ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Nerhesi on July 26, 2016, 10:41:42 PM
-
Afternoon all, wonder if I can get a bit of clarity:
a) Can Spirit Evocation be used to conduct Psionic/Psychic/Mental attacks? I clearly see Spirit as the element that handles "Force", "Veils" and "Mind Magic". While the last bit is clearly articulated for certain utility purposes, I can find no reference to a brute-application of "Mind" similar to a Brute application of Fire or so.
b) Thaumaturgy attack spell. Can thaumaturgy be used to carry out attacks that are mechanically be similar to Evocation but thematically different. Example - a spell that seeks to cause internal organ damage... or, if the above is not possible via evocation, a psionic attack, or perhaps a entropic decay/disintegration spell. But rather than attempt to cause a consequence directly, the aim is to simply cause stress. So for example:
A Thaumaturgy entropic disintegration that aims to cause 5-Stress. So the complexity is simply the attack roll I want (Text box page 256 Paranet Papers). This would mean I need Lore +5 to do it with no prep. I then simply roll Discipline to attack versus my targets defense - treating it as a weapon 5 attack. Does that sound about right?
What about a Soulfire attack? Is it an evocation attack or a thaumaturgy attack if you were, lets say, attacking with Soulfire (I'm feeling a bit sick here as I'm picturing Mystra's Chosen and I feel oh so geeky - I apologise)
-
a) The books are not entirely clear on this point. I think the writers intended the answer to be yes. But for balance reasons you should ignore that, because if Spirit can toss out mental attacks then it can drop basically anything in one hit.
b) Thaumaturgy attacks don't have attack rolls or weapon ratings. A complexity 5 ritual attack is an accuracy 5, weapon 0 attack.
As for Soulfire, you can use it for Evocation or for Thaumaturgy.
-
Thanks for the clarity, that only leaves on minor question:
Thaum as an attack, you sure it is a 5-accuracy attack? I'm looking at a stress causing attack not a consequence or aspect addition. This is in context of using Thaum as an attack or block as listed in Paranet.
Again - I could be wrong, but this seems to be something you can do?
At the very least, is not something you can do for specialties that list with the "method and speed" of evocation - example entropic attacks with unseelie magic, places of power and the like?
-
I may have found further relevant material:
Entropy Curse Weapon Grade - YS Pg 296
26 shifts is obviously super high.
So it's Athletics vs 26!!! So when Deadly Luck is compelled as per this example.. the result is stress and consequences? Perhaps You've got +6 Athletics, Sure Footed Aspect and Nobody gonna Keep me down! For couple of invokes...
Whats that Mean? Does mean the target, when it slips in the shower, has to assign 12 stress/consequences worth? (Athletics skill, +4 from Fudge Dice Maximum, +4 invoked aspects)
I think I'm confusing myself even more. From what I see with Thaumaturgy, you just oppose the assigned complexity - and you wont need the prep if complexity is <= lore. So is the following not plausible:
Complexity 8 Thaumaturgy Spell "Gut-ya" (For a Wizard with Lore 8)
Target takes stress = 8 - (Endurance +4)
Probably not the same efficient but I'm just curious from a mechanics perspective.
EDIT:
I believe I've figured it out after reading the example on Paranet Page 257. The example cites someone trying to use Thaumaturgy to cause a severe (6 point consequence). To do so, they are assuming the target has Discipline +1, 3 mental stress boxes/track, and then causing the 6 point consequence. 10 complexity total.
So I just wanted an indiscriminate "mental attack" that does 4 stress, I would simply just need Complexity of (4 + whatever I think their discipline skill is).
Assuming my lore meets/exceed complexity, AND I know entropic-effects with Evocation's speed and methods, I wouldn't need to draw a circle with chalk or trace something or what not first.
-
Actually - if the example above (and in paranet) both assume the target doesnt know the attack is coming, otherwise you'd need to include +4 to the complexity to account for the fudge dice (defense roll)
-
If it's a mental attack, then yes, the target will be rolling versus Discipline (or possibly Conviction, it such a stunt is present). Physical attacks will probably default to Athletics.
This all assumes for your Ritual that you have a personal link to the target; otherwise, get ready to lose shifts to Wards and Thresholds.
Finally, any Spirit attack will qualify as Lawbreaker 3rd or 4th, depending on intent (and maybe whether or not your target possess enough free will to be considered people). For more on the subject, check out the Lawbreaker threads. http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,36777.0.html
-
Now I'm confused :)
I'm assuming your answer blackstaff has to do with Thaum (at least the first part) - as just spirit evocation can't do mental attacks. This is my assumption.
My confusion stems from your statement that without a personal link for your ritual, you have to deal with wards and thresholds; where does it say that the personal link bypases such defenses as I must have missed it?
Thanks :)
-
Page 267 of Your Story deals with symbolic links. Also, see p. 230 regarding Thresholds under "Living with Magic." I can't recall exactly where it's stated (if at all), but consensus here is that allowing anything of the paranormal to have a close link to you is A Bad Thing; there's a sidebar with Bob that mentions/refers to this.
-
Thanks Blackstaf - I am familiar with those pieces, but I can't find anything indicating that personal link bypases wards.
I see that a personal link is required or else you cant even attempt Thaum.
I don't see any way to bypass a ward (thankfully).
I may be incorrect :)
-
So the general consensus is that you can't do Spirit Evocation Mental Attacks? Something like that would then fall under Thaumaturgy, right? What about a Sleep spell? Could you have a combat sleep spell using Spirit Evocation or would you need to do a Thaumaturgy ritual/spell for that? Would a sleep-type spell even be considered a mental attack?
I'm taking over as temporary-GM-for-the-night for the game I'm in as a player and one of the other players has a "Voodoo" character for whom the GM created a evocation-style sleep spell for her to use in combat and I've always been curious as to how that works and if that's "legal," but it's not my game and the GM doesn't need to hear me harping on or questioning things all the time. I'd rather be a good player and just have fun. But as the temporary-GM-for-the-night, I'm trying to decide how I'll handle it when the player tries to use that spell.
Thanks for the help!
-
So the general consensus is that you can't do Spirit Evocation Mental Attacks? Something like that would then fall under Thaumaturgy, right? What about a Sleep spell? Could you have a combat sleep spell using Spirit Evocation or would you need to do a Thaumaturgy ritual/spell for that? Would a sleep-type spell even be considered a mental attack?
I think you can have a sleep spell, sadly if I recall correctly fatigue (as in getting so physically tired that you fall asleep) is specifically listed as being physical stress on YS201.
The character I play in the campign I play in, does have such a spell. Causes no damage, but rather fatigue and if you are taken out, you fall asleep.
/Ulfgeir
-
Page 267 of Your Story deals with symbolic links. Also, see p. 230 regarding Thresholds under "Living with Magic." I can't recall exactly where it's stated (if at all), but consensus here is that allowing anything of the paranormal to have a close link to you is A Bad Thing; there's a sidebar with Bob that mentions/refers to this.
You need a symbolic link to target a someone with thaumatugy. period. If you don't have one you CANNOT target a person. The spell will automatically fail. If you have a link, you can use thaumaturgy against them but you must still deal with wards and thresholds. This is how Harry managed to survive the entropy curse by hiding out in his apartment.
So the general consensus is that you can't do Spirit Evocation Mental Attacks? Something like that would then fall under Thaumaturgy, right? What about a Sleep spell? Could you have a combat sleep spell using Spirit Evocation or would you need to do a Thaumaturgy ritual/spell for that? Would a sleep-type spell even be considered a mental attack?
I'm taking over as temporary-GM-for-the-night for the game I'm in as a player and one of the other players has a "Voodoo" character for whom the GM created a evocation-style sleep spell for her to use in combat and I've always been curious as to how that works and if that's "legal," but it's not my game and the GM doesn't need to hear me harping on or questioning things all the time. I'd rather be a good player and just have fun. But as the temporary-GM-for-the-night, I'm trying to decide how I'll handle it when the player tries to use that spell.
Thanks for the help!
Yeah, sleep is, generally, physical consequences with a Take-Out result of "asleep/unconscious"
-
Thanks Ulfgeir and Taran! Good to know that Sleep spells are being used in the game. The way you said you've handled them will really help me as the temporary-GM.
-
Here is the Writeup of the Sleep-spell my character uses. One of her rote-spells:
Sleep spell
Type: Spirit evocation, Attack
Power: 6
Target: 1 target in line-of-sight, inflicting physical stress
Duration: One action
Opposed by: Target's Conviction or Endurance skill, magical blocks
Effect: Target suffers fatigue, and will fall to sleep if taken out.
The power is 4 from Conviction + 2 power from a focus ring.
/Ulfgeir
-
Wouldn't a sleep spell be resisted by Endurance? Is the sleep spell defined as an attack that imposes sudden physical fatigue on the target, or is a mental command to "go to sleep" (in which case, it's lawbreaking)?
-
Wouldn't a sleep spell be resisted by Endurance? Is the sleep spell defined as an attack that imposes sudden physical fatigue on the target, or is a mental command to "go to sleep" (in which case, it's lawbreaking)?
I used conviction OR endurance... Some people have the physical stamina to stay awake, and others have the willpower to just keep going no matter how tired they are. Up to the GM which he wants to use. The spell I used induced sudden physical fatigue.
/Ulfgeir
-
Great sleep spell! Thanks for sharing the write-up for it!
-
Athletics is the default dodge for evocation. Thaumaturgy lets you choose which skill to defend. If you can convince your GM to let someone dodge with Endurance, then it's fine, but you always have the option to dodge with athletics.
For sleeping, I'd allow mental maneuvers. "go to sleep" which gets tagged for effect - kind of having someone zone out for an exchange or something. Basically, the equivalent of hypnosis defended with discipline.
You certainly wouldn't be able to take a person out totally that way. But you could tag the maneuvers to do a big physical take-out to put someone to sleep.
-
Wouldn't a sleep spell be resisted by Endurance? Is the sleep spell defined as an attack that imposes sudden physical fatigue on the target, or is a mental command to "go to sleep" (in which case, it's lawbreaking)?
Either as written, IMO.
We've seen examples of sleep spells before. The Gatekeeper has used some strange sleep/mental spells before and wasn't considered a Lawbreaking. I think sleep spells don't cause any lasting change to a person and don't actually enthrall them so they're very Grey.
-
So are we back to Yes spirit evocations can cause mental-stress damage? I thought that was too broken/not Canon?
I thought that Mental attacks would only be possible via Thaumaturgy, and evocation would be limited to spirit/mental maneuvers and the like. Otherwise.. everyone with Spirit would simply attack that mental stress track.
It doesn't break any law - as you're not transforming or killing or invading thoughts. You'd just be putting them to sleep/knocking them unconcious or in some temporary coma. Seems like a powerful, and easy way to circumvent the first three laws, while trivially defeating most opponents (less mental armour and stress).
-
Hey Nerhesi,
I think the example Sleep spell provided by Ulfgeir is not a Mental Attack, but rather a Physical attack that can result in a "sleep" outcome. As for attacking Mentally, I do believe that this should strictly be something involving Thaumaturgy and possibly would fall under Biomancy.
Thanks in advance.
-
Oh yes - Thanks for the clarity.. I feel like I knew that, then two days passed, after which I completely "ZOMG I CAN HAZ MENT4L ATTKZ!?! IZ BROKE!!!111" - or something similar in effect and way less grating. Thanks again :)
-
Hey Nerhesi,
I think the example Sleep spell provided by Ulfgeir is not a Mental Attack, but rather a Physical attack that can result in a "sleep" outcome.
Correct. The spell I put forth was meant to go against the physical stress track. The part of it that some can consider "iffy" is that it was resisted by endurance or willpower instead of athletics. The thinking by that was that you don't really dodge the spell like you might do a visible fireblast, instead your body tries to shake of the effects of sudden fatigue.
The character I play she doesn't want to harm people, so her combat spells are spells that will stop people, prefereblay so she can get away or get time to do a quick veil (Molly-style).
The other spells that character had was a windburst that would knock someone prone, a force-cage that would keep them from moving, a hyper-awareness spell that she can cast on herself to sense her surroundings better and the Quick veil. As I have said previously, she extremely foucused on divination and combatwise, well she makes Molly look like a heavy hitter.
/Ulfgeir
-
An alternative. Comments/criticism/improvements VERY welcome!
I think, in Fate, I'd be tempted to rule that a mental-attack "Sleep Spell" just needs 2 shifts' success to work. It works by applying the Aspect "Asleep" to the target. Now the target is Asleep. But they are NOT "Taken Out." As a physical attack that fatigues the target into exhausted sleep, I can see the "Taken Out" result, but I dislike the mechanical consequences of being Taken Out this way: I prefer "Aspect:Asleep" both mechanically and narratively.
They are Asleep. If they were standing up, they fall down. This certainly wakes them up! They may have a round of confusion / disorientation... after all, they remember being upright & in the middle of a conflict! Now they're on the ground, feeling sleepy... WTF??? (A mundane might take this to the doctor the next day: "Doc, I think I have narcolepsy! I fell asleep in the middle of a firefight...")
They are Asleep. If they were seated, or prone, they won't "automatically" wake up... it'd take loud noises, being physically jostled, etc. It's likely that a round of whatever Conflict is happening, would wake them... conflicts tend to be noisy, and physically rough. Obviously, anyone can just wake them up intentionally, saying their name loudly/nearby, or nudging them awake.
They are Asleep. If it's quiet and still, I'd rule they keep the Aspect until the Scene ends, or 2 hours, or sunrise (whichever comes first), unless they separately had some other Aspect that might incline them to longer/shorter sleep. Yes, that result IS much like a Taken Out, and I'm OK with that. Also, if they themselves have an aspect such as "Sleeps Like a Cat" I'd give them some extra chances to waken.
As I said up-front: I really would like some comments/criticisms. I know this isn't a "traditional" rendition of the spell.
-
I don't think that's the best idea. A successful maneuver shouldn't be enough to defeat an opponent. Also, that plan leaves too much up to the GM's whims for my taste.
In a game where that kind of ruling was in place, I'd look to end every fight with some kind of cheap trick. And if the environment for a fight was at all interesting, the odds are good that I could think of something. Which isn't going to lead to fun or worthwhile combat scenes.
In general, I think Aspects should work by being Invoked or Compelled. What you're suggesting seems to work around that system, and I suspect its problems stem from that approach.
-
I don't think that's the best idea. A successful maneuver shouldn't be enough to defeat an opponent. Also, that plan leaves too much up to the GM's whims for my taste.
In a game where that kind of ruling was in place, I'd look to end every fight with some kind of cheap trick. And if the environment for a fight was at all interesting, the odds are good that I could think of something. Which isn't going to lead to fun or worthwhile combat scenes.
In general, I think Aspects should work by being Invoked or Compelled. What you're suggesting seems to work around that system, and I suspect its problems stem from that approach.
Hmm. On the one hand, I can see your Invoke/Compel argument; this does seem problematic. So I think it needs some more work.
On the other hand, an Aspect should be "Something that is True." Asleep is Asleep. And "fatigued into exhausted collapse & subsequent unconsciousness" really is NOT "asleep," but is something much worse. Merely "Asleep" should NOT be filling the Stress (or any other) Track + all/most Consequences. And the target really isn't "Taken Out" because if you do the wrong thing next, the target may wake up and then the Conflict is back on -- and the no-longer-Asleep target shouldn't have any boxes of any Track filled -- nor any Consequences -- from merely having "fallen asleep."
To quote Dresden himself -- "I cheated." I think a "cheap trick" is OK, if it's not a single trick that's an automatic "I win" card in most/all circumstances. The only time this actually "defeats" an opponent is if (a) the environs are calm -- no jostling/etc; (b) the environs are sufficiently quiet -- no combat, arguments, etc; (c) the target is already seated/prone. When all 3 of them are true... then yeah, it's really close to an "I win;" But it's not a "Taken Out" -- I mean, the scene DOES still have the Aspect "Shhh! Sleeoing Guard!" or some such. The target isn't unconscious, but asleep, so you can't even "bind and gag him before he regains conscousness."
Still, I admit that the advantage of "Aspect:Asleep" are pretty huge; it is uncomfortably-close to "Taken Out" in at least some circumstances.
So, how to work "Asleep" so that -- mechanically -- the target has no small-c consequences (neither Consequences nor boxes of any Track) if they are awakenend in a round or three and re-join the Conflict?
-
On the other hand, an Aspect should be "Something that is True." Asleep is Asleep. And "fatigued into exhausted collapse & subsequent unconsciousness" really is NOT "asleep," but is something much worse. Merely "Asleep" should NOT be filling the Stress (or any other) Track + all/most Consequences. And the target really isn't "Taken Out" because if you do the wrong thing next, the target may wake up and then the Conflict is back on -- and the no-longer-Asleep target shouldn't have any boxes of any Track filled -- nor any Consequences -- from merely having "fallen asleep."
To me, if a character is able to put another character to sleep in one action, that makes him so much more powerful, the scene ceases to be a conflict. Instead, you can do it as a simple roll. If the character succeeds, the guard is asleep. If the character fails, the guard is alerted and calls for backup. That's the easiest way to deal with situations like this. Once you are in a conflict, safe or die actions are no longer an option.
-
Hmm. On the one hand, I can see your Invoke/Compel argument; this does seem problematic. So I think it needs some more work.
On the other hand, an Aspect should be "Something that is True." Asleep is Asleep.
That's why you probably shouldn't be able to put ASLEEP on someone with a maneuver. It's too big a deal.
To quote Dresden himself -- "I cheated." I think a "cheap trick" is OK, if it's not a single trick that's an automatic "I win" card in most/all circumstances. The only time this actually "defeats" an opponent is if (a) the environs are calm -- no jostling/etc; (b) the environs are sufficiently quiet -- no combat, arguments, etc; (c) the target is already seated/prone. When all 3 of them are true... then yeah, it's really close to an "I win;" But it's not a "Taken Out" -- I mean, the scene DOES still have the Aspect "Shhh! Sleeoing Guard!" or some such. The target isn't unconscious, but asleep, so you can't even "bind and gag him before he regains conscousness."
Thing is, characters aren't limited to this one trick. They can do this trick, that trick, and the other one too; or they can just fight normally. So if you start allowing tricks like this one, any fight where any trick is applicable will end in a blink.
This sort of ruling makes characters way stronger. Moreover, it tends to favour spellcasters, because magic is open-ended and people are more likely to interpret a spell effect broadly than they are to interpret a similar mundane action broadly.
I'm not sure why you want to make this work. Letting people put their enemies to sleep so easily just seems like a bad idea.
-
Thing is, characters aren't limited to this one trick. They can do this trick, that trick, and the other one too; or they can just fight normally. So if you start allowing tricks like this one, any fight where any trick is applicable will end in a blink.
This sort of ruling makes characters way stronger. Moreover, it tends to favour spellcasters, because magic is open-ended and people are more likely to interpret a spell effect broadly than they are to interpret a similar mundane action broadly.
I'm not sure why you want to make this work. Letting people put their enemies to sleep so easily just seems like a bad idea.
Very good points, every one of them!
It's true that a "bag of tricks" solution with a very few broadly-applicable and very-east tricks (re-running the same few "I win this one" tricks for 99% of the problems encountered) isn't the way I'd like to play an RPG, or (as GM) see my players do it; occasionally I DO expect that my players WILL come up with a "clever trick" that entirely-sidesteps what I had expected to be a combat (or other tough problem); but that shouldn't be bread-and-butter for them. A "trick" like this, broadly-used, does give pro-active PC's more power (assuming the NPC's are more reactive, otherwise it gets a bit arms-race-y); and a "because magic" handwave is indeed used more-broadly, more often, than most mundane handwaves.
So, if "easy" sleep-spell is a bad idea (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it is) ... can you help me come up with a different solution? "Easy" isn't actually a critical part of it (making it so easy was just a first-cut approach).
The key elements that I'd like in a "Sleep" spell are:
* Asleep is Asleep #1 -- it's a relatively fragile state. Anything that would waken someone who's mundanely-asleep will waken someone who's magically-Slept (including falling-down from a standing position).
* Asleep is Asleep #2 -- It's more-or-less obvious, from the outside; the subject is obviously not conscious/aware/alert/etc.
* Asleep is Asleep #3 -- it isn't KO'ed or mechanically "Taken Out;" there are no lingering effects; there should be no Stress-Tracks filled, no Consequences, etc -- if the "Asleep" person awakens, they are an awake person who wasn't KO'ed/etc .
All the above doesn't have to be easy-to-do. Maybe put it firmly into "Lawbreaker" territory (forcing Sleep upon the wakeful); maybe requiring lots of Shifts of success Maybe make a ladder: [ Vigilant --> Alert --> Awake --> Drowsy --> Asleep --> Deep Sleep ] and say that a spell doing more than 1 step on the ladder isn't linear but pyramid-costed or even exponential?
-
Very good points, every one of them!
It's true that a "bag of tricks" solution with a very few broadly-applicable and very-east tricks (re-running the same few "I win this one" tricks for 99% of the problems encountered) isn't the way I'd like to play an RPG, or (as GM) see my players do it; occasionally I DO expect that my players WILL come up with a "clever trick" that entirely-sidesteps what I had expected to be a combat (or other tough problem); but that shouldn't be bread-and-butter for them. A "trick" like this, broadly-used, does give pro-active PC's more power (assuming the NPC's are more reactive, otherwise it gets a bit arms-race-y); and a "because magic" handwave is indeed used more-broadly, more often, than most mundane handwaves.
So, if "easy" sleep-spell is a bad idea (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it is) ... can you help me come up with a different solution? "Easy" isn't actually a critical part of it (making it so easy was just a first-cut approach).
The key elements that I'd like in a "Sleep" spell are:
* Asleep is Asleep #1 -- it's a relatively fragile state. Anything that would waken someone who's mundanely-asleep will waken someone who's magically-Slept (including falling-down from a standing position).
* Asleep is Asleep #2 -- It's more-or-less obvious, from the outside; the subject is obviously not conscious/aware/alert/etc.
* Asleep is Asleep #3 -- it isn't KO'ed or mechanically "Taken Out;" there are no lingering effects; there should be no Stress-Tracks filled, no Consequences, etc -- if the "Asleep" person awakens, they are an awake person who wasn't KO'ed/etc .
All the above doesn't have to be easy-to-do. Maybe put it firmly into "Lawbreaker" territory (forcing Sleep upon the wakeful); maybe requiring lots of Shifts of success Maybe make a ladder: [ Vigilant --> Alert --> Awake --> Drowsy --> Asleep --> Deep Sleep ] and say that a spell doing more than 1 step on the ladder isn't linear but pyramid-costed or even exponential?
as I was saying before, I think mental suggestions similar to hypnotism are fair game. This would be modeled as spirit maneuvers.
These would all be things that could temporarily throw a person off. Making someone 'nod off' in the middle of combat (similar to what happens when you are driving for too long) would be enough to get an advantage on a person but not take them out. Magically induced narcolepsy could have the person fall down for a round and prevent them from acting in that exchange.
I might require a wizard to have an appropriate aspect in order to let them do 'mental' spirit evocations though. Otherwise they'd be limited to light/force spirit evocations.
-
Very good points, every one of them!
It's true that a "bag of tricks" solution with a very few broadly-applicable and very-east tricks (re-running the same few "I win this one" tricks for 99% of the problems encountered) isn't the way I'd like to play an RPG, or (as GM) see my players do it; occasionally I DO expect that my players WILL come up with a "clever trick" that entirely-sidesteps what I had expected to be a combat (or other tough problem); but that shouldn't be bread-and-butter for them. A "trick" like this, broadly-used, does give pro-active PC's more power (assuming the NPC's are more reactive, otherwise it gets a bit arms-race-y); and a "because magic" handwave is indeed used more-broadly, more often, than most mundane handwaves.
So, if "easy" sleep-spell is a bad idea (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it is) ... can you help me come up with a different solution? "Easy" isn't actually a critical part of it (making it so easy was just a first-cut approach).
The key elements that I'd like in a "Sleep" spell are:
* Asleep is Asleep #1 -- it's a relatively fragile state. Anything that would waken someone who's mundanely-asleep will waken someone who's magically-Slept (including falling-down from a standing position).
* Asleep is Asleep #2 -- It's more-or-less obvious, from the outside; the subject is obviously not conscious/aware/alert/etc.
* Asleep is Asleep #3 -- it isn't KO'ed or mechanically "Taken Out;" there are no lingering effects; there should be no Stress-Tracks filled, no Consequences, etc -- if the "Asleep" person awakens, they are an awake person who wasn't KO'ed/etc .
All the above doesn't have to be easy-to-do. Maybe put it firmly into "Lawbreaker" territory (forcing Sleep upon the wakeful); maybe requiring lots of Shifts of success Maybe make a ladder: [ Vigilant --> Alert --> Awake --> Drowsy --> Asleep --> Deep Sleep ] and say that a spell doing more than 1 step on the ladder isn't linear but pyramid-costed or even exponential?
Magic is a two-way street. If I'm capable of it, I can assume safely the opposition is also capable of it in game. A GM could justifiably say that I fall asleep and wake up sans everything. Taken out without even a chance to concede to have some say over how I lose. Even worse, since Mental/Spirit attacks have no obviously visible effects, I wouldn't even know I was under attack (unless I made an excellent Lore roll). I'm going with the suggestions that Taran came up with.
-
If you fall asleep while knife-fighting a vampire, you are essentially dead. So putting someone who's knife-fighting a vampire to sleep is basically the same as taking them out. So your third condition, that being asleep isn't like being taken out, seems very difficult to satisfy.
In a gunfight where you're crouching behind cover, you might have a chance to wake up in time. Would you be okay with limiting sleep spells by type of scene?
-
... These would all be things that could temporarily throw a person off. Making someone 'nod off' in the middle of combat (similar to what happens when you are driving for too long) would be enough to get an advantage on a person but not take them out. Magically induced narcolepsy could have the person fall down for a round and prevent them from acting in that exchange.
Rather than "nod off" in combat -- full-on narcolepsy/sleep/fall -- how about: the victim just "zones out" for a moment -- pauses to take stock, not thinking quickly enough, and loses the round's action; plus is a bit slow to respond to the incoming attack ... That seems viable to me. The spell creates the tag'able "Aspect:Zoned Out"?
So you suggest that the classic "sleep spell" (Target becomes fast asleep) is just Not A Thing ... ?
I'm not wild about this solution, but I suppose I could live with it.
I might require a wizard to have an appropriate aspect in order to let them do 'mental' spirit evocations though. Otherwise they'd be limited to light/force spirit evocations.
Specifically, it's "Lawbreaker" territory? Sure, "sleep" seems pretty innocuous... but it's still using magic to impose a mental state onto the target... so Lawbreaker. If you weren't before, you are now. That works, I think...
Hmm. Good ideas, thanks...
Still wrestling with this...
-
Magic is a two-way street. If I'm capable of it, I can assume safely the opposition is also capable of it in game. A GM could justifiably say that I fall asleep and wake up sans everything. Taken out without even a chance to concede to have some say over how I lose. Even worse, since Mental/Spirit attacks have no obviously visible effects, I wouldn't even know I was under attack (unless I made an excellent Lore roll).
Absolutely correct in every point.
The thing is... I think that IS narratively-true to the Dresdenverse. Magic IS
just
that
powerful.
Solutions? I think you're right, that Taran's are good...
Particularly if "Sleep" is just adjudged firmly within "Lawbreaker" turf, and earns the caster a visit from the Snicker-Snack Corps!
-
If you fall asleep while knife-fighting a vampire, you are essentially dead. So putting someone who's knife-fighting a vampire to sleep is basically the same as taking them out. So your third condition, that being asleep isn't like being taken out, seems very difficult to satisfy.
In a gunfight where you're crouching behind cover, you might have a chance to wake up in time. Would you be okay with limiting sleep spells by type of scene?
Let me re-parse that:
If you are knife-fighting a vampire, AND a wizard is acting to stop you from defending yourself (in virtually any manner a wizard can: "Sleep Spell" or "Petrificus Totalus," does the method really matter?), you are essentially dead...
Or at least you SHOULD be, narratively-speaking! That's a one-round "one-two punch" that SHOULD take down pretty much any human, shouldn't it? I mean, whatever the game-mechanics DO say, they SHOULD be saying "DOA."
Are you okay with "wiz+vamp vs. lone human" being a multi-round action?
-
I don't see any problem with doing maneuvers that have people 'blank out' or 'nod off' or any other temporary things.
Even 'sleep' as g33k was saying, where a person is compelled to fall down and instantly wake up (IE: compelled to miss a turn or be 'prone').
I still think putting someone in a magical, semi-permanent, sleep is a physical thing.
So, even if you do mental maneuvers like 'groggy', and 'distracted' and 'zoned out', you can invoke them to do fun/interesting things, or you can tag them for a big physical attack that puts a person to sleep.
I don't really think a sleep spell is Law Breaking, unless you are actually doing mental damage. In which case, the sleep spell might be a magically induced, semi-permanent nightmare that they're living out in their own mind. Hell, they could be living a perfectly happy life that takes place entirely in their own mind. That kind of thing would be Lawbreaking whereas making someone unconscious isn't.
Really, the result is the same but the fallout/repercussions for the victim and the attacker are different.
-
Related question, would you allow a successful maneuver to be tagged for effect to make some defend at Mediocre, or skip their action for the round? Or would you require a FP?
-
I don't really think a sleep spell is Law Breaking, unless you are actually doing mental damage. In which case, the sleep spell might be a magically induced, semi-permanent nightmare that they're living out in their own mind. Hell, they could be living a perfectly happy life that takes place entirely in their own mind. That kind of thing would be Lawbreaking whereas making someone unconscious isn't.
Well, I'm not convinced that "Lawbreaker" is inevitable; but I'm not convinced that it isn't.
The "Yes, it is" argument that I see is pretty simple: the mind is the core self; when you magically-impose YOUR will on the target, alter their mind... you alter their self. Even if it "seems innocuous," and you say it "does no damage," you are making a change to them against their will. It may be a SLIGHT change, but, like "slightly pregnant" or "slightly dead" -- it's an is/isn't line, that the spellcaster has crossed.
As I said, I'm not sure the argument CONVINCES me... but it may SUFFICE, as a reason to explain why a forced "go to sleep" isn't on a short-list of go-to solutions for more wizards in the Dresdenverse. Or it may not: still pondering.
-
Let me re-parse that:
If you are knife-fighting a vampire, AND a wizard is acting to stop you from defending yourself (in virtually any manner a wizard can: "Sleep Spell" or "Petrificus Totalus," does the method really matter?), you are essentially dead...
Or at least you SHOULD be, narratively-speaking! That's a one-round "one-two punch" that SHOULD take down pretty much any human, shouldn't it? I mean, whatever the game-mechanics DO say, they SHOULD be saying "DOA."
No. That would suck.
It would be completely unfun if everyone who failed to buy a Toughness Power was always one turn away from a completely arbitrary death.
If you read the novels, you'll note that Harry's not dead. Despite being a squishy human, who's been up against much worse than one spellcaster and one vampire working together.
Murphy's not dead either. Nor's Michael. In fact, the novels make clear that killing a human hero is really damn hard. Even with various magical powers. Which is good, because otherwise the supernatural action that this game is supposed to be about would kill most PCs within two sessions.
The wizard can maneuver and pass a tag to the vampire. The vampire can invoke it for +2. They can't arrange some kind of instant-victory combo. And they certainly can't bypass the consequence slots that are supposed to let important characters fight on.
Are you okay with "wiz+vamp vs. lone human" being a multi-round action?
What do you mean?
-
Well, I'm not convinced that "Lawbreaker" is inevitable; but I'm not convinced that it isn't.
The "Yes, it is" argument that I see is pretty simple: the mind is the core self; when you magically-impose YOUR will on the target, alter their mind... you alter their self. Even if it "seems innocuous," and you say it "does no damage," you are making a change to them against their will. It may be a SLIGHT change, but, like "slightly pregnant" or "slightly dead" -- it's an is/isn't line, that the spellcaster has crossed.
As I said, I'm not sure the argument CONVINCES me... but it may SUFFICE, as a reason to explain why a forced "go to sleep" isn't on a short-list of go-to solutions for more wizards in the Dresdenverse. Or it may not: still pondering.
the line between physical and mental is tricky.
Someone can get into a car accident and suffer severe brain damage. Amnesia or total personality changes can occur when you get brain damage. Is it 'Mental damage'? Not technically since it was 'physical' damage but it still changed the 'core of who they were'.
So, what is mental damage in this game? Is it the 'soul'? the personality? It's too hard to say. Therefore, I think, intent comes into play.
What's your intent? Are you trying to destroy 'who they are'? Then maybe 'Mental damage is the way to go and you get lawbreaker. Are you just trying to pound them unconscious? then maybe the physical track is the way to go and you avoid Lawbreaker.
A person might choose to take a physical Extreme Consequence of 'Amnesia' but, I think, the intent of the Wizard (at least for mechanics) should dictate whether they get Lawbreaker.
If that same person takes a mental Extreme Consequence of 'Amnesia', clearly the Wizard was trying to change the fundamental core of who that person was and should get Lawbreaker.
Does that make sense? What it comes down to is the situation and what would make the game more interesting. But also, is your Player trying to take the easy road and target the Mental Track? If they are simply trying to 'put someone to sleep', then I wouldn't let them target the 'mental' track, despite their arguments that it's a sleep spell. I'd argue that is the realm of the physical track. If they want to 'put someone to sleep' and give them some sort of horrible anxiety disorder and destroy the person's soul, then I'd let them target mental track, get the advantage of an easier Take Out, and suffer the Fallout of breaking one of the Laws of Magic.
So, in that sense, the intent dictated which track the spell targeted.
-
Let me re-parse that:
If you are knife-fighting a vampire, AND a wizard is acting to stop you from defending yourself (in virtually any manner a wizard can: "Sleep Spell" or "Petrificus Totalus," does the method really matter?), you are essentially dead...
Or at least you SHOULD be, narratively-speaking! That's a one-round "one-two punch" that SHOULD take down pretty much any human, shouldn't it? I mean, whatever the game-mechanics DO say, they SHOULD be saying "DOA."
Are you okay with "wiz+vamp vs. lone human" being a multi-round action?
I think you've confused the PCs with the simple vanilla mortal NPCs. The rules even come out and say that PCs as a rule have "plot armor" that prevents them from being take out. Arbitrarily killing off PCs is a bad idea and doing so without even giving them the chance to concede is even worse.
-
It's possible we're talking at cross-purposes here... I don't mean to be using a "hero" character as game-world normative. There are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of "normal" folk for every hero/villain bad-ass character.
I'm not trying to find a way to create the "one-shot take-out." I'm trying to AVOID it... while keeping the narrative intact, the sense of the universe being cohesive and internally-consistent.
Most mortals are fragile, and squishy.
(Edit: I see that blackstaff67 has highlighted just this point)
No. That would suck.
It would be completely unfun if everyone who failed to buy a Toughness Power was always one turn away from a completely arbitrary death.
I DO agree that "one-round win" is a pretty sucky thing, RPG-wise. That is "mook" turf, and the players don't really want all-mook opposition, and CERTAINLY don't want to BE mooks! But I would suggest that -- if you are up against an allied pair of vampire+wizard -- you are NOT in a "completely arbitrary" situation!
One element of not needing "everyone buys a Toughness Power" would be relying on the GM not to send overpower'ed opposition at the players. Another is for the PC's to be smart (researching ahead of time) & tricky, and all the rest; and be ready and able to defeat the wiz/vamp pair when they face them!
If you read the novels, you'll note that Harry's not dead. Despite being a squishy human, who's been up against much worse than one spellcaster and one vampire working together.
Murphy's not dead either. Nor's Michael. In fact, the novels make clear that killing a human hero is really damn hard. Even with various magical powers. Which is good, because otherwise the supernatural action that this game is supposed to be about would kill most PCs within two sessions.
But for "ordinary people," a lone wizard or vamp (let alone the pair!) should suffice for a 1-round take-out. It may not happen to Harry, or Michael, or Murphy... but it happens repeatedly in the stories to minor characters. The supernaturals are DANGEROUS, and most people are essentially defenseless against them.
The wizard can maneuver and pass a tag to the vampire. The vampire can invoke it for +2. They can't arrange some kind of instant-victory combo. And they certainly can't bypass the consequence slots that are supposed to let important characters fight on.
I'm good with that; in fact, that's exactly what I want, too.
But how do we rule on a "Sleep Spell" which causes sleep -- no more, nor less, than "Asleep" -- as a result of the spell?
-
I concede I hadn't closely read the thread as I should have. My apologies.
-
But for "ordinary people," a lone wizard or vamp (let alone the pair!) should suffice for a 1-round take-out. It may not happen to Harry, or Michael, or Murphy... but it happens repeatedly in the stories to minor characters. The supernaturals are DANGEROUS, and most people are essentially defenseless against them.
I'm good with that; in fact, that's exactly what I want, too.
But how do we rule on a "Sleep Spell" which causes sleep -- no more, nor less, than "Asleep" -- as a result of the spell?
The fragility of minor characters doesn't really have anything to do with human-ness. Random vampires die the same as random mortals. Killing Maggie Dresden is much harder than killing a nameless monster. Probably harder than killing a Lord of the Outer Night, actually. Thanks to consequence slots, fate points, and skill ratings, that's also true in the game.
I still think "make it a take-out result" solves your problem. That way you can easily put to sleep enemies that you can easily take out, but not opponents you can't. In the fights where it makes logical sense to fall asleep and not just lose you might be able to briefly put someone out as a maneuver, but that wouldn't give you anything more than the standard +2.
You seem keen to avoid this approach, though. Mind explaining why?
-
The fragility of minor characters doesn't really have anything to do with human-ness. Random vampires die the same as random mortals.
For the first part, I agree; however, "random vampires" (and other "random" supernatural nasties) really don't die as easily as random mortals do; many "kill the average mortal" traumas will only annoy or inconvenience the average vamp/etc (aside from their specific weaknesses, e.g. WCV/Touch of Love, etc). Narratively, sure: Harry, who knows all this, uses these weaknesses readily, and the baddies fall in droves.
I still think "make it a take-out result" solves your problem. That way you can easily put to sleep enemies that you can easily take out, but not opponents you can't. In the fights where it makes logical sense to fall asleep and not just lose you might be able to briefly put someone out as a maneuver, but that wouldn't give you anything more than the standard +2.
You seem keen to avoid this approach, though. Mind explaining why?
I really profoundly dislike the mechanical issues, particularly aftereffects. Some badass went toe-to-toe with a Ghoul or a Vamp or what-have-you, and wound up Taken Out... Consequences will take a while to heal, but he'll survive. Fine, we're good.
Someone went toe-to-mind with a wizard who Slept him, and got Taken Out. Once the victim wakes, there should be no consequences or "healing" time!
Just walking over and shaking them awake should un-do everything; the same should NOT be true for the victim of a Ghoul-mauling!
-
I really profoundly dislike the mechanical issues, particularly aftereffects. Some badass went toe-to-toe with a Ghoul or a Vamp or what-have-you, and wound up Taken Out... Consequences will take a while to heal, but he'll survive. Fine, we're good.
Someone went toe-to-mind with a wizard who Slept him, and got Taken Out. Once the victim wakes, there should be no consequences or "healing" time!
Just walking over and shaking them awake should un-do everything; the same should NOT be true for the victim of a Ghoul-mauling!
Definitively agree with that sentiment.
/Ulfgeir
-
For the first part, I agree; however, "random vampires" (and other "random" supernatural nasties) really don't die as easily as random mortals do; many "kill the average mortal" traumas will only annoy or inconvenience the average vamp/etc (aside from their specific weaknesses, e.g. WCV/Touch of Love, etc). Narratively, sure: Harry, who knows all this, uses these weaknesses readily, and the baddies fall in droves.
On this I agree with you. That's why you treat mook monsters differently than mook humans.
-
You don't need (always) healing time to recover from being taken out. You need healing time to recover from consequences, and consequences are what you take to avoid being taken out.
What being taken out means is that you're at your opponent's mercy. They get to dictate what happens to you. I think that fits the situation of a sleeping person very well. Maybe they leave you there, maybe they disembowel you. Up to them.
-
I agree with sanctaphrax here. Once you are taken out, the victor dictates the outcome. He could say. "You are dead" or he could say you are magically asleep for 2 hours. Or you are unconscious. Both of the latter are better than being dead and don't require lots of recovery time.
It's too bad you got a 'bruised' consequence and a 'concussion' consequence during the battle. If you'd submitted to the magic earlier, you wouldn't have gotten so beat up.
-
Related question, would you allow a successful maneuver to be tagged for effect to make some defend at Mediocre, or skip their action for the round? Or would you require a FP?
Can anyone weigh in on this for me?
-
when you tag a maneuver, it works as a compel. So that compel gets negotiated and then the person has an option to refuse.
Missing a turn seems like a fine compel but my problem with it is its a compel for inaction which is less fun.
Dodging at mediocre is pretty dangerous so, I suppose, it could depend on the situation how good or bad it is as a compel.
The problem is the tag. By the book, if you use a tag, the opponent doesn't earn a FP. On the other hand, I've heard lots of arguments that the tag just 'activates' the aspect and the compel is issued by the GM and, then you use the regular Fate economy and a FP gets awarded to the person from the GM.
I don't know which one I like. The problem with a tag, imo, is if the person has no fps to pay off the compel then they are getting forced to do something and get no reward for it, which I don't like - it just drains fps from everyone and then there's less to go around to invoke interesting situations.