Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Becq

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 81
16
DFRPG / Re: Neutralize!
« on: August 15, 2012, 02:12:34 AM »
I don't see how any of this is workable by the RAW.

Blocks can only block actions, and I don't recall anything about suppressive blocks that aren't armour.

Am I forgetting something?

The following quotes are per YS252:

Quote
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
Note: establishes that blocks can be set up in self-defense against damage, or alternatively to inhibit "something" from occuring.
Quote
Hey Billy, would you use a “block” effect to hold a target in place, sorta like Elaine did to me in the SUMMER KNIGHT case?
Probably, yeah. The thing to remember with any “how would I” question is that there are probably multiple answers. You could model an entangle spell as a maneuver (the aspect used to slow you down), a block (against movement), or that special sub-type of a block, the grapple (page 211).
Note: Establishes that blocks can be placed "aggressively" on other people in addition to "defensively" on yourself or allies.
Quote
Optionally, instead of block strength, you can opt to have the effect work as Armor or as a zone border instead. If you choose the Armor effect, the armor rating is equal to half (rounded down) the shifts put into the spell. The advantage to doing this is that the Armor effect only ends when the spell duration ends—the armor survives a bypassing attack.
Note: Establishes that a block can either have a "block strength" or an "armor rating" or a "zone border".  Regardless of which mechanic is chosen, however, it's still a "block", and:
Quote
A Block Is a Block Is a Block

So the above is how I make the claim that a block spell could be designed to inhibit spellcasting (first quote) by foe (second quote) by means of the armor mechanic, subtracting shifts from the final result after success is established (third quote) and that the result would be a legitimate block, per RAW (fourth quote).

Oh, and look: quote 2 also explicitely establishes The Spell Which Shall Not Be Named...  :p

17
DFRPG / Re: Evocation-based sleep spell cast in Combat
« on: August 14, 2012, 10:03:55 PM »
Keep in mind that DFRPG mental damage is not the "stun" damage that it is in other game systems.  A sleep spell using a mental attack should more likely induce narcolepsy than a nice nap.  As Mr. Death suggested, making someone tired enough to fall asleep reflects physical stress, not mental stress.

18
DFRPG / Re: Other Ideas for the Catch, your thoughts?
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:39:51 PM »
A Catch is supposed to be a means of attack that the opponent can discover and use to bypass the character's defenses.  This sounds more like a Human Form (powers conditionally available) or an aspect to be compelled when the character misbehaves.

19
DFRPG / Re: Damage Over Time Spells ($*&% Obius)
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:33:40 PM »
It seems to me that if you modify Orbius by requiring that the Wizard use his action ("concentrating") to inflict the stress (otherwise it's just a normal block), then it ought to be reasonably fair.  I think the major problem was that it allowed for fire-and-forget grapples that quickly wore foes into the ground for a single action commitment, which this tweak solves.

20
DFRPG / Re: Neutralize!
« on: August 09, 2012, 11:22:16 PM »
Here's an odd idea that occured to me with respect to evocation blocks:

1) A block effect can either be defensive (working against things that try to harm you) or offensive (working against stuff the target tries to do).
2) A block can be designed to have either have a "block rating" or an "armor rating".

So what keeps you from designing a "suppressive block" that acts as "armor" against any inhibited action the opponent attempted?  So instead of, say, a strength 6 block that negated powers (until the 6 shifts was overcome), it would subtract 3 shifts of net success from everything for the full duration of the spell.  It wouldn't completely prevent anything, but it would reduce the effectiveness of everything.

Just an odd thought, and (as near as I can tell) perfectly legal per RAW on YS252.

This doesn't do exactly what the OP wanted (it's a evocation mechanic, rather than a specific power mechanic), but it could be adapted.

21
DFRPG / Re: Need help with 3 Story Mechanics
« on: August 07, 2012, 01:29:33 AM »
Er ... are you sure you spoilered the right stuff?  The stuff in the spoiler tags seems a lot less sensitive than the remainder!  :)

22
DFRPG / Re: The Glass Jawed Wizard
« on: August 03, 2012, 10:01:14 PM »
I tend to believe that a large part of what causes the perception that spellflingers are OP is that GMs let them get away with too much.  There's a key step in adjudicating how many shifts of power a given effect requires, and if the GM says "Sure, digging a 50-ft crater in the street behind the titan counts as a 3-shift evocation maneuver to place There's a hole in the ground behind you on the Titan", then you're liable to get a people claiming magic is too buff.  (Note that I don't know how you statted the spell, so consider this an arbitrary example.)  This issue can be fixed by recalibrating the shift adjudication to something that makes more sense to the party.

The second issue with wizards has to to with the lax rules for Thaumaturgy which makes it too easy to perform massive rituals.  This has been discussed at length elsewhere, so I'll leave it at that.

Beyond that, I think that the best way to balance wizards vs everything else is by limits on preparation time.  Wizards can do amazing things given time to prepare and rest up between fights.  I think you'll find that encounters that the wizards is unable to prepare for or that are longer (ie, that force the wizard to fill up his mental track) will tend to shift the tactical focus to the non-spellflingers.

23
DFRPG / Re: Power Rewrite: Physical Immunity
« on: August 03, 2012, 12:06:46 AM »
Probably a stupid idea, but I'll throw it out anyway:

What if you let the player/character/GM decide how much the immunity costs?  However much refresh they pay, that number becomes the difficulty on their opponent's attempts to assess and/or obtain the substance satisfying the Catch.  So there's always a Catch, but it might be that even the character doesn't realize that he's immune to everything except the toenail shaved from Lucifer's "Little Piggy Who Stayed Home" -- but someone with enough aspects to throw around might be able to divine it.

Just a random thought.  Now back you your regularly scheduled argument.

24
DFRPG / Re: How is this for an alchemist
« on: August 02, 2012, 11:58:24 PM »
For comparison, the RAW for declarations (including, presumeably, potion "declarations") is:
Quote from: YS313
These are the questions to ask yourself when determining difficulty:
1. Is the declaration interesting (or funny)?
2. Will the declaration have interesting consequences if it’s acted upon, whether it’s right or wrong?
3. Does the declaration propose a specific and interesting course of action?
Each “no” adds 2 to the base difficulty of Mediocre.
Note that the potion rules call it a "Lore roll" rather than a "Lore declaration", so you could certainly argue that the declaration rules don't apply.  And given the nature of potions, the above questions really devolve to "How boring is it for the character to have this potion on a scale of 0 to 6?"

25
DFRPG / Re: Quick and Dirty Star Wars Hack
« on: August 02, 2012, 06:02:21 PM »
Yesss, feel the Dark Side make you powerful!

Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.


26
DFRPG / Re: Making a killing curse
« on: August 02, 2012, 05:54:27 PM »
I think you're on the right track to start off by nerfing the mechanics in the interest of fun/playability/style/etc.  The Thaumaturgy rules as written are probably overkill, assuming the most common interpretations are correct.  Basically, assuming the villain has a symbolic link and a little creativity in throwing together a few declarations, the villain can nuke the player in short order.  Which isn't going to be fun.
(click to show/hide)
Basically, ignore the rules and design an encounter, rather than a spell.

27
DFRPG / Re: The Apocalypse!
« on: August 02, 2012, 12:05:03 AM »
Niiiice power!  How many refresh would you say that's worth?  :)

28
DFRPG / Re: Buffy or Slayer-like Character?
« on: August 01, 2012, 01:26:58 AM »
Scion is probably your best choice.  The character need not sacrifice free agency as a Scion, and the Choice is really just a flavored version of losing your character to NPChood due to opting to become too powerful.  If the character keeps a buffer of unspent Refresh, he stays "sorta human".

29
DFRPG / Re: Crafting and Alternate Weapons Help
« on: August 01, 2012, 01:18:07 AM »
A couple of possibilities:

1) In a high-magic setting, perhaps everyone has magic potential, which is to say you might just drop the "Pure Mortal" template and the pure mortal bonus, and assume everyone is a quasi-minor practitioner.  Perhaps you might create a -1 version of ritual that only allows for "everyman"-style alchemy.
2) Allow players to buy Refinement for enchanted items, even without one of the spellcasting powers.
3) Adapt the rules for Science! from Spirit of the Century.

30
DFRPG / Re: Ask a simple question...
« on: July 28, 2012, 12:09:36 AM »
Not to derail the current line of discussion, but I have a question about speed powers.  Does the "free" zone movement of something like Inhuman Speed count as your supplemental action?  Or can you move one zone at no penalty, then move a second zone at a -1 penalty to your action?
Here's my take.  The rules state:
Quote
Whenever moving as part of another physical activity, you may move one zone without taking the –1 penalty for a supplemental action (page 213).
To my mind, the key premise is that you are moving as part of another physical activity, which means you are moving as a supplemental action.  The effect of the power is to remove the penalty when doing this, but it doesn't seem to change doing so into a free action.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 81