Custom Powers Master List (Work In Progress)

[Locnil]

Incite Effect seems pretty versatile. Out of curiosity, do you see it replacing Channeling and Evocation?

[Sanctaphrax]

It is very versatile, but it's not intended to replace anything other than the Powers I listed before.

Someone could make a "wizard" whose "evocations" were represented with Incite Mass Physical Effect At Long Range (Spells, using Discipline), and I'd be fine with that.

But I'd also be fine with them just taking Evocation.

Any opinion on the range issue? Would it break anything if I were to make a -1 upgrade give LoS range?

[Silverblaze]

I don't think that Flurry should be an effect that is available in this game.
If it's representing multiple attacks per target, it would be reasonably replaced with a simple bonus on the roll, already available in this power.
If it's representing attacks against multiple targets in a short time-span, it would be reasonably by spray attacks or by the zone-attack already included in this power.

Multiple-action powers are, in my experience, simply too difficult to balance effectively to be worth the gain.


Prophecy is listing 'knowledge rolls' as a separate entity from assessments and declarations, which isn't really accurate.

Multiple actions are OP.  I agree.

[Sanctaphrax]

What if you could get one extra action per round whenever you spent your action on Full Defence?

That's multiple actions, but it's not any more impressive than +2 to defence rolls.

What if you could attack three times in a round by spending 10 FP and taking an extreme consequence and suffering a -30 penalty to each attack?

That's actually worthless.

See, multiple actions are not inherently overpowered. They're just very powerful and hard to balance.

The only test I've seen of multiple actions in DFRPG came back saying they were pathetically weak...ideally, they'd not be that. But they'd not be terribly powerful either.

[UmbraLux]

Silverblaze, Tedronai, and others are right...but I'll add a caveat if it helps.  Multiple effective actions in one turn is overpowered. 

You could presumably limit them so much they aren't very effective but then why bother?

[Sanctaphrax]

Given that there exists a point where they are not overpowered, and given that their power if expressed as a function would be continuous, you can show mathematically that there exists a point where their power is reasonable.

It's a lot of work to find that point, of course.

[UmbraLux]

Not really sure FATE supports that conclusion.  Suppose you do find that place where they're reasonable...and now I spend tags and fate points to increase both.  Are they still reasonable once each has been turned into something effective?

Out of curiosity, why are you determined to create a dual action mechanic?  What do you see it adding to the game?

[Silverblaze]

I brought up that fate points per action/roll in anotehr multiple attack thread.  I was soundly ignored and/or disagreed with.

My opinion has never truly changed on the matter.  I agree with Umbra Lux.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not really sure FATE supports that conclusion.  Suppose you do find that place where they're reasonable...and now I spend tags and fate points to increase both.  Are they still reasonable once each has been turned into something effective?

Why would Fate Points change anything? They provide the same benefit, whether or not you have a multiple attack Power.

(I'm not sure whether it was in the thread Silverblaze is talking about, but I addressed that concern at least once. Check out the second link in this post.)

Out of curiosity, why are you determined to create a dual action mechanic?

Because I feel like it. Same reason I do most of what I do here.

I don't really care about what they add to the game, but that doesn't mean I don't think they would add to the game.

As I see it, they have three main uses.

The first is to help with big single opponents for a group. For reasons I'm pretty sure you know, it's hard to design a singular foe in this system. Multiple weak actions let an opponent that would normally squish one PC/action act in a more interesting way.

The second is tautological; to provide multiple actions. Some people like them, and the current methods of taking multiple actions (spray attacks, supplemental actions, Declarations, and narration) are unsatisfactory to them.

The third is to provide greater variety in combat. The key to a combat system that can hold people's attention in and of itself is variety. More mechanical options is a good thing.

Relevant links:

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25794.msg1111063.html#msg1111063
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25934.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24488.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33211.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24797.0.html

(Rapid Strike was an early version of Flurry that cost a FP instead of 4 stress. I removed a restriction or two and a bunch of clarification text when I made Flurry...I'm thinking of putting it some of that back in.)

[UmbraLux]

Why would Fate Points change anything?

Because two successes is usually considered better than one.  Isn't that the point behind two effective actions?

[Silverblaze]

Simple math.

Lets say I have a skill of 4, a stunt that grants plus one, and the weapon value would be 2.

Assume neutral rolls for attack and defense, assume defender has the same skill.

each "attack", though this could apply to almost anything that is opposed, would deal three shifts of effect.  6 shifts of success.  Twice as much as 3 shifts of success.

Now, lets assume I can use three aspects for effect on this "attack" that's +6 (+2 per aspect/fate point used in this fashion).  I cannot use each aspect more than once threfore I can only get three tags/invokes for this roll.

Wait!  I get two attacks so I can spend six fate points this exchange.  That means double the shifts of success in one exchange.

+6 becomes +12 overall.

[Silverblaze]

I already went through this before though.

Some people either :

A) Don't get it
B) Don't care
C) See the math but still manage to disagree

I'm in the minority it seems who dislike multiple actions per exchange.

[Silverblaze]

Grapples:

Normally a grappled foe only gets one chance (one exchange) to remove the aspect "grappled" before that foe is good and screwed.  Grapples are very powerful.

With multiple actions grapple become far weaker, since multiple actions per exchange can grant multiple chances to remove the grappled aspect.

Grapples would then need a upgrade, upgrade stunts, or a rewrite.  just to make multiple actions work.  The system was designed not to have them...yet here some people are trying to force them in.

[Sanctaphrax]

Because two successes is usually considered better than one.  Isn't that the point behind two effective actions?

You're still just getting two shifts/FP. Those shifts don't become better because they're attached to multiple actions.

Simple math.

Lets say I have a skill of 4, a stunt that grants plus one, and the weapon value would be 2.

Assume neutral rolls for attack and defense, assume defender has the same skill.

each "attack", though this could apply to almost anything that is opposed, would deal three shifts of effect.  6 shifts of success.  Twice as much as 3 shifts of success.

Now, lets assume I can use three aspects for effect on this "attack" that's +6 (+2 per aspect/fate point used in this fashion).  I cannot use each aspect more than once threfore I can only get three tags/invokes for this roll.

Wait!  I get two attacks so I can spend six fate points this exchange.  That means double the shifts of success in one exchange.

+6 becomes +12 overall.

So, wait.

The problem is that multiple actions raise the cap on spending per exchange? That's it?

You can get the exact same effect by taking different Aspects on your character! And Aspects are free!

Also, using Flurry as written you get zero shifts of success for two attacks in your example. Because both attacks miss.

Grapples:

Normally a grappled foe only gets one chance (one exchange) to remove the aspect "grappled" before that foe is good and screwed.  Grapples are very powerful.

With multiple actions grapple become far weaker, since multiple actions per exchange can grant multiple chances to remove the grappled aspect.

Grapples would then need a upgrade, upgrade stunts, or a rewrite.  just to make multiple actions work.  The system was designed not to have them...yet here some people are trying to force them in.

You know what else increases the chance to beat a grapple? +1 to a skill. And that's totally legal. As long as multiple actions don't give a disproportionate-to-cost increase in grapple-beating capability, they're no better.

Let's compare probabilities.

If I'm facing a Good Grapple with my Good skill, I have a 61.7% chance to escape. With a +1 bonus, I have an 81.5% chance.

If I instead use a two action flurry, I have two 18.5% chances. Worse than +1, which costs one fourth the stress. In fact, it's worse than doing nothing.

I think the math is on my side here.

If you're still not convinced, I propose a test fight. Two dudes with armour 2, weapon 3 + 2 stunt, mental/physical stress track 4, 4 FP, and Weapons 4. One guy gets True Aim. The other gets the ability to use Flurry for free whenever he feels like it, or maybe just Supernatural Martial Arts.

I expect True Aim guy to win.

[UmbraLux]

You're still just getting two shifts/FP. Those shifts don't become better because they're attached to multiple actions.

Actually, they do.  Since they're different rolls I can use the same aspect twice but, more importantly, I can affect two or more discrete targets.

I see little point in continuing to argue though.  Time for me to move on to other subjects.