ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Taran on April 12, 2016, 07:27:41 PM
-
Just re-read some of the rolls on maneuvers and saw something interesting:
Under spell maneuvers
By default, pulling off
most maneuvers requires 3 shifts of power, but if
the target has an appropriate resisting skill rated
higher than Good (+3), that skill total determines
the required number of shifts.
so, if you have a target and their resisting skill is 5, then the maneuver strength should be 5 by default (for a fragile, 6 for sticky)
Originally, I thought the person would just 'dodge' the maneuver strength and, if they failed, the maneuver was sticky or fragile depending on how much they failed.
But, what if the Power is just the base you need. What if you still have to target with discipline?
So, you 'guess' at how much power you need. Then you roll discipline to target. If you hit, the maneuver is sticky/fragile/unsuccessful based on the power you threw in there?
Thoughts?
I know some people (Haru?) don't like how maneuvers interact with spellcasting, so I wonder if this changes things somewhat for those who have that opinion.
-
Huh, I've missed that in the past. It's interesting, but I think I prefer my house rule.
I've been rolling with the idea that a manuever's targeting roll is actually the number of shifts in the spell. So if you throw a 5 shift spell, the enemy has to roll 6 or better to avoid it. (Fragile aspect on a 5). I like that this puts power back into the equation, encouraging use of focus items with both power and control instead of a single, insane control value.
-
I've been rolling with the idea that a manuever's targeting roll is actually the number of shifts in the spell. So if you throw a 5 shift spell, the enemy has to roll 6 or better to avoid it. (Fragile aspect on a 5). I like that this puts power back into the equation, encouraging use of focus items with both power and control instead of a single, insane control value.
this is how i've been doing it up to 20 minutes ago....because I thought it was RaW. I never based maneuvers off discipline.
-
You don't target with discipline. The power you put into it is the power of the maneuver, and that's what you have to dodge. The rules don't say anything about having to dodge discipline.
The way the rule is written is:
Wizard H wants to put 'Too Damn Windy to Move' on Vampire K.
Vampire K's Athletics is a 4.
Wizard H makes a Power:4 maneuver spell, which creates the aspect, because he matched the Athletics rating of Vampire K.
Wizard H's discipline roll has no effect on Vampire K.
Though most of the groups I've played with have given Vampire K an opportunity to roll, but it's rolling against the power.
-
You don't target with discipline. The power you put into it is the power of the maneuver, and that's what you have to dodge. The rules don't say anything about having to dodge discipline.
The way the rule is written is:
Wizard H wants to put 'Too Damn Windy to Move' on Vampire K.
Vampire K's Athletics is a 4.
Wizard H makes a Power:4 maneuver spell, which creates the aspect, because he matched the Athletics rating of Vampire K.
Wizard H's discipline roll has no effect on Vampire K.
Though most of the groups I've played with have given Vampire K an opportunity to roll, but it's rolling against the power.
what page is that example on?
-
That's kind of already how I look at it, which is why I don't like it very much. The default +3 difficulty is basically reality defending itself against you forcing your will on it.
Having to guess the difficulty makes it even worse, since you can fail by simply not guessing right.
Not to mention that the power for the effect shouldn't really have anything to do with if it succeeds or not. Otherwise you get totally away from being able to substitute finesse for brute force. Any wizard would need to pump tons of power into a spell, and more the better their opponent is. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. An effect should have a set difficulty, at least in a Fate version like the DFRPG.
Uncoupling the discipline roll to hit from the maneuver power makes a lot more sense to me. Even if the spell works, the aspect you are trying to create represents your advantage towards your opponent, and to get that you need to not only succeed in doing the spell, but you need to hit your opponent just right.
So setting clothes on fire should require the same amount of power whether they are worn or not. But being able to aim the spell at a moving target might be something else.
My main problem with spell maneuvers is their application in conflicts. They are pretty much useless. You spend one of your ~4 spells to try to create an aspect that might (!) get you a +2 on a subsequent roll. On the other hand, if you use it for an attack, you get your conviction worth of weapon rating to add to the attack. That's usually quite a lot more, so you will do better to create mundane advantages and use those in magical attacks. And that kind of takes the fun out of setting up magical advantages.
I think I would do away with power for spell maneuvers, if I were to change anything. You'd just do a straight up discipline (or by choice conviction for a forceful wizard) roll to create whatever aspect you want, provided it makes sense you could do it ("on fire" on a piece of cloth, sure. "on fire" on a city block? Maybe not.).
If it's something that can be done in a mundane way, I wouldn't even require you to spend stress. If you want to set something on fire that's in your hand, you could do that with a lighter. If you want to set something on fire down the hall, past the group of thugs, that's a magical effect, and you'd need to spend a shift of stress.
I would also allow you to use backlash or fallout to succeed on a maneuver roll if your roll falls short. Backlash would make it go off as usual but with you taking stress. Fallout would make it go off as well, even the way you wanted it, but there will be a side effect that will put you into trouble. It's kind of like "success at a cost" from Fate Core.
-
The phrasing you bolded, Taran, is there to simply say "you should make the Power higher if they can resist."
Much like they say multiple times in the Thaumaturgy section that you should set complexities to 5 shifts higher than their relevant resisting skill. It's basically a reminder that if someone can resist your spell, you need to take that into account.
To me, it also clinches my interpretation of the RAW that the Power is what is defended against, and the Discipline roll is bookkeeping to make sure you do all the spell mechanics correctly. It's consistent with how Blocks are interacted with, as well as consistent with how one resists a Thaumaturgy spell.
-
@haru : if you hit a 300lbs guy with a power 3 buffeted by wind spell, he isn't going to be much fussed.
If you hit a 300lbs guy with a power 6 spell, he probably will be.
On the other hand, if you MISS the 300lbs guy with either spell, not much will happen...other than knock over the cabbage cart.
I think spell maneuvers are awesome. Mostly for their narrative power when invoked for effect. You can do way more with a spell maneuver than, say, a weapons maneuver.
@Mr.Death
I've been running spell maneuvers EXACTLY how you describe them. I'm pointing out a small nuance in the spellcasting rules.
When I target someone with a sword , the targeting skill is weapons. When I target someone with a spell, the targeting skill is discipline.
I'm just saying that I can see it working as I described in the OP.
I'm just trying to see opinions.
you should make the Power higher if they can resist."
I see that but, if their athletics skill is 1, does the power still have to be 3? And if so, when I do a weapons maneuver, do I need a minimum of 3 or can it be 2 and succeed?
If it's the latter, than why does a spell need to be 3? And, if it needs to be 3, maybe it NEEDS to be 5 if the person has an athletics of 5.
It's a weird argument, I know :P
-
what page is that example on?
It isn't, I made it up. I'm saying that is an example of how the rule as written would play out.Not to mention that the power for the effect shouldn't really have anything to do with if it succeeds or not. Otherwise you get totally away from being able to substitute finesse for brute force. Any wizard would need to pump tons of power into a spell, and more the better their opponent is. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. An effect should have a set difficulty, at least in a Fate version like the DFRPG.
The way I look at it is -- if you really want to play subtlety and finesse, then don't match power for power.
Instead of maneuvering against your opponent's biggest skill, go for its weakest. Instead of maneuvering him directly, go after the environment.
Take the gruffs, for instance -- Molly can't attack them or defend against them directly, so she veils -- while her paltry 3-shift spells won't reliably stop their Fists attacks or break through their defenses, they're plenty adequate to veil, since the gruffs' Alertness is lower.
@Mr.Death
I've been running spell maneuvers EXACTLY how you describe them. I'm pointing out a small nuance in the spellcasting rules.
When I target someone with a sword , the targeting skill is weapons. When I target someone with a spell, the targeting skill is discipline.
I'm just saying that I can see it working as I described in the OP.
I'm just trying to see opinions.
Yeah, but spells work differently.
Think of it this way: When you're maneuvering with a spell, it's effectively a skill replacement. Instead of Might to knock over the cart, you're using the spell's power.
-
@ mr. death: to reiterate, I've been doing SPELL maneuver exactly like you describe them by having people defend against the spell power. edit: I've been making people roll. Which seems consistent everywhere else in the game.
Our group is going to try it this new way. There are groups that use discipline, so we're trying both. We'll let you know how it goes.
@haru: btw, it's way harder to light a person on fire than a pile of rags.
Edit:
so far, not too many fans of this interpretation.
-
I see that but, if their athletics skill is 1, does the power still have to be 3? And if so, when I do a weapons maneuver, do I need a minimum of 3 or can it be 2 and succeed?
Yes. No.
If it's the latter, than why does a spell need to be 3? And, if it needs to be 3, maybe it NEEDS to be 5 if the person has an athletics of 5.
The 3 is referenced a few times in the Paranet Papers--essentially, it's a basic Threshold against power to effect change in the world because of the collective basic disbelief in it by most of humanity. They say if you're maneuvering on yourself in your sanctum (or presumably other isolated places full of belief in magic, like Edinburgh) then the base difficulty is Mediocre.
Why Maneuvers and not Attacks or Blocks? I dunno. It's all pretty arbitrary. I think the 3 minimum should be there for evocation in general if you're going to house rule anything. If you're going to bend the universe to your will, you better be Good at it.
I could also see the requirement for a Maneuver's power being at least equal to the opposing skill. But specifically saying Maneuver power has to equal the opposing skill value...well, I guess that would then necessitate comparing their opposition to your Discipline roll, since your Power doesn't get a "roll" possibility. Interesting. I guess I see where you got this interpretation. It might even be what Evil Hat intended.
I dunno how I feel about it...it's interesting. Though one of the things I like about Power for Maneuvers is it gives Power builds another thing to be good at. This way it's less important than Discipline again. I'm curious what you think of it after playing it this way for a while.
-
I dunno how I feel about it...it's interesting. Though one of the things I like about Power for Maneuvers is it gives Power builds another thing to be good at. This way it's less important than Discipline again. I'm curious what you think of it after playing it this way for a while.
The thing that really makes me laugh is that control based builds are obviously great for attacks, while this helps make power based builds are great for maneuvers (especially if you apply success with style or other multiple-aspect allowing rules). Which, if you think about it, is exactly the opposite of what a person might expect. Raw power seems like it should be the attack option, while control heavy individuals would direct little power to great effect via maneuvers.
-
The thing that really makes me laugh is that control based builds are obviously great for attacks, while this helps make power based builds are great for maneuvers (especially if you apply success with style or other multiple-aspect allowing rules). Which, if you think about it, is exactly the opposite of what a person might expect. Raw power seems like it should be the attack option, while control heavy individuals would direct little power to great effect via maneuvers.
yeah...I tried to a house-rule fix...but it hurt my brain and didn't work well.
The classic example is Luccio and Harry. IMO, Harry and Luccio put out the same power. Maybe Harry puts out slightly more. Luccio just controls it better. More shifts of accuracy =more damage, less fallout and less backlash. It doesn't really translate to maneuvers or blocks. More Power = more accuracy/finess. Which, as you say, feels backwards. I'm not sure the best fix without making accuracy/discipline even more powerful than it already is.
The way I look at it is -- if you really want to play subtlety and finesse, then don't match power for power.
Instead of maneuvering against your opponent's biggest skill, go for its weakest. Instead of maneuvering him directly, go after the environment.
Take the gruffs, for instance -- Molly can't attack them or defend against them directly, so she veils -- while her paltry 3-shift spells won't reliably stop their Fists attacks or break through their defenses, they're plenty adequate to veil, since the gruffs' Alertness is lower.
This is a good point. Harry tends to go the hard way at any task. And that's, really a line between power and finesse.
The problem is evocation, generally, targets athletics. It's only, really, Thaumaturgy that let's you target a specific skill. There's exception, I suppose, and it probably depends on your GM, but for the most part you can dodge any evocation with athletics. And any evocation that targets discipline has problems with Lawbreaking.
ALthough, blocks and maneuver tend to be able to target different skills...so your argument, I find, is pretty sound.
The 3 is referenced a few times in the Paranet Papers--essentially, it's a basic Threshold against power to effect change in the world because of the collective basic disbelief in it by most of humanity. They say if you're maneuvering on yourself in your sanctum (or presumably other isolated places full of belief in magic, like Edinburgh) then the base difficulty is Mediocre.
Why Maneuvers and not Attacks or Blocks? I dunno. It's all pretty arbitrary. I think the 3 minimum should be there for evocation in general if you're going to house rule anything. If you're going to bend the universe to your will, you better be Good at it.
I could also see the requirement for a Maneuver's power being at least equal to the opposing skill. But specifically saying Maneuver power has to equal the opposing skill value...well, I guess that would then necessitate comparing their opposition to your Discipline roll, since your Power doesn't get a "roll" possibility. Interesting. I guess I see where you got this interpretation. It might even be what Evil Hat intended.
I dunno how I feel about it...it's interesting. Though one of the things I like about Power for Maneuvers is it gives Power builds another thing to be good at. This way it's less important than Discipline again. I'm curious what you think of it after playing it this way for a while.
Yeah...3 seems like a game balancy thing. Regular maneuvers don't require it, it seems. Scene aspects are dependent on how tough it is to do and, I guess, anything that requires magic is tough to do, therefore 3.
Here's my (IMO) objective view of the various ways:
1. Using opponents skill as the threshold for minimum power:
- makes maneuvers too powerful. Let's you cherry-pick your success.
- removes random chance and doesn't follow opposed rolls that are present in every other part of the game.
- makes using FP's to defend..weird.
- removes the power/finesse. it's all about power.
- The minimum Power of spells increases faster than skills. At a certain point, every maneuver succeeds. At submerged, you could have +6 power at minimum with only 1 refinement and skills are not likely to get that high.
2. Defending by Rolling against the power of the spell:
- adds the randomness and makes it harder for wizard to auto-succeed maneuvers. (unless the put +4 power above opponents skill...which is hard to do). But does not completely remove the auto-success since Power can get really high, especially if you over cast or have a crafter.
- removes accuracy completely.
- removes the power/finess. it's all about power
3. Power must be minimum opponents skill. Roll discipline to target.
- makes both aspects of spellcasting important (good)
- creates a double-chance to fail (I'm not sure if this is good or bad. I see both sides of this argument)
***we are allowing a Lore roll to know the minimum power. Same as it's done with counter-spelling. But if you fail, you must guess.
-Like example 1, The minimum Power of spells increases faster than skills. At a certain point, every maneuver exceeds the minimum required power because people's skills just don't get that high. At submerged, you could have +6 power at minimum with only 1 refinement and skills are not likely to get that high. but this is less of a problem because you still have to target. Certain specialties/elements will not be up to snuff, though!
- targeting is still important and there's the randomness of rolls.
- it still doesn't solve the Power/finesse conundrum. But it prevents it from being slanted to one or the other.
-
I think the power vs finesse thing was addressed well by Mr. Death. People with more finesse are just being far smarter than Harry about how and where they're applying their magic to be effective with less power to bring to the table.
Harry calls up a huge gust of wind in an alleyway to buffet his enemies. Elaine calls just enough so the pollen riding in it makes them sneeze uncontrollably.
-
The problem is evocation, generally, targets athletics. It's only, really, Thaumaturgy that let's you target a specific skill. There's exception, I suppose, and it probably depends on your GM, but for the most part you can dodge any evocation with athletics. And any evocation that targets discipline has problems with Lawbreaking.
I don't think I agree with this. That Hag is holding onto the Denarian coin tightly -- trying to take it from her by causing it to become magnetically attracted to your staff is a case of your power vs her (superhuman) strength (might). The changeling invokes winter chill to draw body heat away from the white court vampire: resist with endurance (since it's taking the form of a general chill centered on the vamp, you can't really dodge that effectively). Or, a flash of brilliant light in your eyes could be defended against with alertness (realize what's happening in time to avert your eyes) or endurance (work through the blinding pain). That veil that's screwing with your sight? Use empathy modified by weapons to guess where the enemy is about to go and put a bullet through their knee despite not actually being able to (quite) see 'em (maybe with a single level of disadvantage on this one, but...).
-
Yeah, those all sound like maneuvers. And as I said above, maneuvers are better at targeting different skills than attacks.
Which makes me think....if I do it the combination method, that will be less likely the case.
Edit: although, if luccio has high discipline and low power, she will target skills that are lower(requiring less power) but still hit with her high accuracy/control
Harry can target whatever skill he wants with his massive power but is less likely to control it or hit the intended target.
-
Yeah, those all sound like maneuvers. And as I said above, maneuvers are better at targeting different skills than attacks.
Some of those could just as easily be attacks. And yeah, your post was kind of contradictory -- do you by any chance not consider manuever spells evocation?
-
Some of those could just as easily be attacks. And yeah, your post was kind of contradictory -- do you by any chance not consider manuever spells evocation?
I'd rule them as attacks, but you'd have to invoke something to get around the blocks with skills that normally won't apply.
-
Some of those could just as easily be attacks. And yeah, your post was kind of contradictory -- do you by any chance not consider manuever spells evocation?
I think you misunderstood me. I said attacks can almost always be dodge by athletics. I can see maneuvers targeting specific skills. But not only.
Regarding your examples. If they are physical attacks, then they can all be dodged by althletics. regardless of the fluff, whether it is a gun or a ray of frost
Dodging
Athletics
You can use Athletics as a defensive skill to
respond to physical attacks.
So, by the book, if it is a physical attack, you can respond with athletics.
So, the Hag can move the coin at the last minute, the vampire can move out of the way of the area of cold before he's affected, the person can dodge out of the way of the light, or turn their back very quickly to avoid the flash of light.
That said, I don't see any of these (except maybe the cold) as attacks. Let me break it down:
That Hag is holding onto the Denarian coin tightly -- trying to take it from her by causing it to become magnetically attracted to your staff is a case of your power vs her (superhuman) strength (might).
No matter how much you attack the hag, and no matter how much stress you do, the Hag does not have to drop the coin. Bad guys don't drop their guns when you attack them either. If you want that to happen, you have to 'disarm' them. Getting her to drop the coin is probably best dealt with as a compel.
You use magnetism magic to draw the coin towards you. You use a maneuver to create "disarmed' against the hag, and she resists with Might. If you are successful, you invoke for effect, if she accepts the compel, she drops the coin. Maybe, if you have enough overflow shifts, you can draw it right into your hand.
Once again, I could see the argument for rolling athletics. You target the coin, but she moves out of the way and you miss.
The changeling invokes winter chill to draw body heat away from the white court vampire: resist with endurance (since it's taking the form of a general chill centered on the vamp, you can't really dodge that effectively).
This sounds like an attack. Centering the chill on the vampire has to target an area inside his body. Which is hard...when that body keeps moving everywhere. So the space where his body was is no longer there. The area gets chilled, but he's not there to be affected by it.
If you did it as a maneuver, I could see you put something like 'shivers' or 'uncomfortably cold'. which you could tag for a cold attack. But yeah...this can also be dodged by athletics. But, maybe, the maneuver could be resisted by endurance
If you want to target endurance, make a scene aspect of 'sub-zero temperatures'. Invoke it for effect and start having everyone resist environmental damage each round. (of course, this would target the wizard too)
Or, a flash of brilliant light in your eyes could be defended against with alertness (realize what's happening in time to avert your eyes) or endurance (work through the blinding pain)
"Blinded' aspect. Resisted by alertness or athletics.
That veil that's screwing with your sight? Use empathy modified by weapons to guess where the enemy is about to go and put a bullet through their knee despite not actually being able to (quite) see 'em (maybe with a single level of disadvantage on this one, but...).
I'd say that's more of a declaration tagged for effect to allow you a perception roll to overcome the veil. Success means you can attack them.
edit: I think I misread this. You mean if your attacks are being hampered by your own veil? A discussion about this can be covered by its own thread. Create a navel-gazing maneuver like "TAKE AIM", then attack. Tag the maneuver to get a +2. This compensates for some of the block. This assumes, of course, that the veil is impeding attacks and not just perception.
Once again, let's just ignore this example...it will derail the thread.
-
I think you misunderstood me. I said attacks can almost always be dodge by athletics. I can see maneuvers targeting specific skills. But not only.
The problem is evocation, generally, targets athletics. It's only, really, Thaumaturgy that let's you target a specific skill. There's exception, I suppose, and it probably depends on your GM, but for the most part you can dodge any evocation with athletics. And any evocation that targets discipline has problems with Lawbreaking.
You appear to be contradicting yourself. As for my examples, some of them (notably the hag) won't ever be stress-dealing attacks. But some of the others...
"Blinded' aspect. Resisted by alertness or athletics.
Or it could be intended as a stress-dealing attack, with an effort to inflict a consequence related to blindness. And while, yes, you can use athletics to dodge it (because that's the catch-all skill), you could *choose* to use other abilities.
I'd say that's more of a declaration tagged for effect to allow you a perception roll to overcome the veil. Success means you can attack them.
That's... probably a better way to roll with it, actually. I was running with the concept that veils are just another type of block, roll past 'em to beat 'em. (Especially since in this case, the smoke was thrown up to try and cover the caster's escape)
-
You appear to be contradicting yourself. As for my examples, some of them (notably the hag) won't ever be stress-dealing attacks. But some of the others...
Like I said, you misunderstood. Mostly because what I wrote was confusing.
Or it could be intended as a stress-dealing attack, with an effort to inflict a consequence related to blindness.
I agree, but here's the wrinkle. The victim of the attack gets to choose what kind of consequence he takes. He might not choose to take 'blinded' as a consequence. He might choose to take 'stubbed toe' as he kicks a piece of furniture while dodging the attack with athletics. Which is what makes Maneuvers better for doing specific things to your opposition because you get to choose the aspect in the case of a failed defense.
And it comes down to invoking. Just because you inflicted a consequence, it doesn't mean it does anything. Like the Hag, an attack to get her to drop the coin would depend on 1. taking a consquence; 2. The hag choosing a thematically convenient consequence that might cause her to drop the coin; 3. Choose not to pay off the compel that gets her to drop it.
And while, yes, you can use athletics to dodge it (because that's the catch-all skill), you could *choose* to use other abilities.
Yes, true. If it seems narratively appropriate to use Might instead of Athletics to defend, then the DEFENDER could choose to do so (with the GM's permission). The Wizard can't dictate which skill you use to dodge a physical attack since the defender is always allowed to default to athletics.
So, it's likely the Hag would choose Might since she has a Strength Power and the Wizard is trying to wrench a coin out of her hand. But she could also use Athletics if that skill was better.
This is all beside the point, though, since maneuvers, arguably, target other skills...but they might not... :P
Ideally, it'd be better if they could, IMO.
-
what about adding shifts from the control roll to the power of the spell to resist. that way power and control play a part.
for example my group is attacking a troll the wizard doesn't think he can hurt it but wants to make it easier for the guy with the sword of the cross to hit the troll and maybe his cop buddy to shoo it with the cold iron bullets. Declaration slippery feet as he cast ice on the ground under the trolls feet. he uses 4 power 3 for the maneuver one for sticky. the control roll gets a fantastic result for +2 so now the troll resistance with athletics 3 but with a target # of 6 now instead of 4.
this seems balanced to me and now the whole party can use the +2 benefit of slippery feet on the troll to aid in attacks and defense. (with the fist being free)
-
That just makes the control roll the target because the difference between the power and the control added to the power is always equal to your control roll.
It would make it interesting for blocks where you can add zone-wide effects and duration.
If you have a power 6 block: 3 for the block, 1 for duration and 2 for zone wide.
Then you get lucky and roll a 7. The extra can be used to boost the block to 4.
-
I do like that. or and this may be to powerful but if your control roll beats the power by 2 maybe remove the mild consequence from the spell for evocation? hmm that actually maybe a bit much but adding on to the spell for power or duration that is a nice fit.