Spell Damage

[eberg]

Due to control bonuses from specialization and foci, it seems like magical attacks are disproportionately powerful compared to any other venue. Bonuses "to hit" are fairly rare in the system, except with magical practitioners. This gets to a point where a very powerful wizard's attacks are nearly impossible to dodge because of the control bonus on top of their Discipline when they cast. I am running a game with serious heavy-hitters on the NPC side and, as I was building the bad guys, became concerned at their damage potential.

My initial idea was to change it so that Weapon rating for spells took two shifts instead of one, like Armor. However, this hurt the PCs more than it did the powerful NPCs and also didn't address the "to hit" problem. What I ended up doing was house-ruling that the Control bonuses only applied to the roll for the purpose of controlling the Power summoned, but not for seeing if it hit. This retains the benefit of control bonuses in allowing you to successfully channel large amounts of power without it also making you hyper-accurate (and, thus, adding even /more/ damage from additional shifts). It also brings shields back to a level of effectiveness that, I feel, better parallels the books and closes the disparity between a powerful mage and a powerful physical combatant.

For example: Bob calls forth 7 shifts of Power and gets +4 for his Discipline roll. He has a +1 specialization control bonus and a +2 focus control bonus, so his Control roll is +7, just enough. However, he only compares the +4 to his target's defense to see if it hits.

[Ryan_Singer]

Due to control bonuses from specialization and foci, it seems like magical attacks are disproportionately powerful compared to any other venue. Bonuses "to hit" are fairly rare in the system, except with magical practitioners. This gets to a point where a very powerful wizard's attacks are nearly impossible to dodge because of the control bonus on top of their Discipline when they cast. I am running a game with serious heavy-hitters on the NPC side and, as I was building the bad guys, became concerned at their damage potential.

My initial idea was to change it so that Weapon rating for spells took two shifts instead of one, like Armor. However, this hurt the PCs more than it did the powerful NPCs and also didn't address the "to hit" problem. What I ended up doing was house-ruling that the Control bonuses only applied to the roll for the purpose of controlling the Power summoned, but not for seeing if it hit. This retains the benefit of control bonuses in allowing you to successfully channel large amounts of power without it also making you hyper-accurate (and, thus, adding even /more/ damage from additional shifts). It also brings shields back to a level of effectiveness that, I feel, better parallels the books and closes the disparity between a powerful mage and a powerful physical combatant.

For example: Bob calls forth 7 shifts of Power and gets +4 for his Discipline roll. He has a +1 specialization control bonus and a +2 focus control bonus, so his Control roll is +7, just enough. However, he only compares the +4 to his target's defense to see if it hits.

One thing you might want to note is that nerfing the groups most effective attacks doesn't just hurt the mage, it takes down the combat effectiveness of the whole group.

That said, yes, Wizards are much more powerful than any other character concept in the game. Tanks focused on grappling are the only ones that come close, and they lose effectiveness when forced to fight more than one enemy at a time.

You basically have two options:

1) Many human opponents. Laws of Magic tend to tie up the wizard into playing support for the other characters in combat encounters against human opponents.

2) Nerf Wizards, as you suggest. This completely changes the dynamic, though.

[Wolfwood2]

1) Many human opponents. Laws of Magic tend to tie up the wizard into playing support for the other characters in combat encounters against human opponents.

2) Nerf Wizards, as you suggest. This completely changes the dynamic, though.

A more subtle way to nerf wizards is to carefully ration out their opponents over a scene (so they can't try to blast them all at once).  They have a powerful weapon in Evocation, but it only has 4 or 5 (if using a Mild Consequence) "shots" in it.  Once that last mental stress box has been filled in, things get very interesting indeed and it becomes a question of how much the wizard is willing to damage himself to keep zapping away.

It really does get easy to use all that mental stress, especially if you want to toss down a nice Maneuver or something with Evocation as well.

[Sanctaphrax]

Personally, I don't think a fix is needed.

Evocation is, at the higher levels of play, by far the most powerful attack method. It is balanced partly by the stress that it inflicts on the user and partly by the amount of refresh it costs.

An evoker should be compared to a character with an amount of refresh equal to the evoker's Evocation + Refinements cost purely in combat powers and stunts.

If you're worried about having a baddie wipe out the party with one or two spells, have him use spray attacks. This is both a way to make the fight easier and a way to bring the entire party into the fight.

[riplikash]

It is the same problem (or non-problem) D&D has had for years and the solution is the same. Casters are nukers, but with no stamina, and more traditional fighters can't put out the same dmage, but can go the distance.

So either let sprinkle in opponents slowly or don't give your casters a chance to rest. Make a longer encounter that doesn't allow them to rest. Make the casters carefully choose their targets.

This is a strong theme in the books too (especially in the first half of the series). It is often pointed out that in a strait fight Dresden could smear a lot of his opposition, but by the time he is actually facing them he has already casted a lot of magic and is too exhausted to do so.

[MijRai]

And don't forget mortals! Can't kill a mortal without breaking a Law. Make them be resourceful in other ways.

[JesterOC]

Since the player dictates how he takes out his target, you should not have to worry about a wizard killing a mortal on accident.

JesterOC

[MijRai]

Since the player dictates how he takes out his target, you should not have to worry about a wizard killing a mortal on accident.

JesterOC

You can dictate to a degree. But when you use a spell that is Weapon 4 or above (grenades or stronger), you don't get much of a choice. Either the grenade missed, or it blew him up.

[admiralducksauce]

You can dictate to a degree. But when you use a spell that is Weapon 4 or above (grenades or stronger), you don't get much of a choice. Either the grenade missed, or it blew him up.

There are a lot of very-much-alive people with shrapnel wounds that would argue otherwise.

[Papa Gruff]

There are a lot of very-much-alive people with shrapnel wounds that would argue otherwise.

Even take out results have to stay within the realm of reason. This has been discussed to death in other threads...

Ask yourself: How much is a lot? I bet you can't come up with a significant number of people who survived bad shrapnel wounds.

[JesterOC]

It is pretty clear to me, the victor decides how the loser is taken out (p203).

...taken out, meaning the character has decisively lost
the conflict. His fate is in the hands of the oppo-
nent, who may decide how the character loses.

The only time the text mentions that it has to be within the realm of reason is to stress that you should not die of shame. So yes it should be within reason but it is easy to describe how someone stayed alive in the face of superior firepower.

This is trivially easy for a wizard.
If a wizard uses electricity to hit their opponents with a 1 million volt blast of electricity (Weapon 8 lets say) the victims can easily be said to live because you could say it had nearly no amps.

For standard weapons it just requires a bit of imagination, the targets ducked behind a wall just in time, and it protected them from most of the blast, the swordsman missed all the major organs etc.

As a rule of thumb, you can't force murder onto a PC.

Edit: Upon further reflection I agree that if a viable fiction can not be determined, I can see murder being forced upon a PC. EI Blowing up something huge with a bunch of people in it, I can't see how you could say that no one died. But I think the rule of thumb for normal conflicts still holds.

[JesterOC]

Even take out results have to stay within the realm of reason. This has been discussed to death in other threads...

Just because it has been discussed to death does not mean they were right. Letting the winner decide the fate of the loser is an extension of the just say yes theme of the game. If the PC's want to play a game of the A-Team then let them play it.

Ask yourself: How much is a lot? I bet you can't come up with a significant number of people who survived bad shrapnel wounds.

Statistically speaking more people survive combat wounds then die from them. Just check any modern war stats.

Iraq war stats - Most of these are from bombs much bigger than grenades
US deaths ~4K
US wounded ~32K

[admiralducksauce]

http://asiancorrespondent.com/31470/75-wounded-in-bangkok-grenade-attack-as-tensions-escalate/

http://www.thesurvivorsclub.org/extreme/a-marines-journey-surviving-four-grenade-blasts-in-one-day

I will admit that perhaps I keyed off the example given (a hand grenade) and not the mechanical example (Weapon:4).  Grenades are hardly binary weapons (either no injury or complete salsa).  I actually agree with the point made above, that if a character is attacking a target of normal toughness with a frag grenade (or Weapon:4*), he is not looking to subdue said target.  To me it's about intent, and I try to discern what the player means to do with their weapon before the dice fall.

When it comes to beings of supernatural toughness, well, I suppose it's up to the group.  Maybe grenades and 50 BMG is the only way a group can wound certain critters.

*I'd personally make grenades Weapon:3, not 4.  The benefit is that they hit an entire zone.  To me, a .50 BMG round is more like Weapon:4 and assuming no concessions, I don't see any Taken Out result as reasonable other than "limb blown off" or "killed messily".

[JesterOC]

*I'd personally make grenades Weapon:3, not 4.  The benefit is that they hit an entire zone.  To me, a .50 BMG round is more like Weapon:4 and assuming no concessions, I don't see any Taken Out result as reasonable other than "limb blown off" or "killed messily".

If the character shooting the .50 says something like this. "I don't want to kill the guy, just take him out of the fight, I'll aim for his firearm". On a hit you describe how the target's gun explodes in his hands and the guys hands are shattered due to the impact, and he gets minor shrapnel woulds everywhere else.

However if the shooter says "I aim for his head" and he hits, well he already decided to kill so he can't back out of it now.

JesterOC

p.s.
Oh just like you said...

To me it's about intent, and I try to discern what the player means to do with their weapon before the dice fall.

[Papa Gruff]

Just because it has been discussed to death does not mean they were right. Letting the winner decide the fate of the loser is an extension of the just say yes theme of the game. If the PC's want to play a game of the A-Team then let them play it.

I have nothing against the rule that the victor of a conflict decides the take out. I have nothing against a player describing a takeout result that keeps a NPC alive instead of killing it, for as long as it makes sense. I can even overlook the occasional description of something unreasonable for as long as it doesn't become a regular thing.  If my players decide to use their maximal brute force time after time after time and always find excuses why they haven't killed their opposition at least to me it makes no sense.

If a player wants to leave somebody alive and it seems not reasonable, the GM should probably try to find a way to compel the player to a reasonable outcome. At least that's what I'd do. If the PC buys out then it goes the way he likes, if not then the guy is dead. In my opinion that is probably the fairest way to handle it, and it's in line with the yes/roll/compel theme.

But lets please stop derailing this thread. I'd be happy to discuss some more elsewhere.