Author Topic: Sample Combat  (Read 34254 times)

Offline toturi

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 734
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #30 on: August 19, 2010, 10:03:28 AM »
* Igor attacks Dave. He has Fists at Great (+4), he rolls -1, so his effort is +3. Dave rolls Athletics (+2) to dodge, gets a +1, and also has effort +3. That means Igor hits. His claws are Weapon:4 so he does a 4-stress hit. Dave only has three spots on his track, so this would take him out. He decides to take a Mild Consequence instead (Nasty Scratches) which reduces it to a 2-stress hit, which he marks on his sheet.

I thought if you get a net "0," you miss. +3 for Igor, +3 for Dave. I'm confused.
p200 YS. If you get a net 0, you still hit but no additional stress.
With your laws of magic, wizards would pretty much just be helpless carebears who can only do magic tricks. - BumblingBear

Offline Miso

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #31 on: August 19, 2010, 10:10:10 AM »
p200 YS. If you get a net 0, you still hit but no additional stress.

Yes but: if you tie with a 0 and you have a weapon rating, you add the weapon rating to the zero-shift attack. Thus inflicting 4 stress.
YS 202 "Weapon Rating"

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #32 on: August 19, 2010, 10:20:10 AM »
@KOFFEYKID:

You are right in that I didn't word it correctly but your explanation doesn't fit what I've been trying to do. I intended it as a harmless area version of the Orbius spell. I.e. it is a grapple -this means a block against ALL actions- and it is opposed by might or endurance. Unlike the Orbius spell though it won't slowly kill the affected people, merely hold them in place. (because you don't want to kill the girl and because your buddy can kill the bad guys instead)

Offline Doc Nova

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Who needs a cab?
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #33 on: August 19, 2010, 11:48:08 AM »
I can live with that but I wanted to have it clarified.
I think you can see it the other way round, too.

I don't see it the other way around.  To me, what Voldy suffered is a compel.  It's a potent effect that had no roll, denied actions, and occured out of line of sight and immediate action.  But if it works for you and your game, go for it.

Offline greycouncilmember

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #34 on: August 19, 2010, 12:39:57 PM »
The wording is off, it shouldn't be a block versus endurance, its a block, against some action, which is opposed by endurance. Which means that the block keeps X from happening, but you can overcome the block by means of your high endurance.

So for example you can have two blocks that do the same thing be opposed by different skills.

A block against movement opposed by athletics.
A block against movement opposed by might.

In the first block you are doing something like dodging past whatever is blocking you, as long as its athletic.

On the second block you are using your brute strength to bypass the block, like maybe the block manifests as chains which bind you in place, and you go all hulk smash on the chains and then proceed to move.

So a block against movement prevents you from doing anything physical even a wizard casting spells?

Offline Doc Nova

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Who needs a cab?
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #35 on: August 19, 2010, 01:05:02 PM »
So a block against movement prevents you from doing anything physical even a wizard casting spells?

I think that would depend on the block.  If it were a lasso roped around your legs, then likely no.  If it were a series of mystical bands that have you wrapped up good and tight, then maybe...although I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have gestures with spellcasting...although I am sure it helps with "targeting", focus, and a dozen other things.  I could easily see a GM still allowing it, but upping the difficulty by two points or so (simply inverting the benefit from an invoke is handy, but also more of a houserule...I think).

Offline greycouncilmember

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #36 on: August 19, 2010, 01:19:42 PM »
I think that would depend on the block.  If it were a lasso roped around your legs, then likely no.  If it were a series of mystical bands that have you wrapped up good and tight, then maybe...although I don't think it's absolutely necessary to have gestures with spellcasting...although I am sure it helps with "targeting", focus, and a dozen other things.  I could easily see a GM still allowing it, but upping the difficulty by two points or so (simply inverting the benefit from an invoke is handy, but also more of a houserule...I think).

The example given was a zone wide force field or tazer effect.  If that targeted movement would it prevent a caster from casting?  Being able to neutralize an entire zone without them being able to do anything seems very overpowered, but I guess that could be used on either side in combat. 

Offline Miso

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #37 on: August 19, 2010, 03:00:12 PM »
I don't see it the other way around.  To me, what Voldy suffered is a compel.  It's a potent effect that had no roll, denied actions, and occured out of line of sight and immediate action.  But if it works for you and your game, go for it.

If you word it this way you are clearly right.
I stand corrected.
I think it's a bit confusing that the players couldn't tag Voldys Shattered Rips. I can imagine that my players will complain about that.

Offline Doc Nova

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Who needs a cab?
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #38 on: August 19, 2010, 04:15:44 PM »
The example given was a zone wide force field or tazer effect.  If that targeted movement would it prevent a caster from casting?  Being able to neutralize an entire zone without them being able to do anything seems very overpowered, but I guess that could be used on either side in combat. 
Do keep in mind that a wizard (good, bad, or whatever) could "overcome" the effects with a successful roll, or, if the GM was willing, by "buying" their way out of it with 1 (or more) fate points (akin to buying out of a compel).  There are multiple avenues available.  But, more importantly, if the power-level of a zone-wide block bugs you, don't allow them, or be very tight-fisted about those you do allow (maybe it costs a fate point, or has a greater shift cost).

Offline Doc Nova

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 101
  • Who needs a cab?
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #39 on: August 19, 2010, 04:18:07 PM »
If you word it this way you are clearly right.
I stand corrected.
I think it's a bit confusing that the players couldn't tag Voldys Shattered Rips. I can imagine that my players will complain about that.
They could tag the consequence...but it would be a +2 to a roll or a reroll.  If they wanted to make him collapse, they could still...potentially...do it but it would be treated as a compel and cost the players 1 (or more) fate points, which Voldy would get.  It's a give and take that also protects them from it happening to them, as well.

Offline luminos

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1234
  • Um... Hello?
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2010, 05:03:46 PM »
They could tag the consequence...but it would be a +2 to a roll or a reroll.  If they wanted to make him collapse, they could still...potentially...do it but it would be treated as a compel and cost the players 1 (or more) fate points, which Voldy would get.  It's a give and take that also protects them from it happening to them, as well.

Absolutely.  Think of how mad your players will get when you tell them that an opponent tags one of their consequences to do something similar, and they aren't allowed to buy it off, they don't get a chance to resist it, and they don't even get paid a fate point for it.
Lawful Chaotic

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2010, 05:09:47 PM »
Quote
if the GM was willing, by "buying" their way out of it with 1 (or more) fate points (akin to buying out of a compel).

It's not a compel, it's an attack. They could use a fate point to get +2 to their roll but not to negate it. And with a block of 10 against might or endurance of, say, 3, they need to roll +4 and use two fate points.

Offline JesterOC

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2010, 05:33:09 PM »
There is an economy to fate point use, and I wish it was a bit more clearly stated.  Here is my take on it.

Effect                                   Cost
Narrative control that benefits the player = Free Die roll, Setup action or 1 Fate
Give yourself a re-roll or a +2 = Setup Action or 1 Fate
Narrative control that Limits the actions of an enemy = 1 Fate Plus the enemy gets the Fate if accepted or looses a fate point if declined.

The fate point is the most expensive way to accomplish the effects listed.
It appears that the game considers player narrative control to be the least expensive effect, because it can be put into effect with a free die roll.
Next costly is giving yourself a bonus or a re-roll, this costs either a tag (which in effect is costing you an exchange and only on a successful die roll).
Finally a compel is the most costly because it will always cost you 1 fate and it may not always work as intended (but it will always do something).

p.s.
I only bring this up, because it helps me understand how to arbitrate invokes for effects and compels, because it indicates that compels are considered more costly than declarations and thus any invokes for effects that border on the strength of a compel should be carefully considered.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 06:00:29 PM by JesterOC »

Offline infusco

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2010, 06:30:35 PM »
Generally, a block is intended to create a hindrance to one specific action. A grapple is a special case and, the way it is written, I'd rule that it could only target a single person or creature and would tie up your own action in the process. A long duration block to all actions to an entire zone would indeed be significantly overpowered.

Remember, even the Orbius spell is a block against breathing that could cause someone to suffocate and pass out. Nothing about the spell's description claims that the person under it's effect can't do any other action, like shooting at the caster. Now you could call it a complete physical grapple, but notice that the grapple rules state you need to tag an aspect first to establish the grapple, so the spell is clearly missing something ... i.e A maneuver creating evocation the previous round.

In the Invoke For Effect/Compel argument, that does indeed look like a compel. I wouldn't allow tagging for that as it's too strong. Now the GM himself could claim that the NPC passed out from his wounds and quietly write down that this NPC has a Fate point to use in the future should he survive.

As for Mental attacks, it is indeed skirting dangerously into 4th law territory due to one simple fact: mental consequences are almost always psychological scars that last a while and generally compel someone into either following specific actions or denying them others. For example, you could blast him with a mind-crushing wave of fear. If they survive, they could get stuck with moderate or severe consequence of The Bogeyman Is Real And He Is After Me, and hence be naturally paranoid and constantly looking over his shoulders. You could try to narrate it with your GM that you are casting a sleep spell who's effects only last the scene and should not inflict any consequences, but even there it's a hard sell.

Although in the latter case, you could cast it as a maneuver, defended by Endurance, that afflicts someone with the Sleepy aspect as a *physical* effect rather than a mental one.
« Last Edit: August 19, 2010, 06:45:15 PM by infusco »

Offline JesterOC

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 109
    • View Profile
Re: Sample Combat
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2010, 07:01:21 PM »
Just when I thought I had the whole invoke for effect vs Compel down pat....

Can someone please explain how Entanglement works on page 293.

All it does is place a Bound In Place aspect on the target, and adds one point to make it last the entire scene.

So if this was cast on V what happens on V's turn? Can he move? Does the aspect by itself lock down the target. Does the GM compel it? if so can the target buy himself out of it? Does the caster need to burn an invoke for effect to make it work?