ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Magicpockets on April 21, 2013, 06:25:19 PM
-
Hi all,
need your opinion on the power "A few seconds ahead" from OW, pg. 99. To those who don't know what it does:
Character can use her Lore skill to get a reasonably accurate
picture of events 1-2 seconds ahead of now
(limited to what she will personally experience
in those moments). She may roll her Lore skill
to defend against physical or social attacks or
maneuvers.
Specifically, our group is playing at 45 Skillpoints, 13 Refresh (we started at Chest Deep), and the DM has voiced some concerns regarding the balance of this power. The character in question is a Summer Knight and has these powers:
A Few Seconds Ahead [-1]
Cassandra's Tears [-0]
Item of Power [-2] (a sword)
Marked by Power [-1]
Seelie Magic [-4]
Inhuman Strength [-2]
Supernatural Recovery [-4]
The Catch [+3] is Cold Iron
Does "A few seconds ahead" severely unbalance this character? I realize it's probably one of the better [-1] powers out there, but IMO it's not stronger than the likes of Refinement on a wizard or Cloak of Shadows on a stealth character. I took this power partly for flavor reasons (the character is prescient) and partly for its utility, since the combination of social skills, physical combat and magic is taking a heavy toll on the skill points, and if it were not for the flavor of the Fairie Knights in the novels, I would get rid of the physical combat part and focus on magic and social stuff. The DM is concerned about having a skill defend vs two types of attacks.
What do these boards think?
-
I'm with your GM. It's definitely too good.
-
I think it is too powerful in addition to other powers. For a minor power, where it is the only power the character has, I'd say it is fine, but it can make especially wizards all kinds of fucked up powerful.
There should be a drawback, since it should be really distracting to look into the future constantly. How would you concentrate on what you are doing in the presence? Or it needs a situational restriction like stunts have.
-
You shouldn't be getting two top-of-the-pyramid defenses for 1 point of refresh. If you want to move Dodge from Athletics to Lore for a stunt, sure. If you want to move Rapport's Social Defense trapping to another skill for a stunt, fine. You just can't get both for 1 point.
Also I don't really like the flavor-text for the social defense part. I have no idea how knowing what someone's going to say to you a second in advance is really supposed to be helping you here. The "impact" of people's social skills happens when you perceive them, so I'm not sure how getting a head start on perceiving them conveys any advantage. "Two seconds from now, that man with a gun is going to yell at me and it's going to be super scary! Fortunately, I was able to see it before it happened, so I actually peed myself before he opened his mouth! Go me!".
;D
-
I agree with questioning why it would help with social defense, it might give you that extra second to think of a good come back but I don't think it would help someone that wasn't already good at bantering. And really I don't think seeing something would help with dodging it that much either (it would help but not to the point where your actual skill at dodging wouldn't matter). It would improve your ability to react but react too soon and they'd just adjust their aim to where you moved to. I'd change it to a flat +2 to physical or a +1 to both depending on the GMs preference. Possibly with the restriction that you need a higher lore than the relevant stat to get the bonus at all.
-
Yeah, it should probably be "defend against physical with Lore". I know powers are supposed to be able to be slightly better than stunts, but for a caster-type, being able to use one of the 3 casting-skills for physical defense IS an especially good stunt.
-
I think it is too powerful in addition to other powers. For a minor power, where it is the only power the character has, I'd say it is fine, but it can make especially wizards all kinds of fucked up powerful.
Yeah, for a Minor Talent who's giving up the mortal +2 refresh for just this power, it's OK.
I might say, if I were GMing, that the cost would increase to -2 (i.e. an additional refresh would need to be spent) if you later added in more powers ... or at least casting ones.
-
I have a character in my campaign with it. I am allowing it, even though the character is a spellcaster with Discipline and Lore as apex skills.
-
Yeah, it should probably be "defend against physical with Lore". I know powers are supposed to be able to be slightly better than stunts, but for a caster-type, being able to use one of the 3 casting-skills for physical defense IS an especially good stunt.
I think that if you want to swap out the physical defence trapping with a stunt (or a -1 Power), you should have to accept some kind of restriction. Otherwise almost everyone without a good Athletics skill would be well advised to take Use My Apex Skill To Not Get Hit.
-
Very powerful ability for a PC to have. As it's in OW, I'd wager it wasn't designed with the intention that players would take it, which is why it's not balanced in terms of effects the way other stunts and powers are.
Assuming you apply similar rules to creating new powers that you apply to stunts, you shouldn't get that many additional trappings added to a single skill for only a -1 Refresh.
-
Assuming you apply similar rules to creating new powers that you apply to stunts, you shouldn't get that many additional trappings added to a single skill for only a -1 Refresh.
When I compare Stunts to Powers, I find that Powers are usually provide about twice the ability of equivalent Stunts. Yes, you should not be getting that much for a Stunt, but it is par for the course for a Power.
Consider: If I recall correctly, you can swap out 1 Stunt for another from one game to the next, but you are stuck with a Power. Also with such additional trappings to a single skill, you are in effect locking that particular skill to a high level on the pyramid and not having some other skill at that high level.
Power-ful characters are not likely to change much from one game to the next. Pure Mortals however have the ability to change rapidly. One game I switch my Apex skill to the base of the pyramid, the next I change an Aspect, game after next I change one Stunt to another. Before long, you can be looking at a whole new character.
-
That is true, fair point. Still, it's a lot of power to put into a single skill that's already got a lot of potential power in the hands of a Wizard. It means that two-thirds of their skill-based defensive needs are taken care of by the one skill, in addition to the other benefits a spellcaster gains from a high Lore.
I think if a player were to ask me if they could take the power, I wouldn't be inclined to allow it in my own game.
Of course, it could be worse. It could add those trappings to Discipline! :P
-
A Few Seconds Ahead is fine... in the context of the character sheet it's on, where Lore isn't her apex skill, and there are a few higher skills she could sometimes use instead. If you did try to make a character with, say, discipline & lore at +5... the power would just make your combats boring, because you'd always use the same defense. Even if you charged two or three refresh for the power, I still wouldn't want to allow it; it doesn't lead to interesting play.
I'd be much more inclined to make a short-range precog power that, say, granted +1 when you spend a fate point to invoke your precognition as an aspect (in addition to the fate point's normal +2 or reroll). Or maybe +2 but only for defensive uses. Something like that would be much more interesting - it wouldn't just invalidate large numbers of other skills, and you'd still need, say, enough athletics to get out of the way of whatever attack you saw coming.
-
Just make two stunts. A Few Seconds Ahead defends physical with Lore. Rhyme-and-Riddle Games defends social with Lore so long as you at least throw in a nonsense koan you made up. "Does a stone answer the sky?" would be fine.
-1 to -2 and now it's perfectly in line with everything. Yes, the default is too powerful because it's literally just double stunts for -1, but tying two defenses to one non-defense skill is not too powerful EVER. You just need to pay a little more for that competency.
Cloak of Shadows is the same but Cloak of Shadows deals all with one subsystem. It's incredibly strong for a stealth character, but it doesn't make stealth characters incredibly strong at everything.
-
@Viatos: I wouldn't allow "defend physically with Lore" as a stunt. It's too good.
@toturi: It's not good to give people power now in exchange for less freedom to change their character later. Being overpowered now and underpowered later is worse than just being overpowered now...the balance issues don't cancel each other out.
And Powers generally shouldn't directly obsolete stunts. They should be more powerful, but not in a way that makes it stupid to take stunts.
PS: Is anyone here familiar with Precognition? It's on the power list.
-
I've got a PC with it, and we haven't had a problem, really. Admittedly, I just plain didn't realize the social thing applied (I've treated it as only defense against physical attacks), and said character was built primarily as a social character otherwise.
Her being a burgeoning wizard as well, I've had ample opportunity to compel mental consequences to deprive her of the advantage, so it tends to work out.
-
Mr. Death, thanks for that. You just reminded me of something I wanted to say earlier.
Although A Few Seconds Ahead is overpowered, that doesn't mean it's going to wreck your game. With the selection of Powers in the OP, it's clear that the PC here isn't all that optimized, and besides...balance doesn't always matter.
D&D 3.5 spellcasters are more overpowered than A Few Seconds Ahead. By a lot. Like really a lot.
But that doesn't mean they'll damage every game they're in. Plenty of people play and have fun with a Druid and a Monk in the same party. And sometimes they never even notice how overpowered the Druid is compared to the Monk.
So it's not the end of the world if one of your Powers is too good.
-
@toturi: It's not good to give people power now in exchange for less freedom to change their character later. Being overpowered now and underpowered later is worse than just being overpowered now...the balance issues don't cancel each other out.
And Powers generally shouldn't directly obsolete stunts. They should be more powerful, but not in a way that makes it stupid to take stunts.
First of all, I do not think it is overpowered. It is exactly as powerful as it should be as a Power and not a Stunt. I think that a Power is twice as powerful as the equivalent Stunt(s) and this is the yardstick I use. The inflexibility of a Power-ful character is simply a function of the game mechanics, this is the price you pay for the effectiveness of Powers compared to Stunts.
I think I would compare the pros and cons of the Stunt and the Power before deciding which to take.
-
A few Seconds Ahead is more than twice as powerful as a comparable stunt, since it moves two defense trappings without restriction for the cost of 1 refresh where a stunt would move 1 such trapping with some sort of meaningful restriction (in the case of Footwork, for instance, the skill the trapping is being moved to already possessed a lesser version of the trapping being moved) for the same cost.
-
A few Seconds Ahead is more than twice as powerful as a comparable stunt, since it moves two defense trappings without restriction for the cost of 1 refresh where a stunt would move 1 such trapping with some sort of meaningful restriction (in the case of Footwork, for instance, the skill the trapping is being moved to already possessed a lesser version of the trapping being moved) for the same cost.
I think the same can be said of most other Powers when compared to equivalent stunts.
-
toturi, your interpretation of the rules is really weird. I have no idea where you even got the idea that Powers are balanced by an inability to change them later.
In fact, I'm not even sure where you got the idea that Power selections can't be changed.
Regardless, the problem with A Few Seconds Ahead is dead simple. It (or an ability like it for another skill) is close to a mandatory purchase for almost everyone. That's like the definition of broken.
-
toturi, your interpretation of the rules is really weird. I have no idea where you even got the idea that Powers are balanced by an inability to change them later.
In fact, I'm not even sure where you got the idea that Power selections can't be changed.
Regardless, the problem with A Few Seconds Ahead is dead simple. It (or an ability like it for another skill) is close to a mandatory purchase for almost everyone. That's like the definition of broken.
And I am similarly baffled by your inability to see that the inability to change Powers is a limit on the flexibility spent on that particular amount of Refresh. IIRC, it is stated that you can change 1 Stunt for another (I am not sure if it is every Minor Milestone or if it was every game), I do not recall however that the same can be said of Powers.
My definition of broken is different from yours.
Regardless, I do not think that an ability like A Few Seconds Ahead is anywhere close to a mandatory purchase for almost everyone, hence it is not broken, even by your definition. (If I really did think it was broken, I would be asking all non Pure Mortals in my game to strongly consider getting AFSA for their characters and modifying their character stories so that it fits.)
-
The description of a Minor Milestone states you can:
- Switch the rank values of any two skills, or replace one Average skill with one that isn’t on your sheet.
- Change any single stunt for another stunt.
- Purchase stunts or powers, provided you have the refresh to do so.
- Rename one aspect.
Take from that what you will. I'd personally rule that powers can be changed, but only with a valid story explanation, such as a changeling making their Choice and becoming human, or how Harry first gains Hellfire and then later loses that and gains Soulfire.
Whether powers should be roughly twice as beneficial as stunts, I don't know. But I do agree that A Few Seconds Ahead seems to be about equal to two stunts that might each add a new trapping to Lore.
The difficulty with the power, primarily, is that it was a case of trying to figure out how best to represent something that was in the books, which were of course written without the need to fit powers to a ruleset, and wanting to give something more solid than "Abby can see a few seconds into the future." I'd figure that hardly qualifies as a power, myself. Abby might be prescient, but she was hardly what I'd consider fit enough to have a Good rating in physical defence, even with a 2-second head start.
-
As far as I'm aware, there isn't anything in the rulebook that says once you pick a power you can't change it. As pointed out, there's canon examples of switching powers; there's also the idea of temporary powers.
As for A Few Seconds Ahead, I don't think it's nearly so imbalanced as you're making out, Sancta--it's only really a benefit for a character who already has high Lore, and it's not even a boost. A character with high Athletics is better off investing in a speed power or something that can boost the roll past the skill cap. It's really mainly a benefit to a character who hasn't invested in physical skills much.
Another suggestion for it, though, might be to instead make the power such that it allows Lore to modify a normal physical defense by +1.
-
I'd have to agree with Sancta about it being more powerful than two stunts. The Guns dodge stunt discussed in YS has the limitation of "as long as you have a gun in hand" or some such. Footwork doesn't have that limitiation, but as he mentioned Fists already has half that benefit already.
So the ability to use Lore as your physical defense skill in ALL situations with no limits would be outside the bounds of a stunt IMO. Similiarly for a stunt that defends against all social social defense skill with no limitations.
Tables vary though, so really it only matters what your GM and players can agree on as a group.
If it was my group I'd allow it with the limit of only when dealing with one person, since trying to maintain situational awareness on a dozen people's futures would be a bit much. The ability to see a couple seconds into the future and the ability of the human mind to fully absorb and process all that information are two different things.
Or, if the player wanted to take a "Prescient" aspect I'd allow the power without the above limitation, and then compel the hell out of it whenever a situation get's really hectic. Kind of like Telepath's we see on TV and comics, getting 'overloaded' by all the violent emtions around them and being completely useless.
There are multiple ways to skin this cat I suppose.
-
Defense trappings are nice, but there are already so many skills with them that for most characters, this power amounts to a ~+2 to two trappings without breaking the skill cap. It's inline with other powers, and actually behind a pair of defensive stunts on a character optimized for defense (who can use those stunts to get to cap +1 or +2)
-
If it was my group I'd allow it with the limit of only when dealing with one person, since trying to maintain situational awareness on a dozen people's futures would be a bit much. The ability to see a couple seconds into the future and the ability of the human mind to fully absorb and process all that information are two different things.
Well, it's not so much keeping awareness on a dozen people's futures so much as just keeping track of one--your own.
-
Defense trappings are nice, but there are already so many skills with them that for most characters, this power amounts to a ~+2 to two trappings without breaking the skill cap.
That depends on the character really. The OP appears to both be a melee combatant and a caster so his skill pyramid is probably pretty cramped. I'd wager it's probably a fair bit better than +2 to two trappings for his character.
That being said, shouldn't a power be balanced on it's potential for imbalance rather than it's balance in a single instance? A +2 makes a mediocre person halfway decent, and a very superb person freaking awesome. This power could potentially take a mediocre person and make him superb in two different areas, with no limitations.
On a marginally related note, what is your take on a stunt that allows you to move the attack trapping from Fists to Athletics? On the surface it's the reverse of Footwork, but would also completely negate the need for the Fists skill.
-
On a marginally related note, what is your take on a stunt that allows you to move the attack trapping from Fists to Athletics? On the surface it's the reverse of Footwork, but would also completely negate the need for the Fists skill.
I think Fists deserves no better. If it wants to cost as much as every other skill in the game (which it does), then it needs to have more than two trappings, one of which is so limited that it is rarely useful. My group merged Fists with Weapons so there's at least enough stuff going on to warrant taking the skill instead of just moving the only useful trapping elsewhere.
-
And I am similarly baffled by your inability to see that the inability to change Powers is a limit on the flexibility spent on that particular amount of Refresh.
I don't think "the inability to change Powers" actually exists.
And even if I did, balancing characters by making different characters overpowered in different sessions is a terrible idea.
As for A Few Seconds Ahead, I don't think it's nearly so imbalanced as you're making out, Sancta--it's only really a benefit for a character who already has high Lore, and it's not even a boost. A character with high Athletics is better off investing in a speed power or something that can boost the roll past the skill cap. It's really mainly a benefit to a character who hasn't invested in physical skills much.
It's not that impressive on any particular character.
But on essentially any character without solid defences, it's good enough that not buying it (or a similar Power for another Skill) would be foolish.
Suppose you want to make a powerful old wizard who isn't physically gifted or a skilled crafter. Then you have a choice between
a) bending your concept to let you take A Few Seconds Ahead
and
b) being weaker than you could be
which is a terrible choice.
You shouldn't make people choose between power and story. That's why balance is important.
(The same rough argument applies to physical defence stunts, incidentally.)
-
Suppose you want to make a powerful old wizard who isn't physically gifted or a skilled crafter.
If the Lore score is high enough that it's a good defense, why isn't this wizard just using the resources he already has to make an armor or block item for free?
-
It's not really free. They take up enchanted item slots and they are limited use.
-
It's not really free. They take up enchanted item slots and they are limited use.
I meant they don't cost refresh, they're something the wizard is getting built in. And they're not a roll, so there's no chance of, say, getting -2 or -4 on your stat for them.
Or, for the same refresh, you can get four enchanted item slots--plenty to make a defense item that's +1 or +2 your Lore with enough uses to get you through almost any fight.
-
If the Lore score is high enough that it's a good defense, why isn't this wizard just using the resources he already has to make an armor or block item for free?
Suppose you want to make a powerful old wizard who isn't [...] a skilled crafter.
(bolding added)
Or, maybe you want to have a character with high lore that doesn't use evocation/thaumaturgy or variants thereof?
-
(bolding added)
Even without a single specialization in crafting, a wizard can make an enchanted item up to his Lore rating--being a wizard means you can do some crafting, even if you're not particularly "skilled" at it; just like how Harry can do veils, but he's not terribly good at them.
And Sanctaphrax specified a "powerful old wizard," so that's what I'm working off of.
Or, maybe you want to have a character with high lore that doesn't use evocation/thaumaturgy or variants thereof?
That makes little sense to me. Why wouldn't you use spellcasting of some kind if you're making a character based on Lore? That's kind of missing out on a huge chunk of that skill's usefulness.
Honestly, it seems like it's the most useful on a character who's already badly balanced. One who's going to be doing physical fighting--but doesn't have any good physical skills; has high Lore--but no spellcasting, or spellcasting skills high enough to be useful...so what are the character's high skills, then? From the sounds of it, this character probably needs a boost in physical defense, because they don't seem to have much of a way to physically defend themselves otherwise.
I'd support having AFSA only apply to physical attacks--frankly, it applying to social defense just doesn't make sense to me. The few times I've seen precognition occur in social interaction in fiction (Looking at you, Mrs. Cake), all it seems to do is give both parties a headache.
-
It really depends on what you mean by a skilled crafter though. But I reckon it is pretty difficult to have a powerful old wizard that isn't any good at crafting. I think at some point that powerful old wizard would have used enchanted items or would have had a specialisation in crafting (I mean if you had enough Refinements and you put them into Thaum, you'd have to put something into crafting sooner or later).
Looking from another perspective, I do not think that it is likely that a wizard would have lived long enough to be old and powerful without being physically gifted (even if it was Injun Joe "I can shapeshift into a bear" kind of physically gifted) or have some skill in crafting.
I think the choices given presumes that any other Power chosen would produce a character weaker than the character with AFSA. Choice B could have been "Choose not to spend the Refresh and get an extra Fate Point" or "Choose some other Power".
-
That makes little sense to me. Why wouldn't you use spellcasting of some kind if you're making a character based on Lore? That's kind of missing out on a huge chunk of that skill's usefulness.
It depends on the concept. You could be playing an expert in supernatural lore and arcane knowledge who has no spellcasting ability whatsoever.
-
It depends on the concept. You could be playing an expert in supernatural lore and arcane knowledge who has no spellcasting ability whatsoever.
That's a fairly specific instance, though--and I can think of other, potentially better ways to have physical defense with that character type.
Maybe use Lore to set up blocks via declarations (having a different monster's weakness on hand, for example).
Or just give them decent regular defenses, with a stunt to have Lore modify them by +1 when fighting something monstrous.
One of my players (a wizard who has a Block:7 defensive item anyway) has a stunt he came up with called, "I've Fought A Lot Of Monsters," that lets him use the character's Lore as defense, but only when fighting something clearly monstrous (vampires, ghouls, yes, regular guys with guns, no).
And the stunts would allow the character to keep the +2 mortal bonus, while the power wouldn't.
-
Yup, I was just giving an example of a Lore-heavy character that might not be a spellcaster.
-
Sooo... it seems like it IS balanced then. Other powers (nevermind stunts) can get you a similiar effect, but it's more powerful than your typical stunt thanks to eliminating a possible +2 mortal bonus. Seems fair.
Although I agree that it seems weird that it'd help in social defense - but I could see the argument both ways. If it bothers you, I'd say:
a) retune it into a mortal stunt and remove the second trapping or
b) change the second trapping. Possibly dodge rolls AND stealth rolls? There are others that seem like they make sense thematically.
-
Sooo... it seems like it IS balanced then. Other powers (nevermind stunts) can get you a similiar effect, but it's more powerful than your typical stunt thanks to eliminating a possible +2 mortal bonus. Seems fair.
It's not merely 'more powerful than your typical stunt'. It is more than twice as powerful. Probably somewhere in the 3-4x as powerful range.
It is probably among the top 3 most powerful stand-alone single-refresh powers printed in either book.
-
How, exactly, are we determining its power? In terms of how many trappings it moves? In terms of the boost it gives compared to rolling the regular skill? In the case of the former, yes, it's considerably powerful.
In terms of the latter, though, it's only going to be very powerful in fairly specific builds--those where the player has considerably neglected both physical and social skills. And even then, the best the power's doing is bringing the character up to par with what others are rolling for defense. If the character's neglected the physical skills to the point where this power is most attractive, then by inference they probably have very low Fists, or Weapons scores (because otherwise they'd just use those to defend), ergo there's not much they're going to be doing on offense.
So in short, the way I look at it, this power is going to make its biggest difference on a character who's practically handicapped in physical/social conflict to start with.
-
It's not merely 'more powerful than your typical stunt'. It is more than twice as powerful. Probably somewhere in the 3-4x as powerful range.
It is probably among the top 3 most powerful stand-alone single-refresh powers printed in either book.
Its not though...Its two stunts. which per rules you can move any trapping from one to another though you may need conditions depending on the skill.
-
Well, I had a nicely crafted post rebutting recent arguments, but alas, it is lost, so I'll have to make do with this cruder version, as I have things to do offline.
The most likely characters to take a trapping-mover stunt or power ARE those that have 'neglected' the skill normally associated with the trapping in question. Coincidentally, they are also the characters that most benefit from such stunts/powers. They are the ones that balance should be measured around, not some imbecilic character with Athletics near peak that nevertheless decided to use Lore as their defense rather than just boosting their athletics for the purposes of defense.
There are a total of 2 canon stunts, of which I am aware off hand, which are directly comparable to this power. Both have a significant limitation. I believe that there is a reason for this. If anyone has reason to believe otherwise, and wishes to share that reasoning with the board, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise, claims of 'you don't necessarily need one' sound like nothing other than 'nuh-uh!' to my ears.
-
True. Do you mind posting the stunts you are talking about? I cant seem to find them, not to say that they dont exits, but I cant make any point without knowing about the stunts.
-
The dodge-to-guns stunt discussed as an example in the stunt creation section, and Footwork found in the Fists section of the example stunts (wherein the limitation is the fact that Fists already provides a significant, if inferior, physical defense trapping of its own).
edit: thought of a 3rd comparable stunt:
'It takes one to know one', found in the Deceit section of the example stunts, allows Deceit to defend against a very limited form of social attack
-
True this power would only shine in certain builds, but the same could be said for just about any power. That alone doesn't mean it's balanced.
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but are there any powers in the YS that manipulate the skill point economy like this? (replacing or moving trappings to another skill?) Or is that limited to stunts? I'm not saying that you CAN'T do it with a power, I'm just curious to see if anybody knows.
-
Yes, but those are both stunts instead of powers. Powers are explicitly more powerful than stunts, and one way they're more powerful is they don't have the restrictions that stunts usually do--compare Sex Appeal (target has to be attracted to you anyway) to Incite Emotion for Lust (Works on everybody and is a skill replacement).
As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting AFSA to just physical defense.
I guess we have different rubrics for what's unbalanced or overpowered. To my thinking, the best that AFSA can do is move defense to the skill cap--while there are other stunts and powers that would instead let you defend past the skill cap. And if you're getting the biggest boost out of AFSA, that means you're not very good on offensive options, so your abilities are inherently limited. On those characters, it just means it's harder to beat you, but you can't really beat back.
I can't think of any off the top of my head, but are there any powers in the YS that manipulate the skill point economy like this? (replacing or moving trappings to another skill?) Or is that limited to stunts? I'm not saying that you CAN'T do it with a power, I'm just curious to see if anybody knows.
Kind of. Incite Emotion, for example, can lump seduction rolls (usually Rapport) into Deceit. It also moves mental attacks into skills that don't normally have them.
The True Faith powers tend to let you use Conviction for a lot of things it doesn't normally do.
-
As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting AFSA to just physical defense.
You're 'in favour of' cutting it's power by more than half, but you're arguing that it's probably not overpowered?
Am I just confused, here, or is this as ridiculous as it sounds?
-
You're 'in favour of' cutting it's power by more than half, but you're arguing that it's probably not overpowered?
Am I just confused, here, or is this as ridiculous as it sounds?
I'm in favor of cutting the bit about social conflict because it doesn't make any sense to me.
I'm arguing that it's probably not overpowered because even with the social defense, I don't think it's overpowered, for the reasons I've said--the best it's going to do is bring defense on par with others, with a high probability of still leaving offense way below par.
Your main objection to it seems to be not that it replaces defense, but that it replaces defense for too many kinds of things, so I figured dropping the one that makes the least sense to me would be an acceptable compromise.
-
When 4 is reasonably balanced, <2 is probably underpowered.
-
When 4 is reasonably balanced, <2 is probably underpowered.
Actually, that's the problem here. I keep forgetting to factor in the "or maneuvers" part.
-
The dodge-to-guns stunt discussed as an example in the stunt creation section,
This is the example for why it may need to be limited for certain skills. It is hard to justify defending with guns when you dont have a gun
Footwork found in the Fists section of the example stunts (wherein the limitation is the fact that Fists already provides a significant, if inferior, physical defense trapping of its own).
Thats not really a limitation on the stunt though, its more about fists.
'It takes one to know one', found in the Deceit section of the example stunts, allows Deceit to defend against a very limited form of social attack
This isnt really a defense; its knowing that they have lied. Rapport is ussually used for defense. Though I still agree that AFSA is odd to give you a bonus against social.
I do like the suggestion made earlier (not sure who and I am not looking back right now) about having it apply when one on one as opposed to in group conflicts.
-
I think we're mainly comparing apples to oranges here anyways. This is a power, not a stunt. Powers come with a hidden -2 tax attached, plus in this case I'd say an aspect would be required as well. I'd say compare this to other powers, like refinements and such.
To be fair, stunts seem a bit underpowered compared to powers. It's one thing that always irked me about the system.
-
You do get +2 Refresh for not getting powers though. That's nothing to sneeze at.
-
This is the example for why it may need to be limited for certain skills. It is hard to justify defending with guns when you dont have a gun
Thats not really a limitation on the stunt though, its more about fists.
Precisely the same effect applied to any skill other than Athletics, Fists, or Weapons would read as something along the lines of 'may use [X skill] for the Dodge trapping of Athletics in any case where the Close-Combat Defense trapping of Fists would not normally apply.'
The stunt provides only the portion of the Dodge trapping that is not already encompassed by Close-Combat Defense. This is not meaningfully distinguishable from having a limitation. The two are effectively synonymous.
This isnt really a defense; its knowing that they have lied. Rapport is ussually used for defense. Though I still agree that AFSA is odd to give you a bonus against social.
It is a defense against lie-based attacks and maneuvers.
If you think that the current state of something is balanced, chances are that any meaningful reduction in its power will cause it to be un-balanced.
For those arguing both that the current state is balanced AND that the stunt should be reduced in power, you must demonstrate why this is not the case for your particular suggested changes, or be arguing against yourselves.
-
For those arguing both that the current state is balanced AND that the stunt should be reduced in power, you must demonstrate why this is not the case for your particular suggested changes, or be arguing against yourselves.
I feel the power is balanced though it doesnt make narrative sense. This is the reason I would change it. I can argue both ways and still be making valid points for both arguments. Doesnt really matter if I am arguing against myself because you are going to rule how you like. So if you like my suggestion on why it should be reduced over why it is balanced that is what you are going to go with in your game and Vice-Versa. There should be no reason for you to limit how my argument goes.
Proposed stunt; "See it Comming" You may defend against physical attacks with alertness
Is that one unbalanced? What about these?
"Honeyed Words" You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts.
"Acrobat" You may use performance to defend against physical attacks.
These stunts may have a caveat such as "As long as you narrate it whatever" but thats not hard. These are all acceptable stunts per rules.
-
I've already explained exactly why I'm arguing the way I'm arguing, so there is nothing I "must" demonstrate.
-
I feel the power is balanced though it doesnt make narrative sense. This is the reason I would change it. I can argue both ways and still be making valid points for both arguments. Doesnt really matter if I am arguing against myself because you are going to rule how you like. So if you like my suggestion on why it should be reduced over why it is balanced that is what you are going to go with in your game and Vice-Versa. There should be no reason for you to limit how my argument goes.
I'm not limiting how your argument goes. I'm stating that your two simultaneous arguments are mutually exclusive.
Proposed stunt; "See it Comming" You may defend against physical attacks with alertness
Is that one unbalanced? What about these?
"Honeyed Words" You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts.
"Acrobat" You may use performance to defend against physical attacks.
These stunts may have a caveat such as "As long as you narrate it whatever" but thats not hard. These are all acceptable stunts per rules.
Each and every one of them is probably overpowered as a stunt, judging from the collected examples and guidelines.
-
Each and every one of them is probably overpowered as a stunt, judging from the collected examples and guidelines.
Well here are the rules/ guidelines. I would like to know how those didnt follow them:
The first possible use for a stunt is to broaden a skill by giving it a new trapping. Often this is a trapping that’s “transplanted” from one skill to another. Sometimes this trapping may need to be modified, or made more circumstantial, in order to fit its new skill
EDIT: Here is how my full write up of those stunts would look:
"See it Comming" You are good at predicting what people are about to do. You may defend against physical attacks with alertness as long as you can see them
"Honeyed Words" Most of your conversations lead people to believe you are honest. You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts when incorporating lies into your conversation.
"Acrobat" You are skilled at moving your body in ways people dont expect. You may use performance to defend against physical attacks as long as you narate it colorfully.
I believe the Italicized portions are your issue with the power since it doesnt have that, but the nature of the power is to litterally see the future so they dont really need a caveat such as the ones I have stated.
-
'collected examples and guidelines'
Those guidelines, tempered by the available examples, strongly suggest that this is one of those times when a limitation is necessary for balance reasons.
Unless you have an argument other than 'nuh-uh! the rules don't say I ALWAYS need to!'
If you do have such an argument, I'd be glad to hear it.
-
I edited my post. dont know if you saw that.
-
'collected examples and guidelines'
Those guidelines, tempered by the available examples, strongly suggest that this is one of those times when a limitation is necessary for balance reasons.
Unless you have an argument other than 'nuh-uh! the rules don't say I ALWAYS need to!'
If you do have such an argument, I'd be glad to hear it.
Also none of those things seems to be for balance reasons, most of them are four narrative reasons. "Can I dodge with fists?" "Sure"; "can I dodge with guns?" "Do you have a gun?"; "can I dodge with performance?" "Are you an acrobat"; "Can I dodge with lore?" "Do you see the future?"
I can keep going. It's not a balance thing it's a why is this here instead of where it usually is thing.
Also I have not said this power is unbalanced mechanics wise but narrative wise I believe it is. You think that it is unbalanced mechanically so I was trying to offer you suggestions to fix it for when you wanted to use it.
-
This is a bit frustrating, really.
I know for a fact that A Few Seconds Ahead obviates oodles of character concepts. I've built a lot of characters, and I've frequently run into situations where it or a variant of it would be mandatory if I were optimizing.
That's bad!
Powers shouldn't be mandatory like that!
(The issue is especially clear to me because I was presented with more or less that exact situation with one of my first PCs (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25753.msg1099875.html#msg1099875).
And then people try to dispute the validity of my experiences, using nothing except poorly-reasoned theory. It's tiresome.
Anyway, let's look at some practical examples.
OW isn't exactly lacking in characters that should (from an optimization perspective) have A Few Seconds Ahead. Essentially all of its spellcasters are in that position. Many of them would remain in that position even if they weren't as incredibly un-optimized as they are.
If you consider non-Lore-based Powers along the same lines, then the list of OW characters who are fools not to have such a Power grows. Charity comes to mind.
And if you also consider Stunts like the ones Lavecki is proposing, then the list expands to include a whole bunch of mortals. Some of those cops could really use a better physical defence skill.
"See it Comming" You are good at predicting what people are about to do. You may defend against physical attacks with alertness as long as you can see them
"Honeyed Words" Most of your conversations lead people to believe you are honest. You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts when incorporating lies into your conversation.
"Acrobat" You are skilled at moving your body in ways people dont expect. You may use performance to defend against physical attacks as long as you narate it colorfully.
Honeyed Words might be workable. The other two are too strong.
I remember I used to allow this sort of nonsense. But I saw the error of my ways eventually. You will too, if you keep fiddling with mechanics. Eventually stuff like this just becomes obvious.
-
This is a bit frustrating, really.
I know for a fact that A Few Seconds Ahead obviates oodles of character concepts. I've built a lot of characters, and I've frequently run into situations where it or a variant of it would be mandatory if I were optimizing.
That's bad!
Powers shouldn't be mandatory like that!
And then people try to dispute the validity of my experiences, using nothing except poorly-reasoned theory. It's tiresome.
You should look at it from my point of view. For myself, when I build characters, I optimise them and I have built a lot of optimised characters and continue to refine them even so, admittedly some of those characters are nothing but a list of canon Powers and a skill pyramid. And off hand, I can tell you, AFSA does not feature in about 80% of my top 10 Submerged optimised characters.
And I find someone using his wider experience at creating characters to invalidate my depth of experience at creating min-maxed, power gamed, uber optimised characters. It is so frustrating. I do not deny that AFSA is very good; if it wasn't, it wouldn't even be on any of my min-maxed characters. But when you compare the AFSA to the rest of the canon Powers worthy of inclusion in optimised characters, it is fighting other Powers and losing due to just that 0.01 point Refresh-effectiveness. If AFSA was really broken, it would feature on each and everyone of my min-maxed non-Pure Mortal characters.
-
You're right, that was rude of me. Sorry.
But I admit I'm a bit surprised to hear that you use it so rarely.
Perhaps it has to do with the type of characters you choose to build. Would I be correct in assuming that you don't build around concepts that aren't optimal?
Because if so, you might be discarding the character concepts that AFSA interferes with without even considering them.
The concepts that AFSA makes obsolete are (with a few exceptions) not impressively powerful. But in an AFSA-less game, they're at least not stupid. AFSA makes them straight-up incorrect.
My former PC Isaac Hall is a good example. He's not 100% optimal. But he can do things, and there's nothing in his build that's actually stupid. Except for him not having AFSA.
Do you get where I'm coming from?
AFSA makes so many interesting character concepts into suboptimal trap options. That's why I dislike it so much.
-
Perhaps it has to do with the type of characters you choose to build. Would I be correct in assuming that you don't build around concepts that aren't optimal?
Yes, while I do explore concepts that do not appear to optimal at first, once I have determined the concept to be sub-optimal, I store it away as another concept that just doesn't make Tier 1.
-
I once again find myself wondering what's so hard about the concept that players aren't going to build characters based solely on "What gets me the most bonuses?"
The thing about all of the powers in the game is that they have to make sense. Players are going to build based on character concept, and the vast, vast majority of them simply do not support A Few Seconds Ahead in a logical way.
No powers are mandatory. There's plenty of better ways to get similar or better effects than AFSA for any number of builds.
-
I once again find myself wondering what's so hard about the concept that players aren't going to build characters based solely on "What gets me the most bonuses?"
The thing about all of the powers in the game is that they have to make sense. Players are going to build based on character concept, and the vast, vast majority of them simply do not support A Few Seconds Ahead in a logical way.
No powers are mandatory. There's plenty of better ways to get similar or better effects than AFSA for any number of builds.
I agree with you. For the most part, arguing over game balance in FATE is kind of like arguing the correct pronunciation of ketchup. The result is going to be more or less the same no matter who's right. Making a min-maxed character is kind of boring any-ways, it's way more interesting to write realistic and interesting characters here. My general rule in Fate is - does this seem realistic to the story? If yes, then find the rules for it. If not, suggest something that is.
-
Yeah, character creation in this system starts with the template--you decide what kind of character you want to play, then decide on what powers fit that concept. It irritates me to keep seeing, "Well, everyone's going to take this power then." No, they're not. Because 99% of the builds don't logically support seeing the future.
If it were all and only about optimization, nobody would play a Pure Mortal. Hell, few people would play anything except a Wizard.
-
Honeyed Words might be workable. The other two are too strong.
I remember I used to allow this sort of nonsense. But I saw the error of my ways eventually. You will too, if you keep fiddling with mechanics. Eventually stuff like this just becomes obvious.
I know you have a reason for this but I dont see it. Would you mind elaborating?
-
If it were all and only about optimization, nobody would play a Pure Mortal. Hell, few people would play anything except a Wizard.
Actually, I've been thinking of house ruling the pure mortal bonus - it seems like one of the few places where the system balance does discourage certain builds a little too much. I might give it some sort of scaling mechanic for higher refresh games...
-
The balance of the game as a whole begins to break down as refresh enters the teens, but yes, Pure Mortals are one point where it breaks down particularly severely.
-
Actually, I've been thinking of house ruling the pure mortal bonus - it seems like one of the few places where the system balance does discourage certain builds a little too much. I might give it some sort of scaling mechanic for higher refresh games...
What do you mean? Like give them a bigger refresh bonus as they progress up?
-
What do you mean? Like give them a bigger refresh bonus as they progress up?
Either that, or more skill points at higher refreshes. E.g.
Pure mortal +2 - Add an additional skill point for every point of refresh you have before adjustments by stunts.
-
EDIT: Here is how my full write up of those stunts would look:
"See it Comming" You are good at predicting what people are about to do. You may defend against physical attacks with alertness as long as you can see them
"Honeyed Words" Most of your conversations lead people to believe you are honest. You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts when incorporating lies into your conversation.
"Acrobat" You are skilled at moving your body in ways people dont expect. You may use performance to defend against physical attacks as long as you narate it colorfully.
I believe the Italicized portions are your issue with the power since it doesnt have that, but the nature of the power is to litterally see the future so they dont really need a caveat such as the ones I have stated.
Honeyed Words might be workable. The other two are too strong.
I agree with Sanctaphrax, though I don't really like the wording of it.
For See it Coming, the limitation isn't really a limitation. For attacks you're unaware of, isn't your defense reduced to mediocre? Saying "you can use this skill to defend against attacks except when you can't defend against attacks" is identical to saying "you can use this skill to defend against attacks". More appropriate might be something like "you can use this skill to defend against attacks from enemies you have placed 'Studied' (or a similar aspect) on".
For Honeyed Words, the phrase "when incorporating lies into your conversation" is too nebulous, I think. If the restriction was instead something like "when you have already successfully lied in the current conflict" or "when you have not unsuccessfully lied in the current conflict", that would be better-defined, and either of those fits with the description of the stunt.
Your restriction for "Acrobat" is not a restriction reliant on the character, but rather the player's ability to come up with stunts. I think it'd be more appropriate for the restriction to instead be "as long as you have sufficient room for your acrobatic maneuvers", or something similar.
-
That makes sense; my point was however that power rules there doesn't need to be a restriction unless it has to be there. I think alertness makes the most sense(it's hard to avoid an attack if you don't know it's happening) so this stunt is to show the ability to see the attack earlier, rather than reading quicker. I think I could even justify defending against physical attacks with scholarship and am actually going to try and make a stunt moving dodge into every available skill in my next post
EDIT: Mostly to see if I can; not to dispute anyone
-
The balance of the game as a whole begins to break down as refresh enters the teens, but yes, Pure Mortals are one point where it breaks down particularly severely.
May I ask how? Please bear in mind I usually only allow canon/RAW Powers and Stunts, only rarely allowing re-skinned Powers and Stunts and I have yet to encounter this breakdown for optimised characters (Pure Mortal or not).
My rough outline for optimal build for the Pure Mortal: take minimal Stunts (which have no canon/RAW Power equivalent, so that a Supernat would have to take those same Stunts to have access to those particular abilities without the Pure Mortal bonus to show for it) and have mostly Positive Aspects that overlap. In gameplay, assuming that there are appropriate Aspects, play up those areas where your Stunts give you the edge, act as a Declaration machine, and/or FP alpha strike (usually in those areas where your Stunts already give you an edge). Oh and keep swapping an Aspect/Stunt every Milestone to keep any NPC who has encountered the character guessing.
-
Being a supernatural lets you spend each and every Refresh point on Powers if you want. How useful that choice is depends on how many Refresh points it applies to.
So the benefit of taking Powers goes up and up, while the mortal bonus stays the same at +2 Refresh.
It might be advisable to make the mortal bonus a fraction of total Refresh instead of a flat number.
(That would also prevent mortal supremacy in really low Refresh games. But since almost nobody plays below Feet In The Water, I doubt you care.)
That makes sense; my point was however that power rules there doesn't need to be a restriction unless it has to be there. I think alertness makes the most sense(it's hard to avoid an attack if you don't know it's happening) so this stunt is to show the ability to see the attack earlier, rather than reading quicker. I think I could even justify defending against physical attacks with scholarship and am actually going to try and make a stunt moving dodge into every available skill in my next post
EDIT: Mostly to see if I can; not to dispute anyone
There are quite a few such stunts on the list already, you know.
I went through and gave them all restrictions a while back, because the physical defence trapping is really powerful. If you can add 2 to all of your defence rolls for 1 Refresh, that's probably the most efficient combat bonus you'll ever find.
The thing about all of the powers in the game is that they have to make sense. Players are going to build based on character concept, and the vast, vast majority of them simply do not support A Few Seconds Ahead in a logical way.
Posts like this confuse me. You demonstrate the problem, then claim you've demonstrated the exact opposite.
The concept doesn't support AFSA, so the guy playing it gets gimped. That sucks.
Yes, while I do explore concepts that do not appear to optimal at first, once I have determined the concept to be sub-optimal, I store it away as another concept that just doesn't make Tier 1.
Ah, okay.
What I've been trying to say is that A Few Seconds Ahead forces me to store away a bunch of concepts in that "not good enough" category.
I'll still make those characters from that category sometimes, but I resent that I have to.
I mean, half the reason I play DFRPG is its comparatively strong mechanical balance. This goes against that.
In DFRPG, a Wizard and a mortal can both be similarly effective. Neither is actually more powerful than the other, mechanically.* So I can play either without worrying. I really like that.
I suppose you don't mind discarding a concept as much I do. You can just say "the idea is weak so I won't play it" where I would say "the idea is weak and that is a failure on the game's part".
*Barring Orbius, certain thaumaturgy issues, and unusual Refresh levels. The GM can generally fix the first two and the third doesn't matter in most games.
-
The thing is I don't see how it is all that game breaking to defend with your apex skill. If this same skill is being used to attack than maybe but there are stunts (at the very least homebrew) that let you attack with athletics, the only downside being you can't benefit from speed powers. I don't see this as much different from defending with weapons, and I can't figure out why you would limit the skill for physical defense when it is a normally, non combat skill
-
Why wouldn't a skill moving the attack trapping of Fists to Athletics benefit from Inhuman Speed? I thought it read something like: "+1 to athletics (including the dodge trapping). +2 when spritining." I don't have the books in front of me.
I personally dislike the fact that Speed's +1 to dodge won't apply to my character if I have Footwork or a similiar stunt. If I move faster I should be harder to hit regardless of what skill I'm using, unless the narrative of my dodging is pretty damn weird. IDK, maybe it's just the tables I've been playing on.
-
I've always figured that if a power or stunt applies to a specific trapping, if you move said trapping to another skill, the power or stunt should still be applicable.
-
I've always figured that if a power or stunt applies to a specific trapping, if you move said trapping to another skill, the power or stunt should still be applicable.
This was my understanding as well
-
Posts like this confuse me. You demonstrate the problem, then claim you've demonstrated the exact opposite.
The concept doesn't support AFSA, so the guy playing it gets gimped. That sucks.
How is he gimped? As I said, there are numerous ways to meet or exceed the benefits of AFSA for the same or lesser refresh costs (the simplest and most cost effective being to just have a decent dodging stat, which characters are inclined to have anyway).
Nearly everyone I've ever played with, if they're told that their character concept doesn't support a power they want, will just shrug, go, "Okay, what can I get?" and move on.
The problem is that you completely neglect character concept as a balancing factor. You seem to be arguing under the premise that the only thing worth using as criteria to decide a character type is, "What is the most effective and efficient thing to do?" A lot of people don't.
In DFRPG, a Wizard and a mortal can both be similarly effective. Neither is actually more powerful than the other, mechanically.* So I can play either without worrying. I really like that.
I suppose you don't mind discarding a concept as much I do. You can just say "the idea is weak so I won't play it" where I would say "the idea is weak and that is a failure on the game's part".
What you seem to totally discount is all the players who aren't basing every single one of their character design decisions on, "Will this be the most optimal course of action?"
Most everyone I've played with will just play a character concept. That's it. Not, "the idea is weak in stats," but "this is an interesting character type, so I'll give it a shot."
Do you want to play a character concept that doesn't have awesome defense and attack stats, but high Lore? Go ahead! Use that high Lore and your other skills to adapt to situations and avoid straight slugging it out with monsters. A character isn't "gimped" or somehow broken just because he can't defend on par with Shiro or deflect witty repartee so deftly that Lara can't even get him to glance at her cleavage. It just means the character has a different focus, and DFRPG is a game where a character who hits the books isn't worse than a character who hits the monsters.
The game isn't a competition or a tournament. You're not "cheated" somehow if you didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game. The important thing, the way I see it, is building a character that good stories could be built around. Whether or not the character is maximally efficient and spending all his skill points and refresh in the Top Tier Way should be, at best, a secondary concern.
-
How is he gimped? As I said, there are numerous ways to meet or exceed the benefits of AFSA for the same or lesser refresh costs (the simplest and most cost effective being to just have a decent dodging stat, which characters are inclined to have anyway).
Nearly everyone I've ever played with, if they're told that their character concept doesn't support a power they want, will just shrug, go, "Okay, what can I get?" and move on.
The problem is that you completely neglect character concept as a balancing factor. You seem to be arguing under the premise that the only thing worth using as criteria to decide a character type is, "What is the most effective and efficient thing to do?" A lot of people don't.
What you seem to totally discount is all the players who aren't basing every single one of their character design decisions on, "Will this be the most optimal course of action?"
Most everyone I've played with will just play a character concept. That's it. Not, "the idea is weak in stats," but "this is an interesting character type, so I'll give it a shot."
Do you want to play a character concept that doesn't have awesome defense and attack stats, but high Lore? Go ahead! Use that high Lore and your other skills to adapt to situations and avoid straight slugging it out with monsters. A character isn't "gimped" or somehow broken just because he can't defend on par with Shiro or deflect witty repartee so deftly that Lara can't even get him to glance at her cleavage. It just means the character has a different focus, and DFRPG is a game where a character who hits the books isn't worse than a character who hits the monsters.
The game isn't a competition or a tournament. You're not "cheated" somehow if you didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game. The important thing, the way I see it, is building a character that good stories could be built around. Whether or not the character is maximally efficient and spending all his skill points and refresh in the Top Tier Way should be, at best, a secondary concern.
QFT. As a note: optimized regardless of concept is something brought over from rules heavy systems like D&D - because it's fun in those systems. If someone tries to play like that here, they will end up bored really fast compared to the interesting personalities that come out of concept driven characters, where a weakness is the fuel that drives your strengths.
-
I personally dislike the fact that Speed's +1 to dodge won't apply to my character if I have Footwork or a similiar stunt. If I move faster I should be harder to hit regardless of what skill I'm using, unless the narrative of my dodging is pretty damn weird. IDK, maybe it's just the tables I've been playing on.
Actually I do agree that moving the trapping from one skill to another does not benefit from some other ability that keys off the original skill.
The game isn't a competition or a tournament. You're not "cheated" somehow if you didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game. The important thing, the way I see it, is building a character that good stories could be built around. Whether or not the character is maximally efficient and spending all his skill points and refresh in the Top Tier Way should be, at best, a secondary concern.
To me, the game is a competition or a tournament. At least the character generation portion is. The competition is all the other concepts in my head. I feel cheated if if I didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game, so therefore I game, most "roleplayers" are so enamoured of the "roleplaying" that they lose sight that it is first and foremost a game and games have winners. The way I see it, the best stories are built around maximally efficient top tier characters. And during character generation, spending all skill points and refresh and shaping Aspects in the Top Tier Way should be, at the minimum, the primary concern. I find optimised builds easily shape up into interesting concepts.
-
I feel compelled to say that I completely disagree with pretty much everything you're saying in that last paragraph as emphatically as I can without actually setting fire to something and putting on warpaint. But we went over all of that in a previous thread.
-
The thing is I don't see how it is all that game breaking to defend with your apex skill. If this same skill is being used to attack than maybe but there are stunts (at the very least homebrew) that let you attack with athletics, the only downside being you can't benefit from speed powers. I don't see this as much different from defending with weapons, and I can't figure out why you would limit the skill for physical defense when it is a normally, non combat skill
Defending with your apex skill isn't inherently game-breaking.
It's just very useful, and you'd be a fool not to take it if your normal physical defences are crummy.
And it's not good for the game to have things that you'd be a fool not to take. Theoretically all stunts are equally powerful and there are no wrong choices; this changes that.
Why wouldn't a skill moving the attack trapping of Fists to Athletics benefit from Inhuman Speed?
It would, normally.
But the stunt in question (which applies to thrown weapons IIRC) specifically prohibits the use of Speed bonuses. Wouldn't be fair otherwise.
Actually that stunt might be a bit too good anyway, depending on how you interpret the thrown weapon rules.
QFT. As a note: optimized regardless of concept is something brought over from rules heavy systems like D&D - because it's fun in those systems. If someone tries to play like that here, they will end up bored really fast compared to the interesting personalities that come out of concept driven characters, where a weakness is the fuel that drives your strengths.
Wait, what?
First time I read this I thought you were saying something incredibly silly. Re-read and now I'm not sure what you mean.
Could you re-phrase?
...You seem to be arguing under the premise that the only thing worth using as criteria to decide a character type is, "What is the most effective and efficient thing to do?"...
No, no, no, no, no.
No.
No.
We've had this rough conversation plenty of times before. I've explained over and over that that's not what I'm saying.
I've done so in this very thread.
So can you please do me a favour?
Re-read my posts. Try to think of other ways to interpret my position. Try to rephrase my position in one of your own posts.
And then maybe I can get my point across.
I mean...it would be one thing if you disagreed with me. But I don't know if you actually do. I know you disagree with the person you imagine me to be, but...that guy sounds like a lunatic.
And while we're at it, maybe you can help me understand your argument. So far as I can tell you have two main lines of argument here.
The first is that AFSA isn't too strong because people who want it probably have enchanted defence items.
The second is that it doesn't matter if it's too strong because real roleplayers don't care.
Is that a fair summary?
PS: I am not toturi and I don't really share his approach, but I have found that optimized characters tend to have more interesting concepts than un-optimized ones. Probably because optimization requires you to a) understand the game and b) care about your character.
-
Defending with your apex skill isn't inherently game-breaking.
It's just very useful, and you'd be a fool not to take it if your normal physical defences are crummy.
And it's not good for the game to have things that you'd be a fool not to take. Theoretically all stunts are equally powerful and there are no wrong choices; this changes that.
Then why do they exist? AFSA aside are the proposed stunts (at least the reworked one's by poit) valid? I think the balance comes from the trade between fate points and skill points. I may be a fool to not take the stunt, but maybe I have more important things to worry about than my physical defense.
-
AFSA is a very good hole patcher power, it is a very BAD optimization power. For equivelent additional refresh investment, many optimized character designs can achieve better results through other mechanisms. Specifically:
Casters can get Lore +1 physical and social defenses with 1 refresh in refinement (+1 Crafting Power, a physical defense item and a social defense item).
Mortals can get +1 or +2 on their apex combat skill for defense and patch up the other one to apex level.
Other supernaturals can invest in half of Inhuman Speed... and ok, no really good social defense powers, but you could go for an attack and just crush the mortals. Either way, you can break your skill cap.
The key points about AFSA are that it doesn't break cap and it doesn't stack with much of anything else. Optimized characters are better off investing elsewhere, non optimized characters with a good lore and no apex physical nor social defenses who have powers anyways, could get AFSA to patch up their defenses, and that is really not a problem, they are going to need it.
As for how it works for social defenses, it robs the element of surprise, you have a moment to think about things and see reactions ahead of time. Watch NEXT sometime to see this power dialed up to 11.
-
I wouldn't allow Acrobat or See It Coming.
Physical defence is just straight-up more powerful than your average trapping. Few characters can afford to neglect it.
Think of it this way. Defending against all physical attacks is basically two trappings. 1 for melee attacks (Fists and Weapons have this trapping) and 1 for ranged attacks. So you're kind of getting 2 stunts for the price of 1.
AFSA is a very good hole patcher power, it is a very BAD optimization power. For additional refresh investment, many optimized character designs can achieve better results through other mechanisms. Specifically:
Casters can get Lore +1 physical and social defenses with 1 refresh in refinement (+1 Crafting Power, a physical defense item and a social defense item).
Mortals can get +1 or +2 on their apex combat skill for defense and patch up the other one to apex level.
Other supernaturals can invest in half of Inhuman Speed... and ok, no really good social defense powers, but you could go for an attack and just crush the mortals. Either way, you can break your skill cap.
The key points about AFSA are that it doesn't break cap and it doesn't stack with much of anything else. Optimized characters are better off investing elsewhere, non optimized characters with a good lore and no apex physical nor social defenses who have powers anyways, could get AFSA to patch up their defenses, and that is really not a problem, they are going to need it.
As for how it works for social defenses, it robs the element of surprise, you have a moment to think about things and see reactions ahead of time. Watch NEXT sometime to see this power dialed up to 11.
Items are limited use. Social defence items might not even be possible.
And defending with Inhuman Speed is only good for people who have Athletics high anyway.
A character can be optimal without being a combat monster. For such a character, something like AFSA is way too good.
-
Items are limited use. Social defence items might not even be possible.
And defending with Inhuman Speed is only good for people who have Athletics high anyway.
A character can be optimal without being a combat monster. For such a character, something like AFSA is way too good.
Items have a limited usage, true. But the efficiency of enchanted items with respect to unlimited use abilities really hinge upon how many times you are attacked per combat - any form of combat.
Defending with Inhuman Speed + high Athletics should naturally be compared to defending with AFSA and high Lore. In both cases, both skills need to be high for the combination to be good.
To me, a combat monster is a powerhouse in any of the different forms of combat. Perhaps it may be good to have an example of what you mean and what you do not mean by combat monster before we start having a discussion on this point.
-
No, no, no, no, no.
No.
No.
We've had this rough conversation plenty of times before. I've explained over and over that that's not what I'm saying.
I've done so in this very thread.
So can you please do me a favour?
Re-read my posts. Try to think of other ways to interpret my position. Try to rephrase my position in one of your own posts.
I've read your posts, and they all seem to boil down to the idea that players are most interested in what gives them the most "optimal" build, to the point where this will override any character concept they had in mind. That anything that's less than optimal won't be taken, and therefore anything with the slightest advantage becomes "mandatory."
In previous threads, as well as this one, you've expressed exactly that--that if Rune Magic is slightly better than Ritual (Crafting) with two Refinements for focus items, then nobody will ever take Ritual (Crafting), regardless of character concept. In this thread, that if AFSA isn't modified, then everyone who can will become fortunetellers.
I've read your posts. Perhaps you're not making your point as well as you think you are. There's different ways of playing the game, and you seem to be discounting a large chunk of them.
And while we're at it, maybe you can help me understand your argument. So far as I can tell you have two main lines of argument here.
The first is that AFSA isn't too strong because people who want it probably have enchanted defence items.
The second is that it doesn't matter if it's too strong because real roleplayers don't care.
Is that a fair summary?
Not exactly. The first line of the argument is that AFSA isn't too strong because it's only going to be a major advantage on builds that either are A. so physically/socially handicapped already that even with a massive boost in defense, they're still going to lag behind because they're largely incapable of offense, or B. already have access to better ways of defending. I see it as not being overly strong because it's a power whose utility is fairly niche.
The second line isn't accurate. I'm not saying, "Real roleplayers don't care." I'm saying that a lot of players are going to base their character design decisions more on, "This is what I want to play" than "What will give me the most efficient advantages?"
Admittedly, players will gravitate toward more powerful builds--Wizards seem to be a lot more plentiful in games than other builds, but I just don't see AFSA as so significant of an advantage that it's going to change someone's mind on the character build. It's something that, even from a mechanical perspective, only provides an advantage to a build in situations that build is just not made for. It'll help a librarian not get instantly eviscerated by a ghoul, but if Lore is so much higher than the other logical defense/attack skills, that's about all it's going to do.
Perhaps the best way I can put it is...I see an inherent disconnect in your objections to AFSA. You say that the power is "mandatory" because it's so powerful. I take that to mean you see players as always wanting a mechanical advantage, in this case in physical conflict. But the character types that benefit most from AFSA are ones that are inherently disadvantaged in physical conflict. So if the player is so focused on getting every advantage in conflict, why are they playing a character who's build is inherently bad at those conflicts?
The way I see it, if the player is so focused on mechanical advantage in conflict that he's going to completely discount a build that doesn't let him use AFSA, then why isn't he playing something that's just already good at conflict, so he could spend his refresh improving at conflict instead of just making himself barely passable?
I see the players who AFSA would most help--the ones with most mechanical incentive to take it--as not caring about AFSA because they're already deciding to play a character that isn't focused on those conflicts. A player who's decided to play a librarian probably didn't do so with "And he'll be awesome in a fight!" as the priority.
-
I've read your posts. Perhaps you're not making your point as well as you think you are.
It's certainly a possibility.
Your interpretation of my beliefs is wrong, regardless.
Your interpretation is basically a mixture of two things that I actually believe, combined in an incorrect way.
1. Character creation can be viewed as a game within a game. The win condition of this game is to make as powerful a character as possible. Selecting a trait for your character is like making a move in the game.
When I say that something is mandatory, I mean in the context of this game-within-the-game. It's a dominant strategy, to use a game-theory term.
Obviously the game-within-a-game model of character creation is not a perfect simulation of actual play. But it's an excellent way to find balance problems like AFSA. So I talk about it a lot in these discussions.
2. People don't like having weak characters. They don't absolutely hate it, but they generally prefer to be strong rather than weak.
So if people have lots of character ideas, they'll tend not to play the weak ones.
And if people have their hearts set on one character idea, they'll resent being weakened by their choice.
I can illustrate with a silly example. Suppose you gave every character with red hair -1 to all Weapons rolls. Most people just wouldn't play red-haired characters. Those who did play red-haired characters would rightly regard that rule as stupid and annoying.
AFSA and other overly-optimal Powers do something similar, except instead of "has red hair" you have "concept doesn't fit the Power" and the penalty is different.
Not exactly. The first line of the argument is that AFSA isn't too strong because it's only going to be a major advantage on builds that either are A. so physically/socially handicapped already that even with a massive boost in defense, they're still going to lag behind because they're largely incapable of offense, or B. already have access to better ways of defending.
The second line isn't accurate. I'm not saying, "Real roleplayers don't care." I'm saying that a lot of players are going to base their character design decisions more on, "This is what I want to play" than "What will give me the most efficient advantages?"
Okay, yeah. Obviously true.
But as I'm trying to explain, that doesn't actually rebut what I'm trying to say here.
I see the players who AFSA would most help--the ones with most mechanical incentive to take it--as not caring about AFSA because they're already deciding to play a character that isn't focused on those conflicts. A player who's decided to play a librarian probably didn't do so with "And he'll be awesome in a fight!" as the priority.
Even if your character isn't combat focused, spending 1 Refresh to become massively better at surviving is an awesome deal. Too awesome, in this case.
Adding AFSA to a librarian turns him from "smart, but fragile and not great socially" to "smart, dodges like a ninja, and very hard to mess with socially". Your offence will still be limited to maneuvers, but that's not nothing.
(Also there are a couple of combat-focused builds that benefit greatly from AFSA and similar Powers for other skills. They're a bit edge-case-y, though, so I won't harp on them.)
-
If the librarian had no other powers, AFSA is eating 3 refresh, not 1. If the librarian has any casting, they would be better served putting that 1 refresh towards improving their casting. If the librarian has powers but no casting, has apex lore but no near apex combat defense nor social defense skill... Then at that point they are an intentionally deoptimized character and they can choose to skip AFSA or not skip it as they see fit, it doesn't matter, they already chose to avoid 'better' options, there shouldn't be anything stopping them from forgoing AFSA as well, if they don't envision the character as a precognitive.
P.S. Social defense enchanted items are relatively easy through a variety of mechanisms, be they divination, self directed mentalism, self directed bio/pharmomancy or even preparatory conjuration (skill substitution on resources)
-
If the librarian had no other powers, AFSA is eating 3 refresh, not 1. If the librarian has any casting, they would be better served putting that 1 refresh towards improving their casting. If the librarian has powers but no casting, has apex lore but no near apex combat defense nor social defense skill... Then at that point they are an intentionally deoptimized character and they can choose to skip AFSA or not skip it as they see fit, it doesn't matter, they already chose to avoid 'better' options, there shouldn't be anything stopping them from forgoing AFSA as well, if they don't envision the character as a precognitive.
P.S. Social defense enchanted items are relatively easy through a variety of mechanisms, be they divination, self directed mentalism, self directed bio/pharmomancy or even preparatory conjuration (skill substitution on resources)
QFT.
-
I wouldn't allow Acrobat or See It Coming.
Physical defence is just straight-up more powerful than your average trapping. Few characters can afford to neglect it.
Think of it this way. Defending against all physical attacks is basically two trappings. 1 for melee attacks (Fists and Weapons have this trapping) and 1 for ranged attacks. So you're kind of getting 2 stunts for the price of 1.
Makes sense but the proposed stunt in the book (shot on the run) moves the dodge trapping to guns, a skill that currently does not have any dodge trapping, melee or ranged. Also is not two trappings, I know you want it to be but dodge is the trapping, if it is more applicable use the melee defense trapping than that could work, but I don't have to. It's not like getting two stunts it's like getting half a stunt if you use weapons or fists, which as I said, is a limitation on the skill, not something you should force on other stunts.
-
If the librarian had no other powers, AFSA is eating 3 refresh, not 1. If the librarian has any casting, they would be better served putting that 1 refresh towards improving their casting. If the librarian has powers but no casting, has apex lore but no near apex combat defense nor social defense skill... Then at that point they are an intentionally deoptimized character and they can choose to skip AFSA or not skip it as they see fit, it doesn't matter, they already chose to avoid 'better' options, there shouldn't be anything stopping them from forgoing AFSA as well, if they don't envision the character as a precognitive.
Let's break it down:
1. The 'No Powers Whatsoever' case
You are correct that you shouldn't buy a 1pt power and lose your 2pt pure mortal bonus for a power that is two trappings-moving stunts. Of course if your group won't let you move defenses to whatever skill you want for a stunt and equivalent defenses would cost you 3+ stunts, then you might as well pick up this power (and maybe something else that'll fit your concept since you've already 'broken the seal' on powers).
2. The 'I actually already have some powers, one of which is spellcasting' case.
So for this character, your peak skills include Discipline, Conviction and Lore, or you frankly didn't read the book. When you pick up this power, you bring at least one (and almost certainly two) or your conflict defenses up to either skill cap or skill cap - 1. You already have mental defense at cap or cap-1 since it works off of Discipline. My tingling common sense says that if you're planning on taking this power, then Lore is probably at the skill cap unless you're playing one of the tiers where you can only afford 1 skill at the cap level. So the end result of this power is that all your defenses are as maxed as is practical. Congratulations, you have achieved being a boring character with no downsides.
Your alternative equivalent spending here would be 1 point for 4 slots of enchanted items. You could get 3 physical and 3 social defenses per session at Lore level (or some other combination of slots if you feel that's more useful). The downside of that is that you've got to track those uses and make sure that you aren't disarmed of your items, which makes unlimited use with no items the more attractive option. Of course you could've already broken the game in half with Refinement spending, so your 4 enchanted item slots actually give you like 12 defenses a session at Lore*2 or whatever, but actual physical people are already sick of your crap and wish you'd stop coming to the game sessions at that point, so I don't really care what you spend your refresh on.
3. The 'I already have powers, but spellcasting isn't one of them' case.
If you don't have Speed powers, then you're probably already spending a point of refresh on a stunt to bring your 'don't get shot in the face' defense roll to your primary offensive skill. Chances are you were pretty happy to do so because you realized the benefits of not being shot in the face. Sure the wizard got twice as much benefit for his 1 point as you got for yours, but you should be used to that by now, right?
If you have Speed powers, you should probably demand a special snowflake power that lets you defend against social and mental attacks with your maxed Athletics score. Hell you've actually spent points on being super fast; you'd actually be able to react in time to do something unlike the guy with the staff who's picking up 'defend against everything with one of my core skills' for peanuts.
P.S. Social defense enchanted items are relatively easy through a variety of mechanisms, be they divination, self directed mentalism, self directed bio/pharmomancy or even preparatory conjuration (skill substitution on resources)
Well they're certainly available to *somebody*, but coincidentally it's the class of somebodies who already have all the advantages in the world and a kite.
Hmm... so I guess if your point is that 'A wizard could totally break the game way, way worse as-is, so it's fine if they get this other thing that is tailored specifically to them that is still better than what everyone else gets, but inferior to the other gross stuff that wizards can do, so this power is fine' then I agree with you?
-
Let's break it down:
1. The 'No Powers Whatsoever' case
2. The 'I actually already have some powers, one of which is spellcasting' case.
3. The 'I already have powers, but spellcasting isn't one of them' case.
In all the cases, I have yet to see how you are proving Grymor incorrect. Despite all the vehemence, I think you are actually proving him correct with your arguments.
-
Makes sense but the proposed stunt in the book (shot on the run) moves the dodge trapping to guns, a skill that currently does not have any dodge trapping, melee or ranged. Also is not two trappings, I know you want it to be but dodge is the trapping, if it is more applicable use the melee defense trapping than that could work, but I don't have to. It's not like getting two stunts it's like getting half a stunt if you use weapons or fists, which as I said, is a limitation on the skill, not something you should force on other stunts.
Nitpick: I didn't actually say it was two trappings. I said it basically was. I added that word because yes, it is actually listed as a single trapping in the book.
You'll notice that the Guns stunt has a restriction. The book suggest two possible ones. Personally I think the first one they suggest is pushing the limits a bit, but it's there. And it's necessary.
Not sure what you meant by the last bit.
If the librarian had no other powers, AFSA is eating 3 refresh, not 1. If the librarian has any casting, they would be better served putting that 1 refresh towards improving their casting. If the librarian has powers but no casting, has apex lore but no near apex combat defense nor social defense skill... Then at that point they are an intentionally deoptimized character and they can choose to skip AFSA or not skip it as they see fit, it doesn't matter, they already chose to avoid 'better' options, there shouldn't be anything stopping them from forgoing AFSA as well, if they don't envision the character as a precognitive.
AFSA is indeed balanced if you multiply its cost by 3. So it's fine as a character's only power.
But AFSA is better than a Refinement's worth of defence items for a non-Crafter. It's not gear dependent, it can be boosted with Aspect invokes, and it can be used infinitely. The items are lose-able, non-boostable, and only have 3 free uses each. The defence roll granted is the same. (Though you could go for power over uses with the items, I think that'd be a mistake.) This is very worrying, since a Refinement's worth of defence items is really powerful even without a Crafting bonus.
And it's possible to be a reasonably supernatural optimal character with Lore -1 > defence skills and no Thaumaturgy. I can provide examples if you like.
P.S. Social defense enchanted items are relatively easy through a variety of mechanisms, be they divination, self directed mentalism, self directed bio/pharmomancy or even preparatory conjuration (skill substitution on resources)
Eh.
I know that you can block social attacks with magic. But I'm not sure a single spell could cover every possible social attack. I'm not sure I'd let you make a single item that works against both a rumour that you're a pedophile and an attempt to scare you.
Also, physical defence items are apparently unique among enchanted items in that they can be activated without an action. Whether the same exception applies to social items is up for debate.
I'm not saying social defence items are a definite no-go, but they're not a definite go either.
PS: My dislike of AFSA isn't just about the power itself. It's also about the precedent it sets. The Power itself is overpowered, but the problem gets infinitely worse when you add in a version for each skill.
PPS: I also dislike it for being a stunt in a Power costume. One of the major reasons that stunts are balanced is that most Powers aren't just a stunt with a little extra juice.
-
And it's possible to be a reasonably supernatural optimal character with Lore -1 > defence skills and no Thaumaturgy. I can provide examples if you like.
I know you were addressing the remark to Grymor. But I am curious. Please do.
-
Sure.
Here's a blaster.
Mikhail Raskolnikov (Chest Deep)
High Concept: Pyromancer
Trouble Aspect: I Really Like Blowing Stuff Up
Other Aspects: Atrophied Wizardry, Very Very Old
Skills:
Superb: Conviction, Lore
Great: Discipline, Investigation
Good: Alertness, Athletics
Fair: Stealth, Craftsmanship
Average: Endurance, Deceit
Powers:
Channeling (Fire) [-2]
Refinement [-4]
The Sight [-1]
Soulgaze [-0]
Wizard's Constitution [-0]
Magic:
Foci: Right-Hand Staff (+4 offensive fire power), Left-Hand Staff (+5 offensive fire control), Belt (+1 defensive fire power)
Total Refresh Cost:
-7
Refresh Total:
1
Here's an assassin.
Steven Black (Feet In The Water)
High Concept: Shade-Blooded Assassin
Trouble Aspect: Trying To Go Straight
Other Aspects: Expert On Weaknesses, Creature Of The Night
Skills:
Great: Guns, Lore
Good: Alertness, Stealth
Fair: Deceit, Athletics
Average: Endurance, Fists
Stunts:
Expert On Weaknesses (Lore): +2 to Lore when using it for ways to kill things.
Powers:
Cloak Of Shadows [-1]
Inhuman Toughness [-2]
Inhuman Recovery [-2]
The Catch (Bright Light) [+3]
Total Refresh Cost:
-3
Refresh Total:
3
Here's a non-combatant.
Eliza Dunningham (Feet In The Water)
High Concept: Emissary Of Janus
Trouble Aspect: Supernatural Politics
Other Aspects: Too Clever, Seen Some Seriously Strange Stuff
Skills:
Great: Lore, Deceit
Good: Presence, Rapport
Fair: Empathy, Resources
Average: Conviction, Discipline
Stunts:
Nevernever Contacts (Lore): Use Lore for Contacts in the Nevernever.
Powers:
Marked By Power [-1]
Worldwalker [-2]
Total Refresh Cost:
-4
Refresh Total:
2
All three are fragile but competent. They're not optimized to the hilt, but they're respectably powerful. AFSA fixes their fragility, so they should all take it if they want to be as powerful as possible. But it doesn't fit any of their concepts. This is a problem.
Incidentally, the number of examples explodes if you consider homebrew. That's another reason I dislike AFSA; it messes with the design space for homebrew.
-
A slight tweak to the pyro would easily solve the problem. The key here is to remember wizards gain a sort of prescience as they grow older. As I see it, there is space within the concept of an atrophied wizard to have AFSA, it could well be the remnants of his Thaum.
The assassin and the non-combatant are. Well actually I am at a lost for words. Because I think that they only brush the bottom rungs of powerful in certain circumstances and this is with respect to their Refresh level.
I am trying not to be offensive, so please don't take this the wrong way.
-
Don't worry, I'm not going to be offended by that.
I'm well aware that these aren't super-powerful characters. As I said before, this is just moderate optimization; avoiding stupid choices and making characters that can do their job.
I understand that you wouldn't play Steven Black. But he's head and shoulders above pretty much everything in OW in terms of optimization. And judging by the characters I've seen other people make, he's a bit stronger than the average Feet In The Water PC.
Balancing the game isn't just about keeping the absolute maximum power level from getting too high. Moderately optimal characters matter too.
As for the pyro...I know I could tweak his concept to justify AFSA. But I shouldn't have to. This is what I mean when I say that AFSA obviates concepts.
-
Sanctaphrax: Okay, I think I see better where you're coming from now, and put in those terms, AFSA might not be the best designed power. As I said before, it just plain doesn't make sense to me for it to be a bonus in Social situations too, so would dropping those make it palatable for the cost it has now?
But AFSA is better than a Refinement's worth of defence items for a non-Crafter. It's not gear dependent, it can be boosted with Aspect invokes, and it can be used infinitely. The items are lose-able, non-boostable, and only have 3 free uses each. The defence roll granted is the same. (Though you could go for power over uses with the items, I think that'd be a mistake.) This is very worrying, since a Refinement's worth of defence items is really powerful even without a Crafting bonus.
Defensive items have one other advantage over a roll: Consistency. A Block:5 defensive item doesn't have a risk of rolling badly. And going by what I've read elsewhere, I think you can boost them with aspect invokes (I seem to remember one of the designers saying you could invoke on a +2 for anything in the game that has a number).
I know that you can block social attacks with magic. But I'm not sure a single spell could cover every possible social attack. I'm not sure I'd let you make a single item that works against both a rumour that you're a pedophile and an attempt to scare you.
Just as an aside, the villain in my current scenario has a defensive item that might well be used socially and physically--he's a chronomancer, so he has a Block:6 belt that works by rewinding time a handful of seconds to before he was hit so he can get out of the way properly this time. It's a neat effect where it just looks like he dodged--except to the PCs, who have talismans to protect their minds against time travel effects, so they see him getting hit -and- rewinding to dodge at the same time. It could work socially in the sense of either giving him more time to think of a good comeback, or trying again if he tries a comeback that falls flat.
Sure.
Here's a blaster.
Mikhail Raskolnikov (Chest Deep)
High Concept: Pyromancer
Here's an assassin.
Steven Black (Feet In The Water)
High Concept: Shade-Blooded Assassin
Here's a non-combatant.
Eliza Dunningham (Feet In The Water)
High Concept: Emissary Of Janus
Quick point of fact: The Pyromancer can't benefit from AFSA because it'd put him over the refresh limit.
All three are fragile but competent. They're not optimized to the hilt, but they're respectably powerful. AFSA fixes their fragility, so they should all take it if they want to be as powerful as possible.
Now, Eliza is kind of what I was talking about before. If the player wanted to be "as powerful as possible," then they'd have at least given her some kind of physical skill--as it is, while she could avoid a lot of attacks with AFSA, she can't do anything to fight back, and she's got no Physical stress track to speak of, so if anything with a weapon rating hits her, she's not going to last long. She kind of strikes me as someone designed deliberately to not be a combatant, in which case AFSA doesn't do much for her except prolong the inevitable.
But it doesn't fit any of their concepts. This is a problem.
I'd argue as a "very old wizard" the Pyromancer could take it without any tweak--as is pointed out in the canon, wizards develop a sort of prescience on their own anyway, which AFSA could certainly be used to represent. And come to think of it, so could Eliza--Janus is a god of time, after all.
-
Sanctaphrax: Okay, I think I see better where you're coming from now, and put in those terms, AFSA might not be the best designed power. As I said before, it just plain doesn't make sense to me for it to be a bonus in Social situations too, so would dropping those make it palatable for the cost it has now?
Oh, hey. We're getting somewhere. Awesome.
It would be a lot fairer if it didn't affect social rolls too. I still wouldn't like it, though, because it's boring and it renders interesting stunts obsolete.
I don't really see the point of allowing it...it's not like it's an interesting Power.
Defensive items have one other advantage over a roll: Consistency. A Block:5 defensive item doesn't have a risk of rolling badly. And going by what I've read elsewhere, I think you can boost them with aspect invokes (I seem to remember one of the designers saying you could invoke on a +2 for anything in the game that has a number).
True, the consistency is nice.
I vaguely recall Fred Hicks saying something like that. But I don't think that, by a strict reading of the RAW, you can boost items with FP.
And I'm kind of inclined to be anal about the RAW here because I hate making Crafting stronger.
Just as an aside, the villain in my current scenario has a defensive item that might well be used socially and physically--he's a chronomancer, so he has a Block:6 belt that works by rewinding time a handful of seconds to before he was hit so he can get out of the way properly this time. It's a neat effect where it just looks like he dodged--except to the PCs, who have talismans to protect their minds against time travel effects, so they see him getting hit -and- rewinding to dodge at the same time. It could work socially in the sense of either giving him more time to think of a good comeback, or trying again if he tries a comeback that falls flat.
That's pretty cool.
But I don't think rewinding time would make a thug less scary or a bribe less appealing.
Quick point of fact: The Pyromancer can't benefit from AFSA because it'd put him over the refresh limit.
He could and should trade something away.
Now, Eliza is kind of what I was talking about before. If the player wanted to be "as powerful as possible," then they'd have at least given her some kind of physical skill--as it is, while she could avoid a lot of attacks with AFSA, she can't do anything to fight back, and she's got no Physical stress track to speak of, so if anything with a weapon rating hits her, she's not going to last long. She kind of strikes me as someone designed deliberately to not be a combatant, in which case AFSA doesn't do much for her except prolong the inevitable.
Indeed. As I said, "Here's a non-combatant".
But with AFSA, she's not really a non-combatant anymore. All of a sudden, she's useful in a battle with vampires. 1 Refresh on that Power is all it takes.
(Plus, it's actually a semi-significant social bonus. Deceit isn't a universal social defence.)
I'd argue as a "very old wizard" the Pyromancer could take it without any tweak--as is pointed out in the canon, wizards develop a sort of prescience on their own anyway, which AFSA could certainly be used to represent. And come to think of it, so could Eliza--Janus is a god of time, after all.
You could fit AFSA into their Templates, sure. But the concept of these individual characters included nothing whatsoever about seeing the future.
-
Mikhail
Would have to sacrifice substantial offensive effectiveness or defensive effectiveness to afford AFSA. Already has a better than cap physical defense. Already has a cap-2 universal physical defense. Already has semi applicable social defenses at cap -1 and cap -4.
Steve
Has a cap breaking defense in stealth, could get more synergy and physical defense from restricted Inhuman Speed (effectively 'Human Form: only in shadows')
Eliza
Already has reasonable social defenses, should be relying on allies for physical defenses. Would get more versatility from a refresh spent on a guardian retainer than on AFSA. Could go either way based on specified concept, or could keep the refresh open to allow for occasionally compelling a defender in time of need.
-
Dropping the belt and a point of offensive fire power would mean little to Mikhail. And shield evocations are pretty bad, as you know. AFSA is clearly superior, especially since it offers the option of replacing Athletics with something else.
Stealth is not a physical defence skill. Restricted Inhuman Speed would be situational, obviously, and in the best case it'd still provide a lower defence roll than AFSA.
Spending a Refresh on a guardian retainer isn't actually possible by any canon mechanism. And relying on allies for physical defences makes you a liability in a fight. 1 Refresh transforms Eliza from a liability into a useful combatant. You'd be stupid not to take that.
-
Spending a Refresh on a guardian retainer isn't actually possible by any canon mechanism. And relying on allies for physical defences makes you a liability in a fight. 1 Refresh transforms Eliza from a liability into a useful combatant. You'd be stupid not to take that.
Unless you didnt want that kind of character. The character wasnt built for combat, why would you now build her for combat because the power exists? I understand the want for the higher defense simply because it exists, but if I make a character who isnt made for physical combat, I dont expect them to go into physical combat that often. When it does arise the character might run or hide or try a different tactic. I see no reason for the because it makes you better you should argument.
That said I looked over the book again. I dont feel that the power should grant social, there is no reason for it and if you get rid of that part it makes up for the power. The current power I would compare it to as an equal type of power is Cloak of Shadows. I choose this 1 refresh power because I think it is the most comparable.
Cloak of Shadows gives you +2 to Stealth in darkness or shadow and no perception penalty in darkness.
I think this is equivalent to two stunts worth and I believe that a move of trapping with no restriction is arguably worth two refresh.
I dont know maybe I am wrong.
-
Unless you didnt want that kind of character. The character wasnt built for combat, why would you now build her for combat because the power exists? I understand the want for the higher defense simply because it exists, but if I make a character who isnt made for physical combat, I dont expect them to go into physical combat that often. When it does arise the character might run or hide or try a different tactic. I see no reason for the because it makes you better you should argument.
1 Refresh to make a character competent in a major area of the game is very powerful. Too powerful.
You don't have to do it, but if you choose not to then you're handicapping yourself.
That said I looked over the book again. I dont feel that the power should grant social, there is no reason for it and if you get rid of that part it makes up for the power. The current power I would compare it to as an equal type of power is Cloak of Shadows. I choose this 1 refresh power because I think it is the most comparable.
Cloak of Shadows gives you +2 to Stealth in darkness or shadow and no perception penalty in darkness.
I think this is equivalent to two stunts worth and I believe that a move of trapping with no restriction is arguably worth two refresh.
I dont know maybe I am wrong.
Just because one -1 Power is basically equivalent to 2 Stunts doesn't mean you can pick any two stunts you want and merge them into a -1 Power.
I mean, Inhuman Strength is equivalent to more than 7 Stunts. But you can't just spend 2 Refresh for any 7 Stunts you want.
(It's hard to say exactly how many Stunts it would take to build Inhuman Strength, but my guess is 13.)
That being said, if you do intend to use AFSA then dropping the social bonus is a good idea.
-
That being said, if you do intend to use AFSA then dropping the social bonus is a good idea.
Particularly since the social bonus is arguably worth more than 2 stunts unto itself (social attacks, and thus social defenses, typically being the most readily varied, and difficult to encapsulate within a single trapping, it is likely that the blanket language of the power-as-is would require the wholesale moving of multiple trappings)
-
Actually I do agree that moving the trapping from one skill to another does not benefit from some other ability that keys off the original skill. To me, the game is a competition or a tournament. At least the character generation portion is. The competition is all the other concepts in my head. I feel cheated if if I didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game, so therefore I game, most "roleplayers" are so enamoured of the "roleplaying" that they lose sight that it is first and foremost a game and games have winners. The way I see it, the best stories are built around maximally efficient top tier characters. And during character generation, spending all skill points and refresh and shaping Aspects in the Top Tier Way should be, at the minimum, the primary concern. I find optimised builds easily shape up into interesting concepts.
From the Show Community
I WON D&D and it was Advanced
(http://www.fanboy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/community-400x266.jpg)
Sorry I'll skip Min-Maxing if it gets in the way of fun or story. The Fate system is supposed to be getting away from the crunchy munchkin days of D&D, Shadowrun Ect.
Fate is supposed to be about your character and his/her aspects.
On the Left is Crunch Games. On the Right is Story Games
_________________________________________________________|____________________________________________________________________________________
D&D 1-2 Dresden Fate Dogs in the Vinyard Prime Time Adventure
D&d 3.5 Pathfinder Fiasco
Shadowrun Pathfinder
-
I don't really see the point of allowing it...it's not like it's an interesting Power.
I allowed it, mostly, because the player's character concept was of a seer, and I wanted a mechanical way to represent it in addition to just giving her Ritual (Divination).
That's pretty cool.
But I don't think rewinding time would make a thug less scary or a bribe less appealing.
Yeah, it wouldn't work for all social defenses, but it might work in the sense of letting you see someone's reactions to, for example, you calling his bluff safely.
He could and should trade something away.
Eh, it's debatable.
Indeed. As I said, "Here's a non-combatant".
But with AFSA, she's not really a non-combatant anymore. All of a sudden, she's useful in a battle with vampires. 1 Refresh on that Power is all it takes.
1 Refresh transforms Eliza from a liability into a useful combatant. You'd be stupid not to take that.
She's less of a liability, but not really "useful." Even with AFSA, she's completely lacking in physical skills, so while it means she is less likely to die instantly, she's still woefully ineffective at actually doing anything to the vampire. She'd need two invokes to stand a reasonable chance of beating the vampire's defenses (and just as she lacks physical skill to attack, she lacks physical skill to maneuver and create aspects to tag), and she'd need a heavy weapon to beat its armor and toughness (perhaps a really, really big book?), so AFSA is only really delaying the inevitable.
(Plus, it's actually a semi-significant social bonus. Deceit isn't a universal social defence.)
I don't have the book on me, but doesn't Marked by Power give a flat +1 to social rolls already? If so, her social defense is already on par with the Lore score.
-
I don't have the book on me, but doesn't Marked by Power give a flat +1 to social rolls already? If so, her social defense is already on par with the Lore score.
When dealing with someone in the magical community
-
She's less of a liability, but not really "useful." Even with AFSA, she's completely lacking in physical skills, so while it means she is less likely to die instantly, she's still woefully ineffective at actually doing anything to the vampire.
Well to be fair, I think you are looking at the character in a one on one situation. In a situation where there are team mates around, she may actually survive to place an Aspect. Which she may not be able to do if she is taken out before she does anything.
-
In a situation where there are teammates around it shouldn't really matter, people tend to go after the thing hitting them, not the one on the sideline shouting "here batter batter"
-
I allowed it, mostly, because the player's character concept was of a seer, and I wanted a mechanical way to represent it in addition to just giving her Ritual (Divination).
You may want to check out the Prophecy and Precognition custom Powers.
They're not perfect, but they're less boring than AFSA.
Eh, it's debatable.
Yeah, but one side of the debate is clearly stronger.
She's less of a liability, but not really "useful." Even with AFSA, she's completely lacking in physical skills, so while it means she is less likely to die instantly, she's still woefully ineffective at actually doing anything to the vampire. She'd need two invokes to stand a reasonable chance of beating the vampire's defenses (and just as she lacks physical skill to attack, she lacks physical skill to maneuver and create aspects to tag), and she'd need a heavy weapon to beat its armor and toughness (perhaps a really, really big book?), so AFSA is only really delaying the inevitable.
As toturi says, maneuvers are useful.
And without AFSA, she's likely to be target #1 in a group fight unless there's a glass cannon around. Targeting the fragile folks isn't just a good idea, it's instinctive for predators.
It's not that she's a powerhouse with AFSA. But without it, her value to her team in a fight might well be less than 0.
I don't have the book on me, but doesn't Marked by Power give a flat +1 to social rolls already? If so, her social defense is already on par with the Lore score.
Pretty sure Marked By Power would boost the Lore roll too. It's a social roll, after all.
-
As toturi says, maneuvers are useful.
And without AFSA, she's likely to be target #1 in a group fight unless there's a glass cannon around. Targeting the fragile folks isn't just a good idea, it's instinctive for predators.
It's not that she's a powerhouse with AFSA. But without it, her value to her team in a fight might well be less than 0.
She is a non combat character, she was built to be ineffective in physical confrontation.
-
Yeah, but one side of the debate is clearly stronger.
That, too, is debatable.
As toturi says, maneuvers are useful.
Yes--but anything she could use to maneuver in physical confrontation is rolled at 0. Creating an aspect is typically a 3-shift difficulty, yes? That means unless she's invoking or tagging other aspects, she has about a 6% chance of being able to contribute with a maneuver. Less if she's trying to maneuver against something that has a defense roll.
And without AFSA, she's likely to be target #1 in a group fight unless there's a glass cannon around. Targeting the fragile folks isn't just a good idea, it's instinctive for predators.
When hunting for food? Yes. When in a real fight, I'd think they'd want to first take out the enemies most likely to be able to do them harm.
It's not that she's a powerhouse with AFSA. But without it, her value to her team in a fight might well be less than 0.
All it really does is bring her from less than 0 to 0.
-
And without AFSA, she's likely to be target #1 in a group fight unless there's a glass cannon around. Targeting the fragile folks isn't just a good idea, it's instinctive for predators.
Pretty sure Marked By Power would boost the Lore roll too. It's a social roll, after all.
Eating an action and not dying is generally useful in a fight, and she has more consequences to spend than the average bystander, while, if careful, looking like a bystander. This still assumes the party doesn't have a 'tank' to draw the enemies attention (Harry manages it with witty banter and insults).
I'm pretty sure Marked By Power would not add to the AFSA social defense as seeing the future, even if using it to evade a social attack, is still seeing the future and not in and of itself, a social roll/action.
-
I talked to my friend yesterday about this conversation. He made a good point. RAW is very explicit to note that Social stress is your social reputation, not necessarially how you react to social comments. Thus seeing into the future could be justifiable because you know what the person is about to say and could thus trip them up, making their attack on your social reputation sting less because their witty comment didnt have the same impact.
I think this is why they got rid of social for Fate Core, because it is an attack on your social reputation but most of the attacks seem like they should affect your social state. So IDK.
Im not really debating anyone in this post, just puting it out there.
-
Yeah, it wouldn't work for all social defenses, but it might work in the sense of letting you see someone's reactions to, for example, you calling his bluff safely.
I would say knowing what you're opponent is going to say is always be a benefit to social combat. In repartee it should be obvious how it works, you can get some extra seconds to think of a comeback, or you can beat them to the punch and make their biting comment look less biting.
For something like intimidate, if you know the tact their planning on taking, you can remain in control. You know what's coming so you can prepare for it. It will still suck, but you know how and why it will suck, so you can steel yourself for it. Furthermore you can use that knowledge to turn it around on them. They start to detail exactly what they're going to do, and you finish what they are saying word for word, and tell them to get on with it. That might rob them of their conviction.
And maybe it won't. That's why you still roll. Maybe knowing what happened and planning for it wasn't enough to prevent the big scary guy from being that damn scary. And maybe it was. The dice will tell you.
-
Yes--but anything she could use to maneuver in physical confrontation is rolled at 0. Creating an aspect is typically a 3-shift difficulty, yes? That means unless she's invoking or tagging other aspects, she has about a 6% chance of being able to contribute with a maneuver. Less if she's trying to maneuver against something that has a defense roll.
You can maneuver with Deceit. Feints and trickery are very useful in combat.
She is a non combat character, she was built to be ineffective in physical confrontation.
Yep.
But with AFSA around, that becomes a tremendously stupid way to build her because making her useful in a fight is so easy.
Eating an action and not dying is generally useful in a fight, and she has more consequences to spend than the average bystander, while, if careful, looking like a bystander. This still assumes the party doesn't have a 'tank' to draw the enemies attention (Harry manages it with witty banter and insults).
I'm pretty sure Marked By Power would not add to the AFSA social defense as seeing the future, even if using it to evade a social attack, is still seeing the future and not in and of itself, a social roll/action.
The issue is that the party tank will have to waste effort on protecting her instead of just fighting.
And I have no idea why you think seeing the future can't be a social roll.
I talked to my friend yesterday about this conversation. He made a good point. RAW is very explicit to note that Social stress is your social reputation, not necessarially how you react to social comments.
The RAW really aren't very consistent about that.
-
Yep.
But with AFSA around, that becomes a tremendously stupid way to build her because making her useful in a fight is so easy.
Yea, you easily could have given her a high athletics too. But you didn't because she isn't a combative character. And even with her in the mix, she is providing one maneuver per turn. That's less effective than the guy hitting for 6 stress per turn. Sure it makes that six now an 8 but if I take out that guy dealing stress, she is eventually going to lose the fight, it's just going to take a bit longer
-
I would say knowing what you're opponent is going to say is always be a benefit to social combat. In repartee it should be obvious how it works, you can get some extra seconds to think of a comeback, or you can beat them to the punch and make their biting comment look less biting.
For something like intimidate, if you know the tact their planning on taking, you can remain in control. You know what's coming so you can prepare for it. It will still suck, but you know how and why it will suck, so you can steel yourself for it. Furthermore you can use that knowledge to turn it around on them. They start to detail exactly what they're going to do, and you finish what they are saying word for word, and tell them to get on with it. That might rob them of their conviction.
And maybe it won't. That's why you still roll. Maybe knowing what happened and planning for it wasn't enough to prevent the big scary guy from being that damn scary. And maybe it was. The dice will tell you.
You say EXACTLY what they say at the EXACT same time. :) Since you know what they're about to say, it'd be pretty easy. That's pretty annoying and could make them frustrated and possibly disarm any of their attempts to make you look bad. It might make their attempts at intimidation look foolish...yeah...lots of fun!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwY3coss1Bg
-
Yea, you easily could have given her a high athletics too. But you didn't because she isn't a combative character. And even with her in the mix, she is providing one maneuver per turn. That's less effective than the guy hitting for 6 stress per turn. Sure it makes that six now an 8 but if I take out that guy dealing stress, she is eventually going to lose the fight, it's just going to take a bit longer
Giving her high Athletics would have compromised her main area of competence. AFSA is better because it lets her have her cake and eat it too.
And yes, with AFSA she likely won't be the main target of a smart opponent. But without it, she's so fragile that she becomes target #1 by default. Doing a few points of stress to a tough foe isn't nearly as good as shutting down the character who gives them a tag almost every turn.
-
And yes, with AFSA she likely won't be the main target of a smart opponent. But without it, she's so fragile that she becomes target #1 by default. Doing a few points of stress to a tough foe isn't nearly as good as shutting down the character who gives them a tag almost every turn.
We do not know that. A smart opponent would still be unlikely to know that she can predict his moves until it happens.
-
Eliza Dunningham (Feet In The Water)
High Concept: Emissary Of Janus
Trouble Aspect: Supernatural Politics
Other Aspects: Too Clever, Seen Some Seriously Strange Stuff
Skills:
Great: Lore, Deceit
Good: Presence, Rapport
Fair: Empathy, Resources
Average: Conviction, Discipline
Stunts:
Nevernever Contacts (Lore): Use Lore for Contacts in the Nevernever.
Powers:
Marked By Power [-1]
Worldwalker [-2]
Total Refresh Cost:
-4
Refresh Total:
2
Change resources to athletics and add this custom stunt: Reactionary: +2 to athletics when defending against physical attacks. That puts her at cap defense and she has cap -1 defense in social combat when not talking to the supernatural community
-
We do not know that. A smart opponent would still be unlikely to know that she can predict his moves until it happens.
Good point.
I was assuming the opponent would be well-informed, which wouldn't necessarily be the case.
Doesn't make much difference to the central point, though.
Change resources to athletics and add this custom stunt: Reactionary: +2 to athletics when defending against physical attacks. That puts her at cap defense and she has cap -1 defense in social combat when not talking to the supernatural community
That stunt is much too powerful.
And even with it, your version of her lags behind the AFSA version. At least in my eyes: I'd prefer the Resources and the conditional +1 social defense to the increased mobility.
-
And even with it, your version of her lags behind the AFSA version. At least in my eyes: I'd prefer the Resources and the conditional +1 social defense to the increased mobility.
And AFSA is a power so that makes sense.
-
Nope.
That Stunt is way too strong, so it's not a good balance point.
And -1 Powers aren't always supposed to directly out-compete Stunts. Generally, they aren't directly comparable. And that's good, because it keeps the game interesting.