ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Leeder on August 23, 2013, 09:35:54 AM
-
Before starting the DFRPG campaign, I played sci-fi Fate Core game, and, in retrospect, I like the DFRPG rules much more than Fate Core. But some things confused me in Fate Core and continue doing that in DFRPG.
I'm talking about blocks.
We can use blocks in two ways: to prevent somebody from being hurt or to prevent somebody to doing something. Nevertheless, the Strength of the block depends on the initial roll. Assuming yojimbo (yes, I like the Legend of the Five Rings, so let some oriental terms be) has Weapons skill at 4, his opponent ninja has Weapons at 4 as well, and an yojimbo's ally courtier has Athletics at 5.
Yojimbo (bodyguard in English) tries to prevent his opponent ninja from hurting the courtier. He rolls -1 on his dice and sets Block at Strength 3. What does it mean? If the opponent's roll for attack the courtier is lower than 3, he missed. But even if the yojimbo haven't established the Block, that low attack result could do not much harm to the courtier! And if the ninja rolls high result, the block don't do much profit...
It's clear for me thanks to the example that there are two possible variants. First: I didn't get what blocks are and how to use them. Second: blocks suck. :( I hope the first one is true, and rely on you guys to remove the scales from my eyes .
-
It's the first one. You've picked a situation where a block isn't a good idea.
Blocks are situational, but they can be very useful.
That courtier is really good at dodging, so he doesn't need a block.
But if the yojimbo was protecting a different courtier, one with Mediocre Athletics, then a block would be very advisable. Especially if the yojimbo had allies who could attack the ninja while he protected the courtier or if there were a bunch of ninjas who could collectively cut an unprotected courtier to ribbons in one round.
-
There's one more thing that you've missed. If the attack doesn't beat the block, there's no hit of course. But if it does beat the block, the attack roll is still reduced by the rating of the block.
So If the Ninja rolls say 6 and thus beats Yojimbos block, it's still only a result of 3 that's applied to the courtier.
Of course, as Sancta pointed out, stepping in and blocking to protect a person with a defensive skill higher than what you can roll for a block, and against a single opponent, is not the best moment for a block.
-
So any benefit from a block I can gain only if I have low defense skill? And that block does nothing to man, already good at dodging? And there is no difference between Good Dodger, defending with a block and without it (except a hypothetical worse-than-Terrible rolls)?
Cadd, don't you mean that the block reduces the attack, do you? If you don't, the Strength of the block is insignificant, 'cause the Courtier will dodge the blow anyway.
-
The result of the attack roll is reduced by the block rating, yes. So if the Ninja with Weapons 4 rolls +2, for a total of 8, this would then be reduced by Yojimbo's block of 3 for a final result of 5.
The block will basically function as a "backup" defense roll for the target of the attack, in the end using whichever is higher. I find the example on p210 of Your Story pretty good at making clear.
Basically, some tactically good moments to use a block against attacks:
*) When the person being defended has a marked lower chance of getting a good defense roll than your block roll. (your skill is higher, you have aspects to invoke, you have stunts boosting it, etc)
*) When there are several characters that can benefit from the block, thus freeing them up to focus more on taking out the attacker(s)
-
There is some sort of contradiction in your message, Cadd. Or "whichever is higher", or "roll is reduces".
Upd. Maybe under "reducing" you mean "treat the block strength as the defense result"?
Basically, some tactically good moments to use a block against attacks:
*) When the person being defended has a marked lower chance of getting a good defense roll than your block roll. (your skill is higher, you have aspects to invoke, you have stunts boosting it, etc)
*) When there are several characters that can benefit from the block, thus freeing them up to focus more on taking out the attacker(s)
I've got it. Maybe the scene I've described, better to represent with maneuver, placing the "Guarded" aspect on the Courtier?
-
What I meant with "reduces" is that it's not an all-or-nothing thing.
Yojimbo performs a Block action, end result is strength 3
Ninja attacks Courtier, Ninja rolls 6 (including stunts)
-Courtier rolls Athletics for defense but only gets 2; elects to instead use Yojimbo's Block 3 for her defense.
Ninjas attack results in a 3 stress hit (before any weapon rating). Ninjas attack of 6, reduced by the block to 3.
If Courtiers defense roll had ended up at 4, she could use that result (instead of the block) to defend against Ninja
For the maneuver-idea - Absolutely! Since Courtier has such high Athletics, a maneuver placing "Guarded" on her, that she can tag if her defense roll is too low is probably going to be more effective. Maybe (depending on circumstances and GM approval) Yojimbo can even invoke that aspect next exchange to go on the counter-offensive against the Ninja? ;)
-
Yeah, you've got to look at the numbers and the situation to decide if a block is worth it. I find, generally speaking, it's better to block things kind of...sideways, I guess. Instead of directly blocking a Superb boxer from attacking you with fists, make a block that restricts based on a different, lower skill. My players have gotten a lot of mileage out of blocking perception (can't hit what you can't see) when they're up against things with Superb or higher attack and defense ratings.
If you decide to block, it pays to invest in it, either via stunts to boost your blocks, or through invoking aspects. A grapple made with a couple invokes made a huge difference in my own game last session, as it kept an enemy mage from casting for a couple rounds while the PCs sorted themselves out.
-
Yeah, you've got to look at the numbers and the situation to decide if a block is worth it. I find, generally speaking, it's better to block things kind of...sideways, I guess. Instead of directly blocking a Superb boxer from attacking you with fists, make a block that restricts based on a different, lower skill. My players have gotten a lot of mileage out of blocking perception (can't hit what you can't see) when they're up against things with Superb or higher attack and defense ratings.
You can't say "you have to beat this block with X, before you can do Y". A block can basically be broken by any skill it restricts, so if you put up a block against attacks, then an attack can break that block. If you put up a block against something else, say movement, your opponent would be able to attack you without being hindered by the block, but a successful attack wouldn't break the block, either. If you go to the next zone and attack him from there, he has to break the block, before he can change the zone and attack you again.
Something like what you are describing would make more sense as an invoke for effect. In essence, it wouldn't be much different, you do a maneuver like "sand in the eyes", and if it sticks, you can tag it for the effect that the target can not attack, as long as the aspect sticks to him. Though I would e careful with that.
-
The way I look at it, the attacking skill isn't what is being restricted, what's restricted is a sort of prerequisite for attacking in the first place. As I said, you can't attack what you can't see or reach.
A veil, for instance, is specifically described in the books as a special type of block that defends against attacks via blocking perception instead of blocking the attack physically. This, to me, says that you can prevent an attack indirectly, while still using blocks.
Granted, the thing about blocking Athletics wasn't the best example, because athletics and attack kind of physically overlap.
An example I used in the thread on veils...say you've got a White Court vampire, who uses Incite Emotion on a target to induce a fear of heights as a block. The block ends up at 4 shifts, a psychological block to keep someone else--who has weak mental defenses, but Athletics at 5--from leaping from one rooftop to another.
Do you let the guy just roll Athletics and easily beat the block, even though the block is specifically psychological in nature? Or does the block hold because he can't break through the mental block?
-
Wait a minute, please. If someone makes a block, preventing his enemy from seeing the enemy's target, the enemy must break the block using his "perception" abilities (maybe something other than simple Investigation, but that depends highly on the situation, so let's assume than he needs Investigation roll). But the enemy wants to attack! What should he do? Complicate the attack with his Investigation? Two distinct rolls? Or he simply looses his action? O_o
-
Wait a minute, please. If someone makes a block, preventing his enemy from seeing the enemy's target, the enemy must break the block using his "perception" abilities (maybe something other than simple Investigation, but that depends highly on the situation, so let's assume than he needs Investigation roll). But the enemy wants to attack! What should he do? Complicate the attack with his Investigation? Two distinct rolls? Or he simply looses his action? O_o
Depends on the enemy, and the nature of the veil. If it's one of Molly's invisibility things, it doesn't make sense for him to 'lose' the action by swinging at air unless it's a particularly dumb minion.
There's plenty of options--go on defense, anticipating the veil being used for an attack; use some kind of maneuver to boost your next perception roll or get around the veil (like the Ick throwing a can of paint at her); attacking the whole zone the veiler was last seen in to try and smoke them out (had a dragon do this last night, setting a faerie marsh ablaze when his targets suddenly disappeared--they were mostly saved from that by other defensive magics and a blown roll by the dragon); if it's more like Molly's illusion in Ghost Story, a spray attack at every version you can see in the hopes of hitting one of them.
But generally speaking, I feel that letting the enemy directly attack when they did not beat the veil misses the point of the veil mechanics described in the book.
-
An example I used in the thread on veils...say you've got a White Court vampire, who uses Incite Emotion on a target to induce a fear of heights as a block. The block ends up at 4 shifts, a psychological block to keep someone else--who has weak mental defenses, but Athletics at 5--from leaping from one rooftop to another.
Do you let the guy just roll Athletics and easily beat the block, even though the block is specifically psychological in nature? Or does the block hold because he can't break through the mental block?
I do, because that's how blocks work. If the block is intended to keep him from coming after me, then he can still try to come after me, but he has to beat the block to do so. Incite just gives me the power to put up a block with a mental skill instead of a physical one.
If the difficulty of the jump was 3 and my block is 4, I have increased the difficulty for the other character. If he is a top athlete or even has a speed power, then even a weak jump will be enough to succeed. Just because I am not as good at the skill I am attacking him with doesn't mean I can just make him suck.
Now if you do this as a maneuver instead, you can easily target the weaker mental skills, since it is an opposed roll. If you succeed, the aspect is yours to work with. You can tag it on the jump roll to increase the difficulty of the jump by 2. You could even negotiate a tag for effect and a compel for the character to simply not jump and let you get away. Or you could go for an attack to take your opponent out of the chase scene.
It's the same thing for a veil. The other guy might be attacking randomly, but because he is good or lucky or can throw attacks very fast, he can cover a lot of ground and might still hit you if you are veiled. The best thing you can do when you are veiled and don't want to get hit is to get out of the zone, so you are no longer a viable target. Veiling, in essence, is your defense against being attacked. The roll to find you and attack you is done in one roll with the attack roll. Of course you could do an investigation or alertness maneuver first, to get a feel for where your target is, but it isn't mandatory.
-
I do, because that's how blocks work. If the block is intended to keep him from coming after me, then he can still try to come after me, but he has to beat the block to do so. Incite just gives me the power to put up a block with a mental skill instead of a physical one.
If the difficulty of the jump was 3 and my block is 4, I have increased the difficulty for the other character. If he is a top athlete or even has a speed power, then even a weak jump will be enough to succeed. Just because I am not as good at the skill I am attacking him with doesn't mean I can just make him suck.
It's not about making him suck--it's about making him psychologically incapable of jumping, incapable of taking the jump in the first place, not incapable of making it once he does jump.
Doing it the way you suggest basically makes a whole lot of blocks useless, because anyone can break just about any block with their apex skill.
Now if you do this as a maneuver instead, you can easily target the weaker mental skills, since it is an opposed roll. If you succeed, the aspect is yours to work with. You can tag it on the jump roll to increase the difficulty of the jump by 2. You could even negotiate a tag for effect and a compel for the character to simply not jump and let you get away. Or you could go for an attack to take your opponent out of the chase scene.
You could, certainly. I just feel that it makes blocks a lot less useful if they can be easily beaten by any skill, despite it not making sense.
It's the same thing for a veil. The other guy might be attacking randomly, but because he is good or lucky or can throw attacks very fast, he can cover a lot of ground and might still hit you if you are veiled. The best thing you can do when you are veiled and don't want to get hit is to get out of the zone, so you are no longer a viable target. Veiling, in essence, is your defense against being attacked. The roll to find you and attack you is done in one roll with the attack roll. Of course you could do an investigation or alertness maneuver first, to get a feel for where your target is, but it isn't mandatory.
Two things: One, this makes a veil next to useless as a unique block; two, this is directly contradictory to how veils are described in the rulebook. It's a block against perception, and swinging your fists or sword around isn't a perception roll. The rulebook outright says that it's a special type of block that does not directly oppose damage, but lets the caster avoid being attacked entirely.
Looking at Molly's stats vs. the Gruffs at the start of Small Favor, her rote veil, 3 shifts, would be totally pointless played that way--the Gruffs have exactly the same chance of hitting Molly under a veil as they do hitting Molly when she's just standing there in plain sight. Something with a Superb attack rating has a 93 percent chance of hitting Molly when he, theoretically, cannot see her, hear her, smell her, and has no clue where she could be in the immediate area. Does that seem right to you?
-
It's not about making him suck--it's about making him psychologically incapable of jumping, incapable of taking the jump in the first place, not incapable of making it once he does jump.
A failed athletics roll for a jump can just as easily be not jumping in the last second as it can be failing to jump to the other side.
Doing it the way you suggest basically makes a whole lot of blocks useless, because anyone can break just about any block with their apex skill.
If breaking the block like that makes sense, then yes, you can. But using your apex skill is not always appropriate. Incite something in a social setting, and you can't just use fists to get out of it, without making a scene.
You could, certainly. I just feel that it makes blocks a lot less useful if they can be easily beaten by any skill, despite it not making sense.
Granted, blocks are my least favorite mechanic in the DFRPG. But that aside, I feel that they become way too powerful if you can force someone to do something to overcome it. That's basically a grapple. And I have no problem with modeling something like this as a grapple, but then it should follow the grapple rules and require an appropriate aspect before initiating it.
Another problem I have with your example is that I can't really see it being used in a game like that. If you have a conflict and you block the other character from jumping over to you, then it's basically game over, you won. But that's a taken out result and should be a taken out result in my opinion. You can, as I said, reach that by attacking with incite emotion and taking the other guy out, but not with a block. What you can do is increase the zone border for your opponent. That's a block action right there. But he is still able to jump. He might have lost some of his confidence in his jumping abilities, but those abilities are so awesome, that he can still succeed. If both characters have the same skill level, then the chances are even. If the vampire has a lower skill level, then yes, he has less chance to keep the block up.
Or you have a chase scene that you model as a contest. In a contest, you don't have blocks at all, but I could easily see using incite emotion to get some points and justifying it by saying you temporarily make your opponent afraid of heights.
Two things: One, this makes a veil next to useless as a unique block; two, this is directly contradictory to how veils are described in the rulebook. It's a block against perception, and swinging your fists or sword around isn't a perception roll. The rulebook outright says that it's a special type of block that does not directly oppose damage, but lets the caster avoid being attacked entirely.
Looking at Molly's stats vs. the Gruffs at the start of Small Favor, her rote veil, 3 shifts, would be totally pointless played that way--the Gruffs have exactly the same chance of hitting Molly under a veil as they do hitting Molly when she's just standing there in plain sight. Something with a Superb attack rating has a 93 percent chance of hitting Molly when he, theoretically, cannot see her, hear her, smell her, and has no clue where she could be in the immediate area. Does that seem right to you?
With a veil up, you can easily justify your opponent attacking someone else. Maybe by paying a fate point, maybe just by pointing it out to the GM. Remember that Molly not only used her veil, but she used her Good Deceit skill, too, when she misled the Gruffs into thinking she went somewhere else. She might even have used her Great Discipline to "keep her cool" or something like it.
Then again, looking at OW, the gruffs are not really a threat to Molly. By that writeup, they have Fists at +3 (QW45 but they use the Goblin sheet OW43), which is a match. Now let Molly do an overcharged version of her veil instead of the rote (and since she has to cover her siblings as well, that's likely the case), and she can easily use it to get out of the way. Throw in a Fate point, and you are good to go.
If you are fighting something with a superb skill and your own skills are only at good, then yes, you are going to have a bad time. You can make up for that by being way clever and using your better skills against your opponents worse skills with maneuvers, but a veil does not make you invincible, it is just one way to avoid the worst of being hit. Otherwise a veil with some specialization is an automatic "I win" spell.
-
A failed athletics roll for a jump can just as easily be not jumping in the last second as it can be failing to jump to the other side.
But breaking through a mental block is not something done through physical prowess. Think of any athlete who's choked in the big game. Or that episode of BTAS where the Scarecrow is rigging games with his fear toxin.
If breaking the block like that makes sense, then yes, you can. But using your apex skill is not always appropriate. Incite something in a social setting, and you can't just use fists to get out of it, without making a scene.
Yes, but that sort of thing should work in a combat situation, too. If Harry's mindwhammied by Lara in the middle of a fight, can he just use Fists instead of Discipline to overcome it and deck her anyway? Even though he simply does not have the mental reserves to resist her?
Granted, blocks are my least favorite mechanic in the DFRPG. But that aside, I feel that they become way too powerful if you can force someone to do something to overcome it. That's basically a grapple. And I have no problem with modeling something like this as a grapple, but then it should follow the grapple rules and require an appropriate aspect before initiating it.
Honestly, even the grapple is, in my opinion, too weak in this interpretation. If you think about it, a grapple would do nothing to even slow down a dedicated speedster, even if they're already grabbed. Even someone with Might at 5 and Supernatural strength can't reliably hold onto someone who's got Athletics at 5 and Supernatural speed--even though, by all logic, once the guy who can bench press a car has his hands on you, you shouldn't be able to break his grip.
Another problem I have with your example is that I can't really see it being used in a game like that. If you have a conflict and you block the other character from jumping over to you, then it's basically game over, you won. But that's a taken out result and should be a taken out result in my opinion. You can, as I said, reach that by attacking with incite emotion and taking the other guy out, but not with a block. What you can do is increase the zone border for your opponent. That's a block action right there. But he is still able to jump. He might have lost some of his confidence in his jumping abilities, but those abilities are so awesome, that he can still succeed. If both characters have the same skill level, then the chances are even. If the vampire has a lower skill level, then yes, he has less chance to keep the block up.
Not really. That was just a random example of what I'm talking about--and it doesn't end the conflict (if there even is a conflict--maybe it's a race to the macguffin on the next rooftop), it just keeps the guy from moving on. As I said about veils there are other options--in this case, the mental block is a fear of heights, not a fear of decking the vampire in the teeth, or shooting the vampire (which, if successful, would get rid of the block).
The point I'm trying to make is, with your interpretation, it's near impossible to block someone from using their apex skill, unless your own applicable skill is so high that you can just rely on defending anyway. To my reading, there should be a way to come at someone sideways so that they can't just blow through everything in a fight with their highest skill.
With a veil up, you can easily justify your opponent attacking someone else. Maybe by paying a fate point, maybe just by pointing it out to the GM. Remember that Molly not only used her veil, but she used her Good Deceit skill, too, when she misled the Gruffs into thinking she went somewhere else. She might even have used her Great Discipline to "keep her cool" or something like it.
She can't do all of that at once, though. If Molly casts a block, that's her turn--and if the gruffs can just swing wildly and reliably hit her, then that's a wasted turn, because her veil is down, in your interpretation.
Then again, looking at OW, the gruffs are not really a threat to Molly. By that writeup, they have Fists at +3 (QW45 but they use the Goblin sheet OW43), which is a match. Now let Molly do an overcharged version of her veil instead of the rote (and since she has to cover her siblings as well, that's likely the case), and she can easily use it to get out of the way. Throw in a Fate point, and you are good to go.
Actually, the rules for veils, as I recall, say you can also veil people close to you for free, up to about the size of a small car.
But the point is, in the write up of veils as a special block, as I recall, it specifically calls it out as a way to avoid damage even if you don't have a lot of power to throw around. Using veils in your interpretation reduces it back to straight up power-vs-power, which I feel is missing the point of a veil.
If you are fighting something with a superb skill and your own skills are only at good, then yes, you are going to have a bad time. You can make up for that by being way clever and using your better skills against your opponents worse skills with maneuvers, but a veil does not make you invincible, it is just one way to avoid the worst of being hit. Otherwise a veil with some specialization is an automatic "I win" spell.
I didn't say it ever made you invincible--it reduces the opponent's options, and makes it so you can't be directly attacked. I listed three or four ways up above that a smart opponent can still attack and root you out even if you're invisible.
Once again, the rulebooks specifically and explicitly note veils as not working like regular blocks against damage.
Under your interpretation, Molly should be dead a few times over. She's always been, up to Ghost Story, specifically noted as someone who doesn't have a lot of raw power to throw around, so there's no way she should've been able to hold off the Ick, or dozens of Red Court warriors at once if they could all just roll Fists to break through her veils and illusions.
-
It's not about making him suck--it's about making him psychologically incapable of jumping, incapable of taking the jump in the first place, not incapable of making it once he does jump.
While I'm really on the fence between your approach and Haru's, that right there really, really looks like a compel on an aspect, such as one created via a maneuver.
-
While I'm really on the fence between your approach and Haru's, that right there really, really looks like a compel on an aspect, such as one created via a maneuver.
That's definitely a way to do it--in fact, it's probably the easier and better way to do it. But as it still amounts to a way of blocking someone from doing something, I feel it should be something you can do with a block.
And even so, if it was a maneuver? They'd defend with Discipline. If it's an attack? Defend with discipline. But if it's a block, they can beat it with Athletics?
In the last thread discussing veils, I proposed something that my opponents never commented on. How about this: If you must allow someone to attack despite not being able to see through the block, treat it like a reverse ambush. If the gruff can't see Molly, but wants to swing wildly until he can hit her, then he's attacking from 0, while Molly uses her regular defense roll. She can see him and avoid him, while he can't see her, and thus can't really aim his strikes.
How does that sound to you, Haru?
-
But breaking through a mental block is not something done through physical prowess. Think of any athlete who's choked in the big game. Or that episode of BTAS where the Scarecrow is rigging games with his fear toxin.
Then I honestly question the validity of a mental block in the first place. Not everything that keeps someone from doing something has to be a block. If it is powerful enough that it keeps you from continuing the fight, it is a taken out result.
A block is always done as an inhibitor against certain actions. It is not a "mental block" that can only be overcome mentally. That's just not how they work. You might put the mental whammy on someone in order to keep them from doing something, but they don't have to spend an action to overcome the block and then do something. If that was the case, you could keep throwing up blocks and the other guy could not even come close to doing something against you, because he'd have to spend his action overcoming the block first, and in your next action, you renew the block, and it basically keeps going forever. No, you reduce someones effectiveness in some area, and depending on your character, you have different justifications to do so. You can incite him to be afraid of the jump, but he can try it anyway. You might call up a gale of wind that will make the jump harder. But at the end of the day, you are still trying to block his capability to jump.
Yes, but that sort of thing should work in a combat situation, too. If Harry's mindwhammied by Lara in the middle of a fight, can he just use Fists instead of Discipline to overcome it and deck her anyway? Even though he simply does not have the mental reserves to resist her?
If Harry is so mindwhammied by Lara that he can no longer fight, he is taken out and can no longer fight.
Honestly, even the grapple is, in my opinion, too weak in this interpretation. If you think about it, a grapple would do nothing to even slow down a dedicated speedster, even if they're already grabbed. Even someone with Might at 5 and Supernatural strength can't reliably hold onto someone who's got Athletics at 5 and Supernatural speed--even though, by all logic, once the guy who can bench press a car has his hands on you, you shouldn't be able to break his grip.
Again, if you aren't able to break his grip, the fight is over. If you still have a chance to break free, then you should be able to break free by any means at your disposal. The increased chance to take someone out in a grapple is easily represented by the increased stress someone with supernatural strength can inflict in a grapple.
Not really. That was just a random example of what I'm talking about--and it doesn't end the conflict (if there even is a conflict--maybe it's a race to the macguffin on the next rooftop), it just keeps the guy from moving on. As I said about veils there are other options--in this case, the mental block is a fear of heights, not a fear of decking the vampire in the teeth, or shooting the vampire (which, if successful, would get rid of the block).
If the whole scene is based on the two opponents chasing each other, and suddenly one of them can't move on, the fight is over. At least that's how I see it. Like I said, if it isn't a conflict, then it is probably a contest, and you don't even have blocks in a contest.
The point I'm trying to make is, with your interpretation, it's near impossible to block someone from using their apex skill, unless your own applicable skill is so high that you can just rely on defending anyway. To my reading, there should be a way to come at someone sideways so that they can't just blow through everything in a fight with their highest skill.
You can put up a block for someone who isn't good at defending themselves. And you can use skills to put up a block that you might not be able to use to defend yourself. Both excellent reasons to use blocks.
You can come at someone sideways, blocks just aren't the way to do it, that's what maneuvers are for.
She can't do all of that at once, though. If Molly casts a block, that's her turn--and if the gruffs can just swing wildly and reliably hit her, then that's a wasted turn, because her veil is down, in your interpretation.
She can do so in subsequent exchanges, and with equal skills, there is enough of a chance she comes out ok, as was the case.
But the point is, in the write up of veils as a special block, as I recall, it specifically calls it out as a way to avoid damage even if you don't have a lot of power to throw around. Using veils in your interpretation reduces it back to straight up power-vs-power, which I feel is missing the point of a veil.
I didn't say it ever made you invincible--it reduces the opponent's options, and makes it so you can't be directly attacked. I listed three or four ways up above that a smart opponent can still attack and root you out even if you're invisible.
It is a special block, if you are outside a conflict and want to stay that way. In that case, you veil, and every guard or whatever has to beat your veil before a conflict can even start. But once that's done, it is no more viable than any other sort of block. A very high numbered veil doesn't have to be by a very powerful wizard. Even if Molly had Conviction 5, she'd still have the aspect "subtlety is its own power", which should limit what kinds of spells she does.
But the really big part is the one I highlighted. Reducing someones options is pretty much exactly what a compel does. So if you want to do a veil that actually limits your opponents options, I think it is better to do it as a maneuver and invoke it for effect. "I am veiled, they can't see me, so they attack someone else".
This would probably explain the fight with the Ick as well. She creates the aspect, and then she spends some fate points on it to be veiled again and taunt the Ick so it would let go of Harry.
OR, mechanically what she did was a block to shield Harry and herself from the Ick. That would account for both the taunting and the invisibility, and she could have easily boosted the spell with fate points and consequences to make it work.
Once again, the rulebooks specifically and explicitly note veils as not working like regular blocks against damage.
Can you point me to that? I can't find anything about it under the paragraph about veils.
Under your interpretation, Molly should be dead a few times over. She's always been, up to Ghost Story, specifically noted as someone who doesn't have a lot of raw power to throw around, so there's no way she should've been able to hold off the Ick, or dozens of Red Court warriors at once if they could all just roll Fists to break through her veils and illusions.
Molly's grown quite a bit until Changes and might have gotten a few points of refresh and definitely skills. Also, I feel like that particular scene is more plot device than actual gameplay. On the other hand, Molly could simply be doing a "one woman rave" maneuver for Thomas to tag, when he is making a weapons block, since they are working together to keep the vamps back.
And even so, if it was a maneuver? They'd defend with Discipline. If it's an attack? Defend with discipline. But if it's a block, they can beat it with Athletics?
Yes, because you are doing different things. You could have discipline restrict athletics here, but having to spend an action in order to break free is just too much. Now again, you could put up an aspect, and the other one could feel the need to remove the aspect before he jumps. Or you could downright compel him to do so. But that's not what blocks are for.
In the last thread discussing veils, I proposed something that my opponents never commented on. How about this: If you must allow someone to attack despite not being able to see through the block, treat it like a reverse ambush. If the gruff can't see Molly, but wants to swing wildly until he can hit her, then he's attacking from 0, while Molly uses her regular defense roll. She can see him and avoid him, while he can't see her, and thus can't really aim his strikes.
How does that sound to you, Haru?
Still sounds like it should be a maneuver and the compel reduces the skill to 0. I still don't like that approach, because it just isn't really balanced. You could do a 1 shift veil against someone with a Legendary skill and a stunt, and he would just flail his arms around? Just seems weird.
The great strength about being able to veil is that you can choose when and who to fight. But if you are in the middle of a fight, you don't have access to those most powerful aspects of your arsenal, and you are going to have to improvise and have a hard time.
TL,DR:
My main point, I think is that only if it looks like a block, it doesn't have to be a block.
-
Then I honestly question the validity of a mental block in the first place. Not everything that keeps someone from doing something has to be a block. If it is powerful enough that it keeps you from continuing the fight, it is a taken out result.
A block is always done as an inhibitor against certain actions. It is not a "mental block" that can only be overcome mentally. That's just not how they work. You might put the mental whammy on someone in order to keep them from doing something, but they don't have to spend an action to overcome the block and then do something. If that was the case, you could keep throwing up blocks and the other guy could not even come close to doing something against you, because he'd have to spend his action overcoming the block first, and in your next action, you renew the block, and it basically keeps going forever. No, you reduce someones effectiveness in some area, and depending on your character, you have different justifications to do so. You can incite him to be afraid of the jump, but he can try it anyway. You might call up a gale of wind that will make the jump harder. But at the end of the day, you are still trying to block his capability to jump.
I should clarify--I'm not saying the awareness check is its own action. The way I've done it in my games, the target does the awareness check, and then takes an action (since it doesn't take a full action to look around and see if you can see someone). Investigation might be a full action, since it's more involved.
Again, if you aren't able to break his grip, the fight is over. If you still have a chance to break free, then you should be able to break free by any means at your disposal. The increased chance to take someone out in a grapple is easily represented by the increased stress someone with supernatural strength can inflict in a grapple.
If the whole scene is based on the two opponents chasing each other, and suddenly one of them can't move on, the fight is over. At least that's how I see it. Like I said, if it isn't a conflict, then it is probably a contest, and you don't even have blocks in a contest.
The fight is not over if you can't immediately get out of a grapple with a single stat.
I'm not at all saying that any of the scenarios I'm presenting are "over" just because a single block isn't broken. What I'm saying is, some stats it just plain does not make sense for them to be able to break through a block. And Fists and Weapons are not, I feel, stats that should be able to make a perception check. The Flash can't get out of a grapple set by Gorilla Grod just by being fast if he's already been grabbed, for instance.
You can put up a block for someone who isn't good at defending themselves. And you can use skills to put up a block that you might not be able to use to defend yourself. Both excellent reasons to use blocks.
You can come at someone sideways, blocks just aren't the way to do it, that's what maneuvers are for.
But maneuvers only work against a single target unless you put extra power into it, and a veil is explicitly not a maneuver. Doing it this way, Molly and her veils simply cannot effectively defend her against more than one opponent, when we've seen that happen multiple times.
She can do so in subsequent exchanges, and with equal skills, there is enough of a chance she comes out ok, as was the case.
Except in your model, she is getting hit--and injured--that first turn and she has to try and recast her veil again the next round. She's down a consequence, two mental stress boxes, and one physical stress box before she can effectively do anything. Remember, the tie goes to the winner, meaning with equal skills, the opponent has a 61.73% chance of hitting her.
It is a special block, if you are outside a conflict and want to stay that way. In that case, you veil, and every guard or whatever has to beat your veil before a conflict can even start. But once that's done, it is no more viable than any other sort of block. A very high numbered veil doesn't have to be by a very powerful wizard. Even if Molly had Conviction 5, she'd still have the aspect "subtlety is its own power", which should limit what kinds of spells she does.
But the really big part is the one I highlighted. Reducing someones options is pretty much exactly what a compel does. So if you want to do a veil that actually limits your opponents options, I think it is better to do it as a maneuver and invoke it for effect. "I am veiled, they can't see me, so they attack someone else".
This would probably explain the fight with the Ick as well. She creates the aspect, and then she spends some fate points on it to be veiled again and taunt the Ick so it would let go of Harry.
OR, mechanically what she did was a block to shield Harry and herself from the Ick. That would account for both the taunting and the invisibility, and she could have easily boosted the spell with fate points and consequences to make it work.
This all runs counter to what the book says--the book does not say "a veil is special, but only in this one particular circumstance," it says a veil is a special type of block that defends you by preventing perception explicitly instead of blocking attacks. You are suggesting that a veil should work by directly blocking attacks.
By your model, Molly has to spend fate points left and right to keep from being attacked, which brings up the question, what's the point of her using the veil at all? And that's putting aside the question of whether you can compel someone else using an aspect on yourself.
Can you point me to that? I can't find anything about it under the paragraph about veils.
YS 252. I don't have the book in front of me, but in the other thread on veils I cited it:
One last thing. The section on evocation blocks (YS252) outright says that veils are not blocks against damage. The section on Spirit as an element (YS255) says a veil's strength in particular "serves as the difficulty for using skills or other magic to detect anything that’s concealed by the veil" (Emphasis mine). Not the difficulty of hitting something, or a block against causing damage like you've been suggesting, but a block against being detected at all--so if the veil isn't surpassed, whoever's looking doesn't discern your presence. The book refers to veils as an alternative approach to defense, and even a "special type" of block. The book is, in fact, pretty clear that a veil is a different way to prevent getting hit from a usual shield-type spell.
Molly's grown quite a bit until Changes and might have gotten a few points of refresh and definitely skills. Also, I feel like that particular scene is more plot device than actual gameplay. On the other hand, Molly could simply be doing a "one woman rave" maneuver for Thomas to tag, when he is making a weapons block, since they are working together to keep the vamps back.
Except the effect of Molly's illusion is not to give Thomas a single free tag on an attack, it is keeping one whole side of the line of battle from coming through. That's a block, one that, if it could be broken by straight attack stats, would have been.
Yes, because you are doing different things. You could have discipline restrict athletics here, but having to spend an action in order to break free is just too much. Now again, you could put up an aspect, and the other one could feel the need to remove the aspect before he jumps. Or you could downright compel him to do so. But that's not what blocks are for.
As I said before, I'm not considering the Awareness (or in this case, Discipline) check to be a separate, distinct action. It's a declaration, effectively. Anyway, as I said before, the maneuver/compel is a better way to model this instance.
Still sounds like it should be a maneuver and the compel reduces the skill to 0. I still don't like that approach, because it just isn't really balanced. You could do a 1 shift veil against someone with a Legendary skill and a stunt, and he would just flail his arms around? Just seems weird.
If guy's got Legendary skill and a stunt, I find it hard to believe he doesn't have some kind of perception skill above 1. Also, I imagine someone with legendary skill and a stunt would be smarter than just flailing his arms around--see where I said, before, about there being several options for getting around a veil just off the top of my head.
I'd really like you to stop treating it as if I'm saying that a veil should make someone invincible and win instantly. I have not said that at all, and have offered several ways that a character can get around a veil if they're smart about it.
The great strength about being able to veil is that you can choose when and who to fight. But if you are in the middle of a fight, you don't have access to those most powerful aspects of your arsenal, and you are going to have to improvise and have a hard time.
Except Molly doesn't have a hard time. Molly is directly targeted by powerful creatures, then veils, and then is able to completely escape any injury at all (give or take a can of paint). Molly is able to keep herself from being attacked by a whole mob of Fomor servitors with one action.
TL,DR:
My main point, I think is that only if it looks like a block, it doesn't have to be a block.
Even if the book directly and explicitly calls it a block, treats it like a block, and calls it a special block? When its purpose is to block an action (perception, and things that come with it)? There's no question about whether veils are blocks--they are, and Molly's spells are set up as blocks. Maneuvering simply does not cover the sorts of things that we're shown and told veils can do.
-
For reference's sake:
Blocks are usually set up as a defense against
damage—particularly if the wizard is especially
focused on combat. But not all wizards are, and
in such cases a blocking spell can be used as
something other than a shield—an evocation based
veil, for example, is often done as a block,
but what it blocks isn’t damage, it’s perception
A special kind of block called a veil is the
special province of spirit magic. Unlike a normal
block, the power invested in a veil serves as
the difficulty for using skills or other magic
to detect anything that’s concealed by the veil
The deeper veil treatment on 276 only really talks about the mechanics of casting one, rather than what it's supposed to do, so I won't quote that at the moment.
-
Sorry to leave you hanging, I had an exam today and it got late and I got cranky, and the discussion was heated enough as it was. Now I think I have a clearer head to continue.
We read the same text, that's not the problem. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that we interpret it differently.
The roll you do to determine if the attacker can see the veiled target is, to me, inside the attack roll already. The idea is, that you only roll on the main action you are doing. In the case of a physical conflict, that's an attack. I wouldn't do 2 rolls, simply because I feel it slows the game down too much in that moment. I like to focus on the main stuff only.
The second thing is how "block to perception" can be interpreted. Granted, your way is absolutely valid, but like I said, to me it is over-complicating things. The main thing, to me, is how things are worded. It's saying that it is a block against perception, not against damage, and so far, I'm with you. But we differ on how that translates into mechanics.
For you, that means there has to be a perception check to overcome the block, since that's what it's blocking.
For me, the wording is important here. Because it says "damage" instead of "stress", it is completely on the narrative side for me. Yes, it is not blocking damage, like a force shield like Harry uses it would. It is blocking perception, making it harder for an opponent to strike you so it hurts. Ultimately, I think they are doing the same thing, they are trying to protect their user from getting turned to catfood. You could also do a block that's basically a cloud of hornets flying around your opponents head, distracting him. Or cloning yourself magically, having 5 copies of you running around is going to make it harder for your opponent to hit you. And still, all those versions of a block are exactly the same under the hood to me. They are all intended to keep their user from harm. Sometimes they will be successful, sometimes not.
I know there are ways around your version, I never contested that, that's why I didn't bring it up. It just wasn't the core of what I was trying to say.
A veil still has uses beyond just being a differently flavored block. Once you can get out of the zone you originally were in, I'd actually let people spend their action to try and find you. But that can be a number of ways. Looking around for something fishy, sensing for a disturbance in the force, hacking and slashing everything in sight, pretending to give up and listen for the sigh of relief (deceit), and so forth. As long as you can give me a cool description with a decent justification, I'm game.
And I still stay by the argument that if your skills are significantly lower than your opponents, you are going to have a bad time. You will have to come crazy prepared, loaded with fate points and you need some good luck to make it work to your advantage. If you can't do that, concede, prepare better, fight again.
-
Mr. Death and I had this exact argument and I have to say that I agree with haru.
-
We read the same text, that's not the problem. The problem (if you want to call it that) is that we interpret it differently.
Aye, but you were asking for the page quote for one thing, so I figured it best to C+P all the applicable text I could find, just to make sure everyone's working from the same basis.
The roll you do to determine if the attacker can see the veiled target is, to me, inside the attack roll already. The idea is, that you only roll on the main action you are doing. In the case of a physical conflict, that's an attack. I wouldn't do 2 rolls, simply because I feel it slows the game down too much in that moment. I like to focus on the main stuff only.
My main issue with that is that Fists, Weapons, Guns, they simply do not have perception trappings. To my mind, they have no more business detecting a veil than Investigation does in dodging attacks. Fists, Weapons, and Guns just are not applicable to finding someone (except, perhaps, if you're using Guns to spray the whole zone with bullets).
For me, the wording is important here. Because it says "damage" instead of "stress", it is completely on the narrative side for me. Yes, it is not blocking damage, like a force shield like Harry uses it would. It is blocking perception, making it harder for an opponent to strike you so it hurts. Ultimately, I think they are doing the same thing, they are trying to protect their user from getting turned to catfood.
There's a flaw in that logic, though--simply not being in the area is also, ultimately, trying to protect oneself from getting turned to catfood, but if someone rolls Athletics, gets a 3, and thus sprints three zones away, that doesn't mean that you can roll a 4 with Weapons and say that represents you also running three zones to hit him.
You could also do a block that's basically a cloud of hornets flying around your opponents head, distracting him. Or cloning yourself magically, having 5 copies of you running around is going to make it harder for your opponent to hit you. And still, all those versions of a block are exactly the same under the hood to me. They are all intended to keep their user from harm. Sometimes they will be successful, sometimes not.
But "keep their user from harm" is just too broad of a hood. I could argue that my attack roll is, ultimately, to keep my character from harm--but if I don't have a stunt, I can't use Fists or Weapons to dodge gunfire.
I know there are ways around your version, I never contested that, that's why I didn't bring it up. It just wasn't the core of what I was trying to say.
Fair enough, but you kept saying the fight was over and won if someone couldn't break through a single block.
A veil still has uses beyond just being a differently flavored block. Once you can get out of the zone you originally were in, I'd actually let people spend their action to try and find you. But that can be a number of ways. Looking around for something fishy, sensing for a disturbance in the force, hacking and slashing everything in sight, pretending to give up and listen for the sigh of relief (deceit), and so forth. As long as you can give me a cool description with a decent justification, I'm game.
Yes, but hacking and slashing, or swinging punches, or firing wildly aren't ways to find someone and land a solid hit. I mean, put it this way. If an average zone is 20 feet by 20 feet, the person veils, you can't see or hear them. At most, someone's going to be able to hit 15 or so feet in area around them at any one time (assuming an armspan of around 5 feet times pi-ish)--the caster has 400 feet to hide in. Do you really think someone swinging their fists around is a way to find the caster? Especially considering they can see you, and are going to be getting out of the way? It'd frankly be a miracle for them to hit them like that and land the full strength hit, let alone the 40-60% chance your model has, unless they already know where the person is.
Hell, for that matter, how is the attacker in this case even sure the caster's still in the zone in the first place? A caster could easily veil and hop over to the next zone with a supplemental action, after all.
I might accept using Weapons, Fists, or Guns to attack if there was some penalty to it--like the Guns attack has to spray the whole zone, or maybe Weapons or Fists lose their weapon ratings, because there's no way you can properly aim or power a strike if you don't know what you're hitting. But it just does not make sense for me for someone to be allowed to make an aimed, full-power hit on someone with a veil if the skills dictate that said person should have no idea whatsoever where they are.
I'm just imagining the conversation, like "Okay, I veil." "He attacks you." "How?" "He's swinging his sword at you." "No, I mean, his Alertness is 1, that's a 5-shift veil. How does he know where I am to attack me?" "Well, he's swinging his sword around the whole zone." "And he hits only me? He's swinging his sword wide enough to cover an entire livingroom to find me, but nobody else gets hit?" "Yes." "And he's wildly swinging his sword, unaimed, and is doing the exact same damage he'd be doing if he could just hit me normally." "Yes." "Why did I bother with a veil, then?"
And I still stay by the argument that if your skills are significantly lower than your opponents, you are going to have a bad time. You will have to come crazy prepared, loaded with fate points and you need some good luck to make it work to your advantage. If you can't do that, concede, prepare better, fight again.
And the veiler, if they're someone who veils because they're low powered and not geared toward offense, is still going to have a bad time--remember for all of Molly's powers of invisibility, she can only kill anything by tricking them into dying.