walking around.
EDIT: though I did find some stuff that is armor and does help against things, i also found the part that Mr. Death was talking about on 202 of YS that states that armor needs to completely protect against its same scale item; while a reinforced kevlar vest would be armor 2 a regular kevlar vest would only be armor 1 because it can still crack a rib if you get hit. Also kevlar doesnt protect well against stabs.Yeah, I could see someone with a 1 or 2 in resources getting something like that if they took the time to make maneuvers like "Saving Up Cash" or "Pooling Christmas Money," but armor also needs to be maintained--a kevlar vest might stop a bunch of bullets, and chainmail might stop sword slashes, but they receive wear and tear just like anything else. Kevlar's only cloth, remember, and mail can be dented and broken. So even if you can pool together a high resources roll to get it, that doesn't necessarily mean you have the resources to replace it when it breaks, or the Craftsmanship rating to properly maintain it and repair it.
A skill rating of 4 in resources is what would be needed to get anything lower than $1,000 easily though you could probably make that roll if you had something lower but its not guaranteed.
Carrying chainmail in a dufflebag means that when something attacks, you're better off just swinging the bag and using it as a weapon than trying to put it down, reach in, unfold the chainmail, get it over your shoulders and arms, and buckling it on. At the very, very least it's a full round action, during which you're wide open to declarations like, "Arms Pinned In The Sleaves" or "Can't See Because It's Over My Head" and you're a recumbent waterfowl.
Sometimes, survival comes down to not being hit.
Actually, most times.
Body armor that protects against bullets and knives isn't the same body armor that'll protect against percussive/blunt force.You're right. But, in terms of DFrpg mechanics, body armour that 'protects against bullets' (ie. body armour with a rating effectively negating the weapons rating of a typical firearm) is body armour that renders that gun only as harmful as a typical punch or kick delivered with comparable skill.
It kind of is, though. Weapon:3 and Armor:3 cancel one another out entirely, so it's as if he hadn't used a weapon at all. It completely negates the level of stress or consequence that would've resulted without the armor (potentially turning a Moderate consequence into none), indicating that a bullet that would have done serious damage is now doing no real damage at all.Addressed above.
Having readily-available body armor that can simply shrug off the effects of a shotgun or an automatic rifle just doesn't match with reality--ballistic armor primarily prevents penetration, not the full force of the bullet. Even a bullet proof vest that does its job and doesn't let a single bullet through is going to leave you with, at the least, some pretty nasty bruises.
You're right. But, in terms of DFrpg mechanics, body armour that 'protects against bullets' (ie. body armour with a rating effectively negating the weapons rating of a typical firearm) is body armour that renders that gun only as harmful as a typical punch or kick delivered with comparable skill.Well, no. It's body armor that renders the gun less harmful. Getting shot is still going to hurt more than being punched with comparable skill because even with the body armor, the bullets are still traveling past the speed of sound.
By my recollection, this is spelled out reasonably clearly in the rules. I suggest you re-examine them.Funny, then, that what Lavecki found before:
EDIT: though I did find some stuff that is armor and does help against things, i also found the part that Mr. Death was talking about on 202 of YS that states that armor needs to completely protect against its same scale item; while a reinforced kevlar vest would be armor 2 a regular kevlar vest would only be armor 1 because it can still crack a rib if you get hit. Also kevlar doesnt protect well against stabs.says that a regular Kevlar vest--made to protect against handgun bullets--is going to be a smaller armor rating than those handguns' weapon rating. And how Sanctaphrax pointed out the rules state that armor is going to be a step behind weapons in potency and availability.
Well, no. It's body armor that renders the gun less harmful. Getting shot is still going to hurt more than being punched with comparable skill because even with the body armor, the bullets are still traveling past the speed of sound.Armour of minimally sufficient quality to negate the weapon rating of a firearm is qutie plainly and obviously armour that renders that firearm no more dangerous than a typical unarmed strike (punch, kick, etc) delivered with comparable skill.
Body armor to protect against bullets just makes them not penetrate and not kill--they don't negate the force or make them only as dangerous as a punch. It makes it the difference between being hit with a pointy object moving the speed of sound and a wider, blunt object moving the speed of sound--one of them is going to plow through you and rip up your internal organs, and one is going to knock you on your ass and hurt like hell.
Armour of minimally sufficient quality to negate the weapon rating of a firearm is qutie plainly and obviously armour that renders that firearm no more dangerous than a typical unarmed strike (punch, kick, etc) delivered with comparable skill.I think we're misunderstanding one another. By "protects against bullets" I mean designed with bullets in mind, as opposed to against knives or blunt attacks. That doesn't mean it's completely effective--it just means that if it's effective against anything, it's against bullets.
I think we're misunderstanding one another. By "protects against bullets" I mean designed with bullets in mind, as opposed to against knives or blunt attacks. That doesn't mean it's completely effective--it just means that if it's effective against anything, it's against bullets.There's a reason I provided an explicit definition to that effect.
Body armor isn't designed with the idea of completely negating the destructive power of the bullet, because that's near impossible with modern weapons. It's designed with the idea of stopping the bullet from penetrating by spreading the impact across a wider area. The point being, you're still getting hit with the full force of the bullet, which is a hell of a lot harder than a punch. There's a reason why when someone's shot with a bullet proof vest they still get knocked down and, in some cases, out. You would need something seriously heavy duty--on the order of, say, Iron Man--to completely deflect or negate the force of modern firearms.
A standard issue bullet proof vest is going to be Armor:1 because while it'll stop a bullet, it's not going to completely prevent injury.This is the wrong way to look at it. Armour 2 against a weapon 2 pistol will not 'completely prevent injury'.
An Armor 2 is going to protect against a Weapon 2 as much as wearing no Armor is going to protect against some mundane guy swing his fist at you.
This is the wrong way to look at it. Armour 2 against a weapon 2 pistol will not 'completely prevent injury'.
Lightweight 'bullet-proof vests' likely ARE armour 1, and will negate most of the danger from small calibur pistols that strike the vest and they will significantly reduce the danger from larger rounds.
Armor essentially works the same way as weapons—the rating is based on what it’s ideally supposed to be protecting the wearer from.
Resist the temptation to bog down the game with creating extensive examples of armor types;
the better approach is to color it appropriately to the weapon ratings. So, Armor:2 is intended to protect completely against most pistols—it’s
probably a reinforced Kevlar vest or something.
That said, armor does tend to lag behind weaponry in terms of availability. Many bulletproof vests are only Armor:1—a heavy pistol round can still crack a rib if it hits you. Armor:4 is not really something you find on a personal scale, except maybe in a magical or supernatural
context.
Okay, I've lost track of this argument. I'm no longer sure what's being argued or why.
Which brings up an interesting thought. Sanctaphrax, would you allow a stunt to directly boost an armor rating? Like, Armor Specialization, while wearing Chainmail, your armor rating is treated as +2 on top of the armor's existing rating?
For what it's worth, in Michael's OW profile, his armor, a breast/backplate lined with several layers of Kevlar and backed by ceramic strike plates, is Armor:2.It's also worth pointing out that most mundain armor will probably only work against a specific type of attack. A reinforced Kevlar vest would provide armor:2 against gunfire only.
Food for thought.
While that's likely the case in reality, the DFRPG rules, and FATE in general, make no distinction between armour types. The rules are relatively streamlined and generalised, so a piece of mundane Armor 2 is going to be Armor 2 against punches, knives, bullets and explosions.I know they make a point to say that about blocks in YS, but is that explicitly stated to also be the case with armor? I don't recall anything about all armorsmith being equal so to speak. Though I also don't recall any mention of specific armor types either. So I very well may be mixng up the narrative in YS together with the narrative of the source material.
No, they don’t (unless a power says otherwise). You take the highest rating. That
said, not all armor protects against all types of damage, so multiple forms may
get you broader coverage without providing a numerically higher armor rating.
Tough Stuff is a Stunt, which by their nature are only applicable in a limited set of circumstances. Therefore should not be taken as instruction for how the general rules work. Otherwise you'd have all kinds of limitations on skills and equipment, and if Tough Stuff is considered mechanically the same as wearing Armor 1 (since you make your players specify what damage their equipment-based armor protects against), not only would anyone with a spare Refresh be foolish not to take it, but it's actually superior to wearing armor that has a rating of 1, since you never have to take the time to put it on and can never have it taken from you.I agree that using a stunt as an example for general armor rules isn't accurate. Since, as you pointed out, they follow their own sub-set of rules.
I always interpreted the comment notes from Harry, Bob and Will as suggestions for different ways to use the core information, since almost all of the notes that clarify rules are in that vein. Remember that the conceit of the DFRPG is that it's a game written by Will. So the commentary notes do not form a part of the text of the final "product" that Will is setting out to publish.
If it was intended that the core rules only allowed specific armor to protect against certain types of damage, then the rules in the armor section would state that you have to specify what each item of armor protects against.
Your rule is fine, but it's a houserule. You could also allow declarations, maneuvers and compels to represent certain armor types being ineffective against certain attacks, given suitable circumstances.