Noob Questions

[ARedthorn]

And what system doesn't "pigeon-hole" their defensive stats?

In DnD, your defense against melee and ranged is your Armor Class, which is boosted by Dexterity. Unless you got a class ability saying otherwise, you can't use Wisdom to boost that defense, or Charisma or Strength.
In GURPS, your defense against melee is dodge and parry. Unless you have special abilities saying otherwise, you can't use your Will or Fortitude to block.
In Mutans and Masterminds, your ranged defense is dodge. You can't use Parry, Fortitude or Will to avoid such attacks.


So I don't see the problem here.

Eh... you're right, for the most part... but the fact that MnM HAS 4 defensive skills (each specialized) is a lot less pigeon-holed than GURPS, which is a lot less than DnD or Dresden (without stunting a lot)... when in fact, dresden could be a lot more flexible than ANY of them.
And that's just the examples you've thrown. WoD (new or old) lets players focus on their strengths, and use defenses that are appropriate to the combat styles as part of it's RAW... and there are plenty of more complicated systems out there. I think Dresden could easily afford to do much the same.

[Sanctaphrax]

You could just move away from the place where the earth is opening. Saying otherwise is liking saying that you shouldn't be able to dodge bullets with Athletics.

Now, I pretty much hate the idea of letting wizards attack odd skills. Here's why:

1. It puts a tax on survival. Every combat character needs a stunt like Evasion or he's boned. This is bad.

2. It means that every already-existing NPC who's supposed to be tough in a fight needs to have their sheet edited.

3. It really devalues Athletics and Speed.

4. I see no good reason why spells should be able to do this when other things can't.

5. Magic is powerful enough, darn it.

6. It's not actually in the rules anywhere, it's just extrapolated from an example spell.

7. It tilts the scales in favour of whoever's attacking.

8. Some sort of instinctive aversion I find hard to explain.

[ways and means]

Other abilities bypass athletics defense incite emotion for 1 (discipline), venomous for a second (endurance) and for spells like zone wide  gravity wells it makes sense for people to defend against them with might or endurance instead of athletics (if someone created a gravity manipulation power it would make sense for it to be defended against by endurance or might instead of Athletics too). Much as there are attack that are basically unparryable in the game (bullets for one) it makes sense for their to be attacks that aren't dodgeable.

[Silverblaze]

Sort of like Jedi at high levels in any Star Wars system: the game is written about Wizards.  They simply get to be more badass.  Not saying I agree with it, but it is usually a given fact.  I accept it.

[sinker]

You could just move away from the place where the earth is opening. Saying otherwise is liking saying that you shouldn't be able to dodge bullets with Athletics.

Agreed, I was being a bit ridiculous with that statement.

4. I see no good reason why spells should be able to do this when other things can't.

5. Magic is powerful enough, darn it.

6. It's not actually in the rules anywhere, it's just extrapolated from an example spell.

These three are technically wrong. Again when you look at the attack section in the combat rules it states that the attack defines the defense. This is a universal rule, everything does this. There are situations that when someone attacks with weapons (or guns) you can not defend with fists. There are all sorts of mundane attacks that limit your defensive options.

Now I'm actually starting to agree with some of you in that limiting the defense to a single skill is probably not ideal, and as a GM I'd likely allow people to decide on another defense if they can justify it (since as stated above there are instances where other defenses do actually work like the fists for guns above). However I'm thinking that the skill needs a defense trapping in the first place to be substituted, and I'm thinking athletics could be a catchall in that case.

Other than that I don't see a huge problem with making the defense fit the attack with magic, because how are you going to attack most non-defense skills? How do you make a skill that attacks scholarship or stealth? It just doesn't make sense.

1. It puts a tax on survival. Every combat character needs a stunt like Evasion or he's boned. This is bad.

2. It means that every already-existing NPC who's supposed to be tough in a fight needs to have their sheet edited.

Additionally; Really? Every tough NPC (or PC for that matter) is already going to have might, endurance, athletics, and fists or weapons at a pretty decent level. Those are the skills I can see one easily attacking, so they're still going to be tough and a stunt would only be necessary if they want to make sure that they roll their highest skill, but the difference would likely only be one or two at the most.

[Sanctaphrax]

So, you think that you can attack Might or whatever with mundane attacks too?

Thing is, if you can attack Might then why can't you attack Stealth? Cast a spell that acts as a beacon attracting stuff from the Nevernever from which the target must hide. Whatever.

The thing about "the attack defining the defense" sounds to me like a fancier way of saying that Fists or Weapons don't work against ranged attacks. Does the book say anything more definite?

Anyway...

I normally assume the following:

Athletics can be used against any physical attack.
Endurance can be used against poisons, diseases, and environmental attacks.
Discipline can be used against any mental attack.

PS: The game isn't really about wizards. Nor should it be. Magic is very powerful, but as long as you don't interpret the rules in its favour it's not much stronger than normal weaponry.

[sinker]

Thing is, if you can attack Might then why can't you attack Stealth? Cast a spell that acts as a beacon attracting stuff from the Nevernever from which the target must hide. Whatever.

You probably could (perhaps with a stunt), however that would be someone stretching the stealth skill to fit the attack, not the attacker targeting the stress skill. Can you think of any attack where the stress could only be avoided with stealth?

Athletics can be used against any physical attack.
Endurance can be used against poisons, diseases, and environmental attacks.
Discipline can be used against any mental attack.

I can agree with most of this. The concept of dodging would fit most attacks. Discipline may not be appropriate for all mental attacks (like if I'm attacking your concept of faith) but it should work for most as well.

[computerking]

How do you make a skill that attacks scholarship or stealth? It just doesn't make sense.

For Scholarship, how about a Spirit Hold that mentally cuts your mind off from control of your body, and the blocking mechanism is a Trivia Gameshow Mindscape. Win the game(get enough successes on a Scholarship Roll) and you're free!

[The Mighty Buzzard]

You could probably defend that one with Discipline too but nice work with the creative thinking.

[Silverblaze]

So, you think that you can attack Might or whatever with mundane attacks too?

Thing is, if you can attack Might then why can't you attack Stealth? Cast a spell that acts as a beacon attracting stuff from the Nevernever from which the target must hide. Whatever.

The thing about "the attack defining the defense" sounds to me like a fancier way of saying that Fists or Weapons don't work against ranged attacks. Does the book say anything more definite?

Anyway...

I normally assume the following:

Athletics can be used against any physical attack.
Endurance can be used against poisons, diseases, and environmental attacks.
Discipline can be used against any mental attack.

PS: The game isn't really about wizards. Nor should it be. Magic is very powerful, but as long as you don't interpret the rules in its favour it's not much stronger than normal weaponry.

The game is called "The Dresden Fiels Role Playing game" I'd say it's about wizards.

[sinker]

The thing about "the attack defining the defense" sounds to me like a fancier way of saying that Fists or Weapons don't work against ranged attacks. Does the book say anything more definite?

Ahh, I forgot to respond to this. There is a part in the fists skill where it talks about being unable to defend against some weapons (specifically swords, polearms, guns, etc) with fists without special circumstances (as mentioned above in the guns v. fists example). Seems like an instance of making the defense fit the attack that is more inclusive than just ranged attacks.

[Silverblaze]

I think grapples attack might.

Spot lights could attack stealth.

Choking someone should be defended with Endurance or in rare cases might.

I could see torture being defended by discipline or conviction.

Driving defends with driving.

I can see plenty of ways to attack skills with skills if you get clever.

[sinker]

I think grapples attack might.

A grapple is a block, not an attack.

Spot lights could attack stealth.

Again I'd call that a block because no stress would be done in the event that the stealth roll failed.

Choking someone should be defended with Endurance or in rare cases might.

I could maybe agree with that, but I'd be more likely to use the grapple mechanics than create some new rule for choking people.

I could see torture being defended by discipline or conviction.

Depends on the torture. If it's a mental attack then yes, if it's a physical attack.... I'm not sure how to handle that in general. Endurance perhaps?

Driving defends with driving.

Agreed.

[Silverblaze]

I guess driving only defends against driving if you are operatign a vehicle though.

[Sanctaphrax]

@silverblaze:

Driving is the defense skill if you are trying to defend against an attack on your car. No argument there.

The game is named that because the books are named that. Not because the players are supposed to play wizards.

@sinker:

Not that I don't appreciate the response, but you seem to have missed the most important part of my post.

So, you think that you can attack Might or whatever with mundane attacks too?

Because your position is a heck of a lot more defensible if you do.

And the beacon attack can only be defended against with Stealth. The entity invoked is so deadly that absolutely no defense is even slightly effective against it. No dodge, no parry, no block. Just hide.

Does that sound like BS? Well, it is.

But the game lets you fluff things however you like within the mechanical limits. If you can force opponents to defend with Might, then nothing prevents you from forcing opponents to defend with Stealth.

To me, just about every example given of an attack that bypasses the guidelines I mentioned sounds about as reasonable as that.

Also, not all combatants will have high Might. It's actually not that terribly useful in a fight, if you aren't a grappler.