31
DFRPG / Re: Simon Pietrovich
« on: November 28, 2015, 08:28:23 PM »
He's also linked to the Brute Squad, or at least to Archangelsk, where they were based before the vampires overtook it.
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.
32
DFRPG / Re: Hard time with new player's concept -- need some advice
« on: November 19, 2015, 01:56:21 PM »
How about allowing her the ability to give out Sponsor Debt, but have the compels always fall on her head? There'd need to be a limit, perhaps it only works once or twice a scene, but it'd model what she's after fairly well.
33
DFRPG / Re: Scion of Beowulf - any recommendations?
« on: October 23, 2015, 06:18:16 PM »
I'm looking at the mythology surrounding Nęgling and I'm noticing quite a few interesting tidbits. Firstly, it's an ancient, venerable sword and an old heirloom. Secondly, it breaks in the fight against the dragon, ostensibly because Beowulf was too strong and broke it.
I'd propose that it was, in the Dresdenverse, one of the Swords of the Cross and that when it broke it was not because Beowulf was too strong, but because he used it in a way that violated its purpose, making it vulnerable.
Could be an interesting take for you to go with, whether it being one of the three canon swords or a fourth one that has been kept hidden for a long time.
I'd propose that it was, in the Dresdenverse, one of the Swords of the Cross and that when it broke it was not because Beowulf was too strong, but because he used it in a way that violated its purpose, making it vulnerable.
Could be an interesting take for you to go with, whether it being one of the three canon swords or a fourth one that has been kept hidden for a long time.
34
DFRPG / Re: Character Idea and 1st Law Question
« on: October 07, 2015, 11:59:00 AM »If I were you I'd probably make the character a Lawbreaker Aspect-wise and story-wise. But I wouldn't take the Power. It doesn't apply to Guns attacks, after all.
If the spell is guiding the bullet then it's functionally an evocation, not a Guns attack, since it's merely using telekinesis on a projectile. If I were playing the character I'd prefer it that way because Channelling is easier to upgrade than skills.
35
DFRPG / Re: Character Idea and 1st Law Question
« on: October 06, 2015, 01:12:10 AM »
This is one of those grey areas that could go either way and should probably be determined by your table.
On the one hand, it's the bullet that's killing the guy, not the magic. It could plausibly fit under the same umbrella as the Warden Swords in that case.
On the other hand, I can make pretty strong links between this and the knocking a guy off a building with wind thing, which explicitly breaks the First Law. If your magic wasn't involved the bullet would probably miss or not do as much damage, so there's a direct causal link between the spell and the death.
I'd lean towards Lawbreaker myself, but as I said, this is something to discuss with the rest of your group.
On the one hand, it's the bullet that's killing the guy, not the magic. It could plausibly fit under the same umbrella as the Warden Swords in that case.
On the other hand, I can make pretty strong links between this and the knocking a guy off a building with wind thing, which explicitly breaks the First Law. If your magic wasn't involved the bullet would probably miss or not do as much damage, so there's a direct causal link between the spell and the death.
I'd lean towards Lawbreaker myself, but as I said, this is something to discuss with the rest of your group.
36
DFRPG / Re: Renfields
« on: September 27, 2015, 08:04:34 PM »Fair enough.
As far as your theory, I have the same/agree. You've also left out the Winter Mantle, which is constantly whispering-to-yelling in his ear to kill, plus his experience with Lea and then Lash and then Mab...oh yeah, he's not the same guy he was in Storm Front. He's good about not breaking many different Laws but he's certainly done a ton of killing with his magic. I think there are lawbreaking offenses and Lawbreaking offenses; Harry mostly only does the former, but they still matter. He wonders and worries over it all the time, and has said specifically: if you kill things with magic, you're more inclined to kill things later to solve your problems. He justifies his killing...but of course, don't pretty much all monsters justify what they do?
I'm not going so far as to say Harry's become a Monster yet...but he's not the White Knight he originally tended towards, either.
Been a while since I updated the theory, since I came up with it somewhere around the time Ghost Story came out, iirc.
37
DFRPG / Re: Renfields
« on: September 26, 2015, 08:19:12 PM »- Harry killed the Renfields in Mavra's by using wind or a spirit shield (I forget) to blast their napalm back at them...that act has been debated up and down the forum but I say if it was two random mooks, Harry's got another Lawbreaker notch in his belt--Harry knew for a fact, or was as sure as he could be, that those men would burn to death before casting that spell. Therefore the only thing keeping him from being a Lawbreaker is that they aren't considered Mortal for the purposes of Lawbreaking.
That said, Harry was in a desperate situation there and was in enough pain that he couldn't have been thinking clearly. On top of that he has played pretty fast and loose with the Laws in general. I wouldn't be surprised if Renfields kept enough of their soul to count as mortal, albeit ones that are better off dead. Still very much a matter of debate, however.
It's a pet theory of mine that Harry has broken multiple Laws over the course of the series and has been tainted for it. Not enough to make him Capital E Evil, but enough to warp his perception of life, death and his own power. This combined with the stress and trauma of being a Warden, and the calamities that seem to follow him around on a yearly basis has served to turn him into a hardened killer who doesn't sweat it when he toes the line of breaking the Laws, and who is much more likely to apply violence as a solution to his problems.
38
DFRPG / Re: [Deadbeat spoiler tagged]How-To Necromancy spells
« on: September 16, 2015, 02:07:41 AM »Just looking at spells, 10-14 spells to bind a spirit to a body for creating a zombie. How much would you say it would take to rip that spirit out of a corpse to just outright destroy the zombie? Was thinking you would need an opposed roll vs the controller (if there is one) and possibly vs the spirit itself.
That's a Take Out effect.
also....
Quote
Deadbeat spoiler Related Question:(click to show/hide)
Enough to force a Take Out against the mental stress track.
So assume maximum Conviction of +5, Inhuman Mental Toughness (because no Black Court that survived the purge is going to be easy to take down) and a full stack of consequences (+1 free mild from Conviction) you'd be looking at a total of 30 stress to directly Take Out a Black Court vampire.
Quote
and again... also.....
Would you use necromancy for possession of people? Would break Law 3/4, but would you still put this in the necromancy school? What if you wanted to possess a corpse?
Thanks for input - Looking to make a necromancer or a Person who uses Necromancy to fight necromancers (Aspects: I hate Necromancy & I am what I am.)
Possession is more of a psychomancy effect than necromantic. Possessing a corpse would under necromancy, however, and there's a blurry line over whether Corpsetaker's little stunt is necromancy, psychomancy or a blending of both.
39
DFRPG / Re: help with character based on music
« on: September 13, 2015, 07:53:47 PM »I don't think it's very much like rape.
In setting it's pretty easy to declare that all mental effects that are made against a character without their permission are damaging to one degree or another. It's what the Third/Fourth Laws are based upon, after all. Therefore it's not too large of a leap to say that inciting emotion through unnatural means is akin to rape. That said, it's a grey area that only really falls in one direction or the other when paired with other abilities, like feeding on emotions.
40
DFRPG / Re: Stress, Concessions, and Consequences - I think I've been doing it wrong
« on: September 06, 2015, 07:49:23 PM »Incorrect. A take-out and concession both give you FPs for each consequence you take. Either way, each consequence is considered to have been compelled towards your loss. It says so right in the book.
The way to tell the difference between a concession and a take-out is that a concession is "loser"-narrated loss condition, and a take-out is a "winner"-narrated loss condition. That's entire point of the mechanic.
EDIT: The book talks about "Cashing Out" on pg 206 of YS, for reference.
Huh. Guess I've been doing it wrong then.
41
DFRPG / Re: Stress, Concessions, and Consequences - I think I've been doing it wrong
« on: September 06, 2015, 05:13:16 PM »
The easy way to tell the difference between a concession and a take out is that the concession has to happen before the dice are rolled, the take out after. Also, concessions give the player as many fate points as he took in consequences, take outs do not.
42
DFRPG / Re: Breaking Bad Statblock Session
« on: August 16, 2015, 08:12:46 PM »
These are great. The aspects are spot on and, while they could be a bit more original, the stunts fit the characters very well. Could probably do with giving Walt a Deceit stunt for hiding his moonlighting as Heisenberg, though.
43
DFRPG / Re: Aspects as effects
« on: August 16, 2015, 08:07:14 PM »
Agreed, a zone-wide block against movement would be more appropriate for a spell like that. He'd be looking at a lot of power if he wanted to make it last a while, though.
44
DFRPG / Re: Item of Power Cost
« on: August 10, 2015, 09:41:20 PM »
If we go strictly by RAW, each level of Strength/Toughness/etc. replaces the level before it, so you'd be paying -4 for the Supernatural Strength, which would then get the bonus from the IoP. It'd mean basically getting the upgrade for free, given the +2 bonus, but that's at the cost of losing it if you lose the belt without any gain in refresh to compensate for it.
45
DFRPG / Re: Death Curses
« on: July 23, 2015, 10:07:30 PM »I was just under the assumption that is what most them are. The two in the books aren't because one target was immune to magic and the other was a sadistic monster who might not have had the power for an upfront kill.
Simon Petrovitch's apparently took out hundreds of the Red Court. There were probably dozens of similar ones set off when the Wardens were ambushed in Dead Beat. Typically you don't need to go for indirect methods when dealing with supernatural nasties; it's only the rare few (and Outsiders) that require something different.