Questions about how some things work

[sinker]

That does remind me of another question: Is there any limit on when a player can compel/invoke an aspect?  During the fight, the players just started pumping out fate points around the table to trigger aspects for other players, or against the sin eater.  I was like "huh... can you do that?" especially the player whose character wasn't even present on the scene.

We've got a thread going on elsewhere about this. To invoke an aspect there are a few requirements. A character must have access and interaction. Access is the knowledge of the aspect. Does the character know that he's got "Bruised Ribs"? Interaction is the tough one and you can check the other thread for all the interpretations but strictly I believe it's this: A character must describe what HIS character is doing to take advantage of the situation. In the most simple example a character could invoke the "Bruised Ribs" as part of an attack, stating that they are hitting him in the ribs so it huts more. But you could get creative (if the GM allows) and say that maybe he's favoring that side and you're staying on his bad side to make it harder for him to hit you (invoking to dodge). I can't think of any other examples, but I'm thinking likely the character who wasn't in the scene probably didn't have either access or interaction...

I believe it's 4 (Great) for his gun skill.  His weapons of choice are MP7s, and a 50 cal sniper rifle when he can.  I gave the dual wielded MP7s weapon 3.  I'm actually currently discussing some options in regards to that dual wielding.  I decided to penalize his accuracy when dual wielding (or using any gun 1 handed, for that matter.  Any improper firing technique reduces to hit), but in exchange I had to discuss 'could he fire and benefit from both guns'?  Right now, I said I might go with making him roll 2 attack actions at -2 -2 or possibly higher.  Is there any rules for that sort of thing?

Since targeting roll=damage in Fate a lot of this kind of thing is moot. You're sacrificing damage to gain damage, and because you're actually less likely to hit this way it's actually worse. I'd agree with the admiral on most of what he said.

EDIT: Though I would mention that SotC is supposed to be more cinematic, whereas Dresden is supposed to be more gritty and realistic which is likely why the stunt is in SotC and not in Dresden.

[luminos]

Dual wielding guns in Fate doesn't produce any actual effect different from using a single gun, unless you've got a stunt for it.  Also, multiple actions per round for a character aren't a very good way to go, because the action economy is one of those things that is always the same across the board, so changing it for one exception could produce unexpected and massively unbalanced results.

[Kommisar]

Simply depends on how a group would like to flavor their Dresden game.  Some groups like things more cinematic.  Some like a bit more grit.  For the cinematic flavor, the 2 Gun Joe stunt works well.  You are now a run & gun John Woo movie pumping rounds into the bad guys with style and, being more cinematic, having 2 guns means you are shooting those bad guys more.  And more is always better.

Like more grit, then I still like my stunt (name it whatever you want) that gives you +2 on any non-attack action when using 2 automatic firearms.  Depending on how your group would evaluate how "narrowly defined" it's application is, this could go up to +3.  After all, you have to have 2 automatic weapons.  Make it +4 if you tack on that your weapons automatically take on the sticky aspect "Dry" or "Out of Ammo" after using the stunt.  Then again, my personal opinion is that to many people discount the utility of firearms outside of straight up attacks.  Unless you have supernatural means, they are a easy means to carry off blocks and maneuvers against targets outside of your current zone.  If you have some tactical minded individuals that use that, it can get real ugly real quick for the bad guys.  Even in my all Wizard game I am running (5 submerged level White Council Wizards) my players have seen the utility of just this in taking on some rather nasty opponents.  If you are a Guns guy, think about it.  Superb Guns skill (+5), you take the +4 for the stunt by dumping your clip you have a 9 shift block against a target outside your zone.  And that is without adding your roll or any Fate Point expenditures.  Move 2 shifts (spend a Fate Point) and now you effect the entire zone with that block.   Really good method of crowd control... assuming the target doesn't get to wade through bullets.

One of my players did this with an AK-47 without the stunt while taking on some Red Courts.  Built up some maneuvers for a +6 (Aimed, Elevated Position and Flanked), rolled his 3 Guns Skill and got a +3 and dropped a Fate Point to make a 12 Shift block against 3 Red Court Vamps in a Warehouse zone.  This allowed his 4 other wizard buddies to focus on the other 2 Reds and pick them apart.  Could he have used magic to do the same?  Yea, but that didn't cost him one of his mental stresses.  He used that the next exchange to drop some Earth Magic on them.

[sinker]

Simply depends on how a group would like to flavor their Dresden game.  Some groups like things more cinematic.  Some like a bit more grit.  For the cinematic flavor, the 2 Gun Joe stunt works well.  You are now a run & gun John Woo movie pumping rounds into the bad guys with style and, being more cinematic, having 2 guns means you are shooting those bad guys more.  And more is always better.

Not trying to say that cinematic is bad, just explaining the likely reason why it wasn't in the DFRPG rule books.

Move 2 shifts (spend a Fate Point) and now you effect the entire zone with that block.   Really good method of crowd control... assuming the target doesn't get to wade through bullets.

You technically can't do this. When one is creating a block with evocation one of the things one can do is spend 2 shifts to extend that block to all allies within a zone. That's the RAW. Were I to house rule extending an offensive block to all enemies in one zone I would likely call for more shifts (since preventing multiple unwilling targets from doing something is going to be much harder than protecting multiple willing targets from all incoming attacks). On top of this these rules only apply to evocation blocks. All other blocks follow the rules of 'You can prevent one enemy from doing everything or all enemies from doing one specific thing.' The "shifts" of a non-magical block only make the block harder to bypass.

[UmbraLux]

You technically can't do this.

Is it disallowed somewhere or simply not explicitly allowed?  The description under Resolving Blocks on YS210 shows a movement block against multiple opponents by 'peppering the door with gunfire'.  Not sure why you couldn't do the same on any zone border...

That said, I'm not sure I'd allow it to be fully effective against Red Court Vampires.  They're not exactly worried about dying from a bullet wound.  At least not un-aimed fire...

[sinker]

Is it disallowed somewhere or simply not explicitly allowed?  The description under Resolving Blocks on YS210 shows a movement block against multiple opponents by 'peppering the door with gunfire'.  Not sure why you couldn't do the same on any zone border...

It is not explicitly allowed but your example applies under the regular block rules. It's preventing everyone from doing one thing.

[Kommisar]

I gotcha on why it wasn't in the DFRPG.     Just trying to help out some of the guys here that like their cinematic game as well.

As for the block, that is what my player did.  He prevented everyone in that zone from moving.  What they did do was locate the shooter up on the walkway.

The way it was laid out by the player was that the sudden barrage of fire from their flank came as a surprise and, therefore, caused them to hesitate in following through on their ambush.  It was an ambush on the RC Vamps ambush.  I agreed and allowed it with the reasoning that it was the surprise of the suppressive fire that locked them in place, not just bullets alone.  Even vampires can be hit by confusion.  The next exchange, now that the surprise element is gone, he went for some serious Earth Magic to lock them down.

[Jancarius]

On the subject of magic, it seemed like taking additional 'specializations' was a eminently superior option to focus items.  Other than the requirement of 'pyramiding', it's better in every way (except I suppose, if you want the enchanted item slots, but even then, power crafting specialization is generally going to be your best bet to get more bang).  Plus, you can't misplace your specialization, it's just a passive bonus.  For fun, I put together a 12 refresh 40 skill wizard last night, and he can toss out a 9 power rote spell, and I'm pretty sure I didn't do that great a job at optimizing him. 

Err, I was gonna talk back in regards to some of the other stuff, but I got distracted and apparently just left this window open and now I have to go to work.

[Jancarius]

Okay, so now that I'm back home:  Passive hexing: How does it work?  After significant milestone, the party now consists of 2 Thaumaturgy-only sorcerers (the shaman and the paintomancer), an evocation-only sorceress (the changeling), a minor talent (werewolf), and a Denarian coin holder.  I've been using the active hex chart as something of a guide, but how much should their power foul up regular electronics?  Except for the paintomancer, all of them are university students, and would probably regularly be expected to access online materials for coursework and assignments.  While if they stuck to using public university computers, their system damage might go undetected, it would definitely make the shaman (who is a phd student) find keeping his thesis safe and intact more difficult.  So far, I had an idea of using some kind of average based on their Conviction score as their 'passive hex' score, and that would be typically about the active hex level -4.  When casting spells around tech, this would be spell power -2. 

Also hexing question:  The active hex seems to indicate that if you can conjure up 9 shifts for a hex, you can pretty much disable anything from the last 200 years, including it seems, firearms.  How should I explain some of these mechanical failures?  As mentioned earlier,we have a Kincaid-expy who uses automatics and a 50cal sniper rifle.  It seems like around all these magic users, he should have a lot more difficulties with his weapons.

[toturi]

Okay, so now that I'm back home:  Passive hexing: How does it work?  After significant milestone, the party now consists of 2 Thaumaturgy-only sorcerers (the shaman and the paintomancer), an evocation-only sorceress (the changeling), a minor talent (werewolf), and a Denarian coin holder.  I've been using the active hex chart as something of a guide, but how much should their power foul up regular electronics?  Except for the paintomancer, all of them are university students, and would probably regularly be expected to access online materials for coursework and assignments.  While if they stuck to using public university computers, their system damage might go undetected, it would definitely make the shaman (who is a phd student) find keeping his thesis safe and intact more difficult.  So far, I had an idea of using some kind of average based on their Conviction score as their 'passive hex' score, and that would be typically about the active hex level -4.  When casting spells around tech, this would be spell power -2. 

This is something I have been asking myself. I think I have a workaround, but it may not suit your game: the ease of use of technology by the wizards (or anyone likely to be compelled to accidentally hex) is an Aspect of their character, they are compeled not to hex. Thus when they are compeled to hex due to their magic, the Aspect gives them a FP not to, therefore cancelling out the FP paid to buy off the compel to hex. Given that your magic users have been living with technology and presumably able make use of it without much trouble, I do not think that this would be unjustified in story. Alternatively you could have it as a compel on the fact that they are students, and the ease of use of technology only extends insofar as their studies.

[Jancarius]

Not really sure I understand your post.  It seems like you're saying that I should use a compel to force them not to hex that they have a counter compel for and the effect is canceled out? 

Also, I don't intend for them to have an easy time using technology (at least, not the 3 sorcerer-level talents).  I want their computers to crash, their cell phones to never get any signal, or stop working entirely, all the usual stuff.  I also want their regular presence and magic use around any technology to have a constant break down effect, and the maintenance and repair of this stuff needs to be a noticeable time/cost, at least mentioned in passing ("Today, I took out every gun in my safe, dissambled them, oiled all the parts, cleaned everything and inspected them for mechanical flaws... Gonna have to do this again in a few days"  "No, Melody,stay over on the far side of the room... if you get near my computer before my thesis finishes printing, I will curse the hell out of you" Something along these lines).

[devonapple]

Players should get a Fate Point when they avoid something or just say something broke because of Hexing (self-Compel on their Spellcaster High Concept).
You should offer a Fate Point when you want to Complicate something because of Hexing (GM-Compel on their Spellcaster High Concept).
They can Hex things for no Mental Stress, at range, almost like an Evocation, using the Hexing rules (which I won't repeat here).

[mostlyawake]

Random DU aside: It's also been used to make doors to large bank vaults.  And I mean, LARGE (not your typical stand-alone bank, but the "downtown vault").   Which is a weird, semi-magical thing in itself... who the crap needs that?

Back to the discussion:

Players should get a Fate Point when they avoid something or just say something broke because of Hexing (self-Compel on their Spellcaster High Concept).
You should offer a Fate Point when you want to Complicate something because of Hexing (GM-Compel on their Spellcaster High Concept).
They can Hex things for no Mental Stress, at range, almost like an Evocation, using the Hexing rules (which I won't repeat here).

I charge stress like a proper evocation if they are trying to force a larger hex.  Taking out someone's cell phone, or even a single car, seems to be just the result of being a wizard.  But I've thrown 14 shift spells out (8 in hex, 6 for 3 zones) to hex the entire playing field before.  Pretty much shuts down everything. 

[Tedronai]

It's only the first point of stress that they get a free pass on.  Additional stress for calling up shifts of power in excess of their Conviction is treated normally.

[toturi]

Not really sure I understand your post.  It seems like you're saying that I should use a compel to force them not to hex that they have a counter compel for and the effect is canceled out? 

Also, I don't intend for them to have an easy time using technology (at least, not the 3 sorcerer-level talents).

You understand my post correctly.
If you want them to have a tough time using tech, then you can disallow it. But I would say that if a player came to me with this idea (having a tech friendly Aspect to counter accidental hexing), I would understand it as "I do not want to have the general technological intolerance of magic users come into play for my character."