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 - void

Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Honestly, this is one of those things that could be argued either way. If a circle-threshold would be broken simply by picking up a stick, then it wouldn't be a very valid defense. Vampires, fae, and the like, aren't always swift to adapt, but they aren't STUPID. Hell, just kicking dirt across it would do it under that model.

I think you have to look at it the same way you might look at some of the weird lawbreaker corner cases, such as levitating an anvil over someone and then conveniently letting go of the enchantment. You can (and people have) argue both for and against that being a violation.

Similarly, you could build a solid argument that crossing a threshold -- circle or otherwise -- requires a Mortal act of will.

My first inclination is to treat any weapon wielded by a supernatural as an extension of them for the purposes of a circle, but any secondary effects aren't their problem. So they can pick up a 2x4, but they can't swing it into the circle. They can, however, start taking out supports on the building, which is free to drop on them (gravity doesn't require an invitation).

Where this stance gets hazy is that bullets are inherently second order effects.

For this, I'd be forced to conclude that no, the circle wouldn't stop bullets.. But they wouldn't necessarily constitute a circle violation.

Wizard (or mortal, since they can do it too) gets shot, and if they go flying over the circle (or simply bleed all over it), THAT breaks it.

If they're stoic(or decently armored) enough to survive the shots, well, they've still got a circle. For what that's worth. Dudeness still has a gun, and presumably more shots.

You've bought time. Use it wisely.


I started to edit to clarify that for the whole 'swinging a stick' angle it's not that the circle blocks the stick, it's that they can't decide to violate the circle that way. That led me to have the thought that we needed to look more closely at the 'act of will' aspect.

So I just went and looked at Turn Coat, and ... well, well. I have to reverse my stance pretty fully with regards to second order effects.

“They’re spirit beings,” I said. “As long as the circle’s here, they’re staying outside it.”

“Couldn’t they just scuff dirt on it or something?”

I shook my head. “Breaking the circle isn’t just a physical process. It’s an act of choice, of will—and these things don’t have that.”

From where I sit, that kind of settles the matter, as long as we're taking current Word of God as valid on the matter.

Someone without mortal will cannot simply choose to take an action that would violate a threshold... And that would include firearms.

And if they can break down a threshold, they're probably not going to play with guns... unless they find it amusing, anyway.

DFRPG / Re: (Rules Questions) Negative Refresh: Roleplay & Mechanics
« on: July 02, 2010, 02:02:26 PM »
Kind of the point I made before actually. Stating them with aspects witch they can't invoke them selfs is just the same as providing them with more flaws that others can abuse, further adding to the imbalance that comes from not giving them fate points of their own.

Adding to the imbalance? What about the part where they don't have to worry about fate refresh? Remember, even in our source material, the bad guys outweigh our heroes by a Bunch of a Lot on the power scale. Fate points are actually what lets our PCs have a chance against the monsters. That, and manipulating their natures.

Honestly, most of the time I'd be disinclined to let negative refresh bad guys have very many fate points, if any at all; I'd expect anyone who'd be so far gone to be more or less unable to hold onto any gained from compels for long. If they were inclined to restrain themselves against their nature, they wouldn't have gone negative in the first place.

DFRPG / Re: (Rules Questions) Negative Refresh: Roleplay & Mechanics
« on: July 02, 2010, 01:07:46 PM »
Ok. If this is the case, why stat them monsters with aspects?

An item of note, even if they don't happen have any fate points on hand to invoke their own aspects, it's always possible for someone (such as a PC) to tag an aspect on them, once it's been discovered through Assessment.

DFRPG / Re: Urban Sorcerer [Possible Setting/Resource]
« on: July 02, 2010, 07:52:03 AM »
I'm always on the lookout for new material. I'll dive on Kate Griffin this weekend, probably.

Does anyone else have any other uncommonly known urban arcana settings to recommend?

DFRPG / Re: Character Creation Help - Chronomancer
« on: July 02, 2010, 06:41:13 AM »
Has anyone considered focusing on the enchanted item framework for consumable blocks/armor/etc?

I think the prince of persia 'redo' concept could just as easily be worked using rationed per-exchange effects as any spellcasting or aspect triggering; during actual play the Prince generally only rewound brief moments of battle.

It'd also do a lot to put a lid on some potential abuses if the character only has so much chrono-juice per session to work with.

You could even incorporate Lawbreaker [6th] into, say, the Lore for the enchanted items.

That notion aside, I giggle at the idea of having to rig up all seven aspects tied to time manip. That's a fun project.

DFRPG / Re: Question about stress system
« on: June 23, 2010, 04:17:15 PM »
The results of THAT failure are a completely different question. :D

The short answer is: It only doesn't if it makes sense for the story for it not to. Otherwise, yes, whiffing a burst of flame will catch SOMETHING on fire.

DFRPG / Re: Question about stress system
« on: June 23, 2010, 10:16:26 AM »
To me, it really seems like the intent really is that the Discipline role serves two completely distinct purposes. One is to control the power, the other is for targeting. The Backlash option to maintain power is only for the power; targeting should be unaffected.

Just because the SPELL works as intended doesn't mean you AIMED it all that well; in fact I'd argue that the stress of botching the control would speak poorly of the wizard's ability to direct it as precisely as they intended.

Besides, the offered purpose of backlash is not to ensure the spell WORKS correctly so much as to ensure you don't screw over nearby people or environment.

DFRPG / Re: Quick DFRPG Questions: Evocation vs. Attacks and Stealth
« on: April 27, 2010, 06:02:12 AM »
Where this might break down is in conjunction with the spin-based house rule for reducing mental stress.

GMs take care when combining aftermarket alterations. :D

DFRPG / Re: Enchanted Items Patch - Important, holy crap!
« on: April 26, 2010, 07:37:05 PM »
The quasi-retroactive facet is an important one, yeah, that a lot of players of other systems might not intuit on their own. Is that clearly implied anywhere in the new source text?

DFRPG / Re: Stats for a taser?
« on: April 23, 2010, 04:35:54 PM »
I already said that they wouldn't be much use against or near spellcasters. :D

DFRPG / Re: Stats for a taser?
« on: April 23, 2010, 04:24:59 PM »
I think there might be some confusion between two applications of a Taser. In 'Drive Stun' mode, it's a pain-oriented deterrent/disruption. In standard distance use, the electrodes disrupt the nervous system directly, without a corresponding (but still some) degree of pain. If you're within the mass tolerance of the charge and the electrodes land securely, it isn't 'difficult' to act. It's simply impossible.

I think a block is just... insufficient, unless you set its difficulty so high it's effectively impossible to break.

DFRPG / Re: Stats for a taser?
« on: April 23, 2010, 03:06:31 PM »
To me, the only viable alternative would be to give a Taser something like a weapon:XX rating (with that XX meaning double digits) with a huge stacks of caveats and adjustments by situation, armor, etc, for it to have anything near the threat level it should be for an unarmored target.

To me, that just seems complicated, unnecessary, and it doesn't feel right, whereas my solution did for me and my play group. Didn't you say that was an important criteria?

DFRPG / Re: The First Law Question.
« on: April 23, 2010, 02:05:07 PM »
Well, my take on the soul-staining aspect of the Laws is kinda dependent on the victim actually HAVING free will. *shrug* Every game is a different game, yeah?

My approach would be, if the target didn't REALLY have free will but the spellcaster believed it, just an aspect shift. "Believes He's A Lawbreaker", or somesuch.

DFRPG / Re: The First Law Question.
« on: April 23, 2010, 01:49:37 PM »
Now, thinking about it, there is a circumstance that would serve to define the line, at least for me: "Does your character think of him as human?"

This goes back to the whole intent thing. If you see a White Court Vampire and think "Monster, incubus, devil." then you gain no Lawbreaker stunts because you're right, but if you look at them and think "My brother." perhaps you would indeed gain Lawbreaker, just as you would if you murdered a Ghoul with magic while thinking they were human, because, in your mind, they are.

For full White Court vampires, I'd say that depends on how hard they're trying to maintain their humanity, and to a lesser extent whether the spellcaster considers them to have succeeded at all.

I already went there. :D

This is a bad line to cross for me. I have no problem playing a character that views anyone he doesnt personally know and trust as ... lets just use the word "monstrous" to fit it better into the example. so with that interpretation he would only get lawbreaker stunts if he used powers on his "pack"

That only works if the people he's killing aren't truly mortal.

DFRPG / Re: Stats for a taser?
« on: April 23, 2010, 01:19:28 PM »
Personally, I think the armor doubling thing is just an overcomplication, but everyone's game is their game. :)

Pages: [1] 2 3 4