Author Topic: Question about Inhuman Strength  (Read 21219 times)

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #60 on: September 24, 2011, 09:30:00 PM »
I don't see that allowing might to modify weapons is a house rule but an interpretation of the raw which has many reasonable arguments for it (the strongest being weapon speed boost). I don't see someone with inhuman toughness getting a +1 to accuracy as being game breaking either not compared to crafting, incite emotion and psychomancy at the speed of evocation and spirit channeler who uses veils and illusions well.
« Last Edit: September 24, 2011, 09:31:39 PM by ways and means »
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12404
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #61 on: September 25, 2011, 02:07:09 AM »
@computerking:

I'm honoured.

@UmbraLux:

My comment wasn't actually addressed to you, but since you're here...

Your summary is mostly fair. I take issue only with a few points and the final conclusion:

1. I refuse to consider reactive blocks as part of wizard balance. To me, using reactive blocks and then saying that Evocation is more powerful than other powers is like raising the bonus from True Aim to +2 and then saying that True Aim is unusually powerful.

2. Evocation has a lot of random weaknesses that you aren't mentioning. The consequences for fluffing a roll are much worse, and casting spells makes you more vulnerable to mental attacks. There's more, but it's not terribly important that I cover everything right now.

3. The peripheral benefits of Strength and Speed are considerable. You seem to be ignoring them.

What these points add up to is this: it's not that simple. Evocation and physical powers are not precisely equivalent, but they are similar enough in power that they can compete more or less evenly. Changeling vs Wizard is a fairly fair fight.

Oh, and one other thing: this is not a cooperative game. It's normally played that way, but it could support PvP or solo play rather well. Nothing about the game is inherently cooperative except the genre.

D&D 4E is an inherently cooperative game, I hear. I can't speak from experience, but apparently playing solo doesn't really work in it.

@ways and means:

I could care less about what's a houserule and what's an interpretation of canon. The difference between the two is nothing more than terminology.

But you (if I recall correctly) allow mental attacks with evocation, zone-wide attacks that don't hit the user,  omni-applicable magical grapples that stop defense rolls, veil-based auto-ambushes, and many other things that make wizards more powerful.

As long as you do this, wizards are going to be more powerful than other characters. What you seem to be doing here is trying to raise other characters to their increased level.

To me, this seems backwards. Don't compensate for your self-inflicted excessively powerful wizard problem, just fix it.

Offline UmbraLux

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1685
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2011, 03:07:36 AM »
1. I refuse to consider reactive blocks as part of wizard balance.
If you'll reread my statement, I was stating both needed a defensive skill if reactive blocks were not allowed.  In other words, targeting skills are equivalent unless you use reactive blocks.

Quote
2. Evocation has a lot of random weaknesses that you aren't mentioning. The consequences for fluffing a roll are much worse, and casting spells makes you more vulnerable to mental attacks. There's more, but it's not terribly important that I cover everything right now.
Consequences for screwing up a roll are optional - backlash keeps the spell going and fallout doesn't hurt you.  As for taking mental stress, you're correct.  However...

Quote
3. The peripheral benefits of Strength and Speed are considerable. You seem to be ignoring them.
...you trade taking mental stress for the ability to make attacks, blocks, and maneuvers in all types of conflict - mental, physical, and social.  Not to mention doing things which may be physically impossible...even for someone with extreme strength.  With strength you can do anything related to application of force.  With magic you can do anything you can imagine.  Even duplicate everything someone with strength or speed can do...though for much shorter periods of time. 

Quote
What these points add up to is this: it's not that simple. Evocation and physical powers are not precisely equivalent, but they are similar enough in power that they can compete more or less evenly. Changeling vs Wizard is a fairly fair fight.

Oh, and one other thing: this is not a cooperative game. It's normally played that way, but it could support PvP or solo play rather well. Nothing about the game is inherently cooperative except the genre.
Perhaps...doesn't change my statement since I specifically used "I" and "we're" to refer to my preferences and the way my group plays.

Shrug.  Like I said earlier, I haven't seen any issues in the game.  I'm guessing you haven't either. 
--
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”  - Albert Einstein

"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."  - Eric Hoffer

Offline The Mighty Buzzard

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1041
  • Unemployed in Greenland
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2011, 03:13:20 AM »
I say you arm wrestle for it.  And no, I'm not going to buy that either of you have Superb Might.  Anything above Fair will require a notarized affidavit from your personal trainer.
Violence is like duct tape.  If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.

My web based NPC formatter, output suitable for copy/paste to boards and wiki, can be found here.

Offline UmbraLux

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1685
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2011, 03:25:27 AM »
I say you arm wrestle for it.
As duels go, that seems relatively benign.  But unless you have an internet arm wrestling app, we may have to settle for logic.   ;)
--
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”  - Albert Einstein

"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."  - Eric Hoffer

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2011, 03:34:20 AM »
But you (if I recall correctly) allow mental attacks with evocation, zone-wide attacks that don't hit the user,  omni-applicable magical grapples that stop defense rolls, veil-based auto-ambushes, and many other things that make wizards more powerful.

Grapples can only be used on one opponent (a block can be used on all) and I don't allow grapples to block defense roll if I did that it would mean that anytime someone tried to defend they would have to beat the grapple strength or automatically lose the defense getting automatically hit, what I do is allows blocks that would stop effective use of a skill to stop effective use of a skill (using mundane examples when a person is handcuffed hands behind his back he shouldn't be able to use his parry skill as a defense, the same with dodging when your legs are caught in snare). The person will no matter what still get their defense roll (the defense roll is not being blocked) which they can make with an skill that makes sense, even in a well described totally binding magical grapple the target will all ways be able to roll endurance to defend as well as any other skill that makes sense. 

I let veils be used for the hiding skill of ambushes because that seems logical to me and is in line with the raw (your invisible how could you possibly hide better) In the raw it states that veils are in all practical senses magically enhanced stealth rolls and ambushes are a subset of the stealth rules. So I let player use veils to hide in the first round and use the same roll (ambush rules) to ambush an enemy in the next according to the ambush rules from the raw.

With Mental Evocations I feel I am following the novels where there are several examples of mental attacks and manoeuvres in the novels from people without psychomancy.
(click to show/hide)


Though I have come to agree with you about zone wide attacks being broken without self-harm (and no longer include that house rule) though there is nothing stopping a wizard to declare with an alertness roll enemies are in a different zone (zones being ambiguous and all). 

Now that I have that out the way the reason why I support strength modifying weapons is because it makes sense this is not me compensating for superior wizard damage, it just makes sense for high might to aid melee skill, faster blows are both harder to block and to dodge (to defend against as a whole) and given the fact that combat rolls are contested a penalty to defense is the same as a bonus to attack. Now you might argue that skills include the other stats and too a certain degree I agree with you with just skills interaction but not when it comes to powers which are not necessarily all ways on or available. Basically I think a power that grants a   bonus when might modifies a skill should be usable when ever might modifies a skill (it should do what it says it does and what you have paid refresh for) and for me might modifies the weapons skill very often indeed. In the novels stronger enemies attacks are more likely to bypass blocks
(click to show/hide)

in DFRP whether a block is bypassed is decided by the attack roll against its target, which would mean if you didn't let might modify melee attack then your greater strength would have no impact on whether you could bypass even the weakest of block, someone with mythic strength but only a good fist skill could wail on a great block to no avail what so ever.   
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 04:01:51 AM by ways and means »
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2011, 09:58:16 AM »
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29137.0.html


This is the proposed character efficiency test. Yes, the encounters in the test are really, really hard. That's what Harry Dresden faced in the books in his Submerged to Submerged+3 refresh levels. Only for him they were probably even worse.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12404
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #67 on: September 25, 2011, 08:53:27 PM »
There are a lot of points flying around here, and I honestly don't have the energy to address them all right now.

So, just a few things:

@Belial: Are you planning to GM that set of encounters yourself?

@UmbraLux:

-Sorry about jumping down your throat re: reflexive blocks. I just find mention of them kind of annoying in discussions like this.
-Do you actually allow mental and social evocation attacks? If so, what I said to ways and means about houserules goes for you too.
-Fallout is totally bad for you.
-Magic does not provide the random physical benefits of Speed and Strength. No improved initiative, no superior movement, no superior Might modification.
-And yes, I have had no real problems. Which is my point.

@ways and means:

Not really interested in discussing the justifications for individual houserules/interpretations. My point is that by using them you alter the balance of the game. Do you agree with that?

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12404
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #68 on: September 25, 2011, 08:57:46 PM »
Arm wrestling is probably best handled as a series of opposed Might rolls. Get a total threshold of 3 over your opponent and you win.

I think my Might is Average. I'm a young man and in fairly good shape, but I routinely get out-muscled by people who are actually strong.

First roll is -1, for a result of 0.

http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3197692/

Offline UmbraLux

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1685
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #69 on: September 25, 2011, 09:24:31 PM »
-Do you actually allow mental and social evocation attacks? If so, what I said to ways and means about houserules goes for you too.
Hasn't come up yet, maneuvers are far more common.  That said, mental and social attacks are a possibility...and I don't see what that has to do with house rules.  Have I missed something in YS which limits evocation to the physical track?

Quote
-Fallout is totally bad for you.
Yes?

Quote
-Magic does not provide the random physical benefits of Speed and Strength. No improved initiative, no superior movement, no superior Might modification.
Every one of those can be duplicated (for a short period) via maneuvers.  If you're willing to spend fate on temporary powers, they can be duplicated for longer periods by maneuver + fate.
--
“As our circle of knowledge expands, so does the circumference of darkness surrounding it.”  - Albert Einstein

"Rudeness is a weak imitation of strength."  - Eric Hoffer

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #70 on: September 25, 2011, 09:59:36 PM »

@ways and means:

Not really interested in discussing the justifications for individual houserules/interpretations. My point is that by using them you alter the balance of the game. Do you agree with that?

Well as I believe my interpretation of the game is correct one and in line with the raw (apart from the zone wide thing that I ditched) I wouldn't say they alter the balance of the game because they are part of the game and therefor part of the balance of powers in the game. What I would agree is that my interpretation of the game has a different balance of powers than your interpretation.

Truth be told I have said several times why I think might should modify weapons (mainly the speed issue which you mostly agree with me on) but the three arguments against this you have used in this and other topics are pretty unconvincing.
  • Your first argument  skills already include other skills affects I agree with up until the point it comes to powers which aren't always on or available and thus can't be used as a justification all the time.
  • Your second argument that it would de-balance's the game is in my opinion wrong gaining a +3 bonus after paying 6 refresh is hardly broken the same with 2 and 4 and 1 and 2 these powers are a lot of refresh and should provide a lot of benefit
  • Your final argument that strength powers already give a bonus to melee is true but several powers give multiple bonuses to the same style of combat, speed for example gives a bonus to defense, initiative, movement and to all athletics manoeuvres all of which are invaluable for melee fighters.


I don't think a stress test would prove anything, your melee build probably isn't the strongest such build and the Evocator build wasn't the strongest either and I personally think a well built incite emotion build would beat both of them.
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 10:31:09 PM by ways and means »
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #71 on: September 25, 2011, 10:01:02 PM »
@Sanctaphrax:
If I want to test my own character, somebody else would need to GM. I can run the encounters for others, if they want me to.


My Might is +2. I can lift my mother (130 lbs) and my sister (186 lbs) so I can lift adult people. I'm probably the strongest guy in my family. (though that isn't saying much).

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12404
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #72 on: September 25, 2011, 11:03:06 PM »
In retrospect, "alter" was slightly slanted language. Sorry about that, I do try to be objective.

Incite Emotion is another thing that is more powerful under your rules interpretations than mine, so it's probably not the best example.

I don't recall making argument #3, but it isn't a bad one.

I view the effects of sometimes-on powers on skills as something that should be handled with aspects. But I'm willing to accept that this isn't a question with a right answer.

The meat of this discussion is in argument #2.

I don't think that this interpretation would break the game, but I do think it would have bad effects on balance. Here are three of the most important ones:

1. A guy with Superb Might and Great Fists becomes better at Fists than a guy with Superb Fists and Great Might. This bugs me.

2. Strength becomes even better than it is. It's already very good, even if Evocation might possibly be better.

3. Accuracy and damage stunts become pointless for anyone who isn't mortal. By the rules that I currently use, they are a decent choice. Under this interpretation, they are not. If you don't think that this is bad, I can explain why it is (in my opinion).

PS: Would you also have Might modify defense rolls? How about defense rolls against ranged attacks for characters with Footwork?

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #73 on: September 25, 2011, 11:37:52 PM »
In retrospect, "alter" was slightly slanted language. Sorry about that, I do try to be objective.

The meat of this discussion is in argument #2.

3. Accuracy and damage stunts become pointless for anyone who isn't mortal. By the rules that I currently use, they are a decent choice. Under this interpretation, they are not. If you don't think that this is bad, I can explain why it is (in my opinion).

PS: Would you also have Might modify defense rolls? How about defense rolls against ranged attacks for characters with Footwork?

Obviously might would only modify weapons when it would modify weapons, so it would modify weapons defense against another strong opponent (it is easier to parry a strong person when you are as strong yourself) but wouldn't help in other situation. Strength powers would never benefit footwork as that has nothing to do with strength.

I would like to know why you think supernatural should use stunts for damage and accuracy rather than powers, powers should be generally better than stunts in my opinion as pure mortals should be weaker in melee combat than supernaturals (very much novel canon). I see stunts mainly as being mainly for pure mortals who cannot access powers, or for supernaturals wanting to increase the versatility of certain skills (the trapping swapping stunts).

   
« Last Edit: September 25, 2011, 11:39:56 PM by ways and means »
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.

Offline The Mighty Buzzard

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1041
  • Unemployed in Greenland
    • View Profile
Re: Question about Inhuman Strength
« Reply #74 on: September 26, 2011, 08:10:04 PM »
Arm wrestling is probably best handled as a series of opposed Might rolls. Get a total threshold of 3 over your opponent and you win.

I think my Might is Average. I'm a young man and in fairly good shape, but I routinely get out-muscled by people who are actually strong.

First roll is -1, for a result of 0.

http://invisiblecastle.com/roller/view/3197692/

Opposed rolls, to the victor go the shifts.  First to six shifts wins.
Violence is like duct tape.  If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.

My web based NPC formatter, output suitable for copy/paste to boards and wiki, can be found here.