Noob Questions

[ways and means]

If you take that line of logic that practicality doesn't have to be applied to how yoy defend then you should allow people to parry bullets (weapons) or persuade someone not to fire (rapport) as a defense.

[sinker]

Except dodging is the standard defense against bullets...

[Belial666]

Come on people, be realistic. Dodging bullets works;

1) A human dodging moves at about 30 ft/second for a very short time.
2) The human torso is 2 feet across.
3) Handgun bullets move at 600 ft/second.

So if you do aim your shot at a dodging man and you are 20 ft away, a bullet that was going to hit is going to miss. You have to aim a foot ahead of your target in order to hit him as he dodges. But the target knows (or should know) that and dodges erratically. So it becomes a contest of whether you can aim faster than he can dodge - and judging distance to target, firing angle and the like takes time and a split-second of thought. Dodging erratically doesn't.
That is why, statistically speaking, 99% of bullets that do hit against moving targets in full combat are shots "to whom it may concern" rather than well-aimed ones and why the rounds/death ratio of the average soldier is 200/1.


Fluff-wise, dodging should become significantly more effective against ranged attacks once you put superhuman speed and reaction time into the mix. Someone who can move at 50 mph rather than the human max of 25 mph can get out of the way of military rounds with some luck. Someone moving at 200 mph can dodge the majority of bullets as easily as a human could dodge other people running in a straight line.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Come on people, be realistic. Dodging bullets works;

1) A human dodging moves at about 30 ft/second for a very short time.
2) The human torso is 2 feet across.
3) Handgun bullets move at 600 ft/second.

So if you do aim your shot at a dodging man and you are 20 ft away, a bullet that was going to hit is going to miss. You have to aim a foot ahead of your target in order to hit him as he dodges. But the target knows (or should know) that and dodges erratically. So it becomes a contest of whether you can aim faster than he can dodge - and judging distance to target, firing angle and the like takes time and a split-second of thought. Dodging erratically doesn't.
That is why, statistically speaking, 99% of bullets that do hit against moving targets in full combat are shots "to whom it may concern" rather than well-aimed ones and why the rounds/death ratio of the average soldier is 200/1.


Fluff-wise, dodging should become significantly more effective against ranged attacks once you put superhuman speed and reaction time into the mix. Someone who can move at 50 mph rather than the human max of 25 mph can get out of the way of military rounds with some luck. Someone moving at 200 mph can dodge the majority of bullets as easily as a human could dodge other people running in a straight line.

They actually tested this on mythbusters this year.  Until the shooter was far enough away that you couldn't see the muzzle flash anymore, it was physically impossible for a human to dodge a bullet unless they were moving before they saw the flash.

[zenten]

They actually tested this on mythbusters this year.  Until the shooter was far enough away that you couldn't see the muzzle flash anymore, it was physically impossible for a human to dodge a bullet unless they were moving before they saw the flash.

You're arguing something differently from Belial666.

He's saying that you start dodging *before* the gun is fired.

[Silverblaze]

@Silverblaze: I may be missing your point, but I promise it isn't intentional. Care to explain?

@sinker: Would you allow nonmagical attacks to require unusual defences?

@ways and means: I disagree with you to the greatest extent possible.

My point is...

Magic can kill someone; counting in a +10 roll(usually lower) and all stresses/consequences possible just by having your blood (assuming they can produce enough shifts with thaumaturgy - the heart 'sploder curse was my example) instantly. Yeah you get a defense roll, but if the wizard went overkill on his complexity to count in high skill and a few fate points...your roll will not matter.  Your character will just die.

 It should also be able to attack and choose the most reasonable defense for the situation.  Which is far less dangerous and far more fair than a instant one-shot-kill.

If you allow one, you kind of have to allow the other. Otherwise you step into the realm of hypocrisy or at least willfull stubbornness against one or the other application of magic.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

You're arguing something differently from Belial666.

He's saying that you start dodging *before* the gun is fired.

Yeah, mostly mentioned it to clarify the distinction.  You can't actually dodge bullets but you can make yourself a hard target.

[Sanctaphrax]

@sinker:

Fair enough. I'll downgrade your sin from "making magic overpowered" to "favouring attackers over defenders".

Seriously, your approach isn't awful. I just don't like it at all.

@Silverblaze:

Let me make sure I have this straight. You're saying that

1. Thaumaturgy is horribly unfair.
2. Evocation and Thaumaturgy should be roughly equivalent.
3. Therefore, Evocation should be horribly unfair.

Is that a fair summary?

@computerking:

I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. The default is not, "you cannot defend". The default is, "you can defend with Athletics".

@ways and means (and everyone else):

Let me explain why I feel so vehemently about this.

First of all, I have trouble imagining a reasonable justification for an attack against which Athletics is ineffective. You can dodge explosives and bullets, and what spell is harder to dodge than that?

But that's not important, really. It's a minor point.

More importantly, I just don't feel it's fair.

Being good at physical defense is expensive, but doable. This ruling makes it essentially impossible. What's more, it gives a rather huge mechanical advantage to wizards willing to adopt certain descriptive approaches to their spells.

Those are both bad things from a balance perspective.

So I say, let them use Athletics even when it makes little sense. BS it if you have to. Because it preserves the balance of the game.

This approach of mine is inspired by that of the White Wolf Exalted forum towards effects that ignore perfect defenses. It is widely agreed there that with a certain magical ability it is possible to use a spoon to completely block a nuclear explosion going off inside your brain. Because if it isn't possible, then the game becomes completely unbalanced and supposedly-powerful characters get splattered in one hit.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

More importantly, I just don't feel it's fair.

See, now that's a good argument.  I disagree but then I don't like things to be fair for my players.  They're all closer to the smart end of the IQ curve than the middle, so I don't feel at all bad about my "be creative or be dead" approach.  If I let them roll Athletics for anything they'd get bored with combat pretty quickly;  so would I.

[Silverblaze]

@ Sanctaphrax: More or less I suppose I am...sadly. More like... you know I can't really sum it up better than you did.   I think the distinction I was making is that targeting defense seems easier than blowing up a person in a very unfair fashion so it is likely possible.

I'm stating these things from a mostly objective viewpoint. When it comes to magic I'm not sure there is a good fix to make non magic users *quite* as efficient etc.  I actually refuse (for the most part) to talk balance when it comes to evocation and thaumaturgy...there virtually is none. 

[The Mighty Buzzard]

@ Sanctaphrax: More or less I suppose I am...sadly. More like... you know I can't really sum it up better than you did.   I think the distinction I was making is that targeting defense seems easier than blowing up a person in a very unfair fashion so it is likely possible.

I'm stating these things from a mostly objective viewpoint. When it comes to magic I'm not sure there is a good fix to make non magic users *quite* as efficient etc.  I actually refuse (for the most part) to talk balance when it comes to evocation and thaumaturgy...there virtually is none.

There's not supposed to be combat balance.  Wizards and the stronger supernaturals are supposed to be able to win any stand-up fight with a plain mortal, even if that mortal is the best there ever was with their fists, guns, or Jackie Chan-like evasiveness.  The ability to dish out the massive hurting is the benefit they get for giving up the ability to do pretty much anything else as well as a plain mortal.

[computerking]

I think you are approaching this from the wrong angle. The default is not, "you cannot defend". The default is, "you can defend with Athletics".

I didn't mean that the spell would require the default of "You cannot Defend" but that , like when attacked from a successful ambush, the default would be, "You can defend with Athletics, but it's reduced to zero. Your Might, However..."

[Silverblaze]

There's not supposed to be combat balance.  Wizards and the stronger supernaturals are supposed to be able to win any stand-up fight with a plain mortal, even if that mortal is the best there ever was with their fists, guns, or Jackie Chan-like evasiveness.  The ability to dish out the massive hurting is the benefit they get for giving up the ability to do pretty much anything else as well as a plain mortal.

I know and I accept it.

 I don't really like that in my gaming, but if the story and role playing is good (in hte particular game I'm in) I can overlook it.  i am a stickler for game balance in most other cases though and strive to get as close to it as I can with every system this one included. Some things aren't fixable without copious house ruling...therefore not worth fixing since it will no longer be hte same system in the end.

Ergo, I accept magic is overpowered. I just expect my fellow players or player base if I run the game to behave in a mature and semi self-limiting way to keep everyone happy.

[Sanctaphrax]

There is so supposed to be combat balance. Evocation is supposed to be roughly equal to Strength and Speed and Toughness. And it is, as long as you interpret the rules without generosity and remember the importance of the word roughly.

It's fine if Powers are unfair against mortals, though. They're supposed to be.

In fact, I think that by the RAW they aren't as unfair to mortals as the book says they are. But that's beside the point.

PS: @computerking: I suppose that might be a decent way to approach it. But the main discussion here isn't about ambushes, I think.

[UmbraLux]

There is so supposed to be combat balance. Evocation is supposed to be roughly equal to Strength and Speed and Toughness. And it is, as long as you interpret the rules without generosity and remember the importance of the word roughly.

I don't know what the authors' intent was, but they aren't balanced.  There are simply too many mechanical ways to boost spell power which don't have physical combat equivalents.  Though I do see a lot of weapon value inflation discussed which helps to a degree. 

I don't see it as a major issue though - we're playing a cooperative game.  If the game were approached from a competitive point of view, it might be an issue.