Limits of Defence Stunts ?

[bitterpill]

In the book when it talks about the limitations of stunts it says you can get a plus one to attack accuracy does this apply to defense?

[arete]

I do not have the book on me, but based on all the stuff I have read defensive stunts would be a +1 or an effect.  It does not seem op given that inhuman speed is roughly 4 stunts for 2 refresh and gives +1 defense.

[BumblingBear]

I do not have the book on me, but based on all the stuff I have read defensive stunts would be a +1 or an effect.  It does not seem op given that inhuman speed is roughly 4 stunts for 2 refresh and gives +1 defense.

Indeed, my method of building mortal stunts is to give +1 as a blanket effect or +2 for something specific.  Either that or +2 for something a bit broader, but with a -1 to something tacked on there too.

Ymmv

[bitterpill]

Thank you kindly, so a +1 bonus to defence whilst weilding a sword is ok but a +2 would be excessive unless you add something like a -1 to hit. 

[BumblingBear]

Thank you kindly, so a +1 bonus to defence whilst weilding a sword is ok but a +2 would be excessive unless you add something like a -1 to hit. 

Probably, yes.  The way I would run it is that you get +2 to defense if you defend melee with a sword, but your next attack is at -1 to attack.  That would not be overpowered.  In some ways it would be like a cross between sprinting and zone changing rules.

[Sanctaphrax]

I disagree. The rules for stunt creation say that attack bonuses are limited to +1, but they don't say anything about defence bonuses.

Also, one of the example Athletics stunts gives +2 to defence under certain circumstances.

[BumblingBear]

I disagree. The rules for stunt creation say that attack bonuses are limited to +1, but they don't say anything about defence bonuses.

Also, one of the example Athletics stunts gives +2 to defence under certain circumstances.

Sprinting.

While sprinting you get +2 to defense rolls if you have inhuman speed.

Total defense.

If your character declares total defense and takes a defensive action during his/her action, they get +2 to defense the rest of the round.

Moving one zone as a supplemental action.

Means the character's actual action will be at -1.


Using those trappings as a template or statute, one could figure that +2 to defense using a sword (probably a specific weapon would have to be named) on a defense roll at the cost of -1 to any action on the player's action would be appropriate.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't follow your logic. Sprinting is not a supplemental action, it's a full action. I base my opinion on:

A) The lack of a specific reference to defensive stunts anywhere in either book.
and B) The "Too Fast To Hit" stunt on page 149 of YS.

[BumblingBear]

I don't follow your logic. Sprinting is not a supplemental action, it's a full action. I base my opinion on:

A) The lack of a specific reference to defensive stunts anywhere in either book.
and B) The "Too Fast To Hit" stunt on page 149 of YS.

::shrug:: It's not RAW, so whether the stunt would be allowed or not would be at the GM's discretion.

If I were GMing I think I would also take into account whether the character is supernatural or not.  Supernatural stunts/powers should be a bit more powerful in my opinion to reflect the extra 2 refresh a pure mortal character gets.

Either way, I think even the most hardcore GM would agree that a -2 to the character's next action would make the stunt allowable.

[Sanctaphrax]

It is RAW, actually. A stunt can add +2 to a non-attack trapping. They even give an example of how that works with defence.

If you mean that the GM can disallow such a stunt because it isn't in the core book, remember that a GM can disallow stunts that are in the core book too.

[bitterpill]

Ok so the rules tend to side with the idea of a plus 2 to defence in certain circumstances?

[devonapple]

This is from an out of date pdf, my gm looks after the
books which we group bought. Which is why i
assume a flat +2 to defence was wrong.

Perhaps reconsider referencing an acknowledged out-of-date PDF on the boards? It could definitely reduce confusion.

[bitterpill]

kk my bad.

[bibliophile20]

And, bitterpill, no offense, but please, please, please, try to proofread your posts before posting them.  I've been skipping over your posts because it's been getting frustrating trying to read and then comprehend a big block of text that is misspelled and poorly punctuated.  And that's not a good habit for me to be getting into and it's not fair to you either.

[bitterpill]

Sorry about that too I am dyslexic but I have defiantly been letting that go. It was sloppy of me and I will check my posts in future so as to avoid any further offense.