Balancing Evocation Accuracy

[JayTee]

I've found that removing the control bonus to attack rolls was all that was needed to balance Wizards.  Evocation's potential damage is balanced by the stress and refresh costs.

This is brilliant, I love simple solutions to complex problems! Considering how I'll be trying my hand at a caster for the first time soon, I'm going to try this and see how it works!

[GryMor]

A house rule such as GryMor seemed to have in the Daiklave might be better than duplicating refinements.  Add Might to melee and Alertness to ranged perhaps?  Don't know...but at least a second skill would put them back on equivalent footing.

It wasn't intended as a house rule, merely the natural outcome of the standard complimentary skills rules when using a weapon long and heavy enough to the point where it should be actively advantageous to hitting things with it if you are strong enough to maneuver it adroitly. The Grand Daiklave example was, to some extent, the full magical weaponization of the telephone pole's grand sweeping strikes that occupy a rather large volume of space over the course of their swing. Mechanically, a weapon large enough that if your might is greater than your weaponry, it compliments your weaponry skill when using it coupled with the auto +3 without comparison granted by mythic strength's Supreme Strength effect.

[Mr. Death]

It wasn't intended as a house rule, merely the natural outcome of the standard complimentary skills rules when using a weapon long and heavy enough to the point where it should be actively advantageous to hitting things with it if you are strong enough to maneuver it adroitly. The Grand Daiklave example was, to some extent, the full magical weaponization of the telephone pole's grand sweeping strikes that occupy a rather large volume of space over the course of their swing. Mechanically, a weapon large enough that if your might is greater than your weaponry, it compliments your weaponry skill when using it coupled with the auto +3 without comparison granted by mythic strength's Supreme Strength effect.

That makes very little sense. The benefit of any of the Strength powers as far as weapons attacks go is in the extra shifts of stress added to the weapon roll.

Otherwise you're saying that someone is able to swing a huge, slow, impractical weapon more accurately than they'd be able to swing something that a normal human can manage to.

[GryMor]

Otherwise you're saying that someone is able to swing a huge, slow, impractical weapon more accurately than they'd be able to swing something that a normal human can manage to.

If you can actually swing it at all, I think I'd have an easier time getting out of the way of or parrying or blocking a longsword than a telephone pole, so yes, I think sufficiently strong individuals can be 'more accurate' with a very large weapon than they can be with a normal sized weapon.

Dropping out of the supernatural powers case for a moment, do you think you would have an easier time avoiding a might 4 weapons 0 person throwing a table at you than having that same person throwing a dagger?

[Becq]

The problem with simply dropping control bonuses from the attack roll is that now spells become less accurate than weaponry -- after all, you can get stunts to increase an attack roll with a mundane weapon or the defense roll against mundane and magic attacks alike, but you just eliminated the only bonus to spellcasting accuracy.  Given that spells cost stress even when they miss, this seems like it would end up making evocation a liability in higher-refresh games.  Unless you create stunts that add to spellcasting accuracy, in which case you just came full circle and shouldn't have made the change to begin with.

I'm still leaning toward the option I suggested earlier: allow the spellcaster to split his control bonus between the two applications of the defense roll.  That way the control bonus can perform either function ... but not both at once.

[Silverblaze]

Regardless of opinions, having Might effect combat accuracy is not RAW.  Thus it is a house rule.
 
A house rule GryMor is more than free to use.  I wouldn't use it often.  I get the idea most folks wouldn't.

The might bonus when being used to compliment a skill (including a combat skill) should only grant a +1 bonus in any case.

Neither Inhuman, Supernatural, nor Mythic Strength specifically enhance accuracy in combat, they enhance stress dealt and lifting rolls. Ergo, thye simply add to Might, which can only compliment a skill by the aforementioned +1.

Ultimately the point is moot in this case.  It still doesn't balance the game's combat.  It only balances people with huge strengths and magic.  It doesn't help speedsters (unless you allow thrown objects to be effected by athletics and the Speed powers...[yet another house rule]). Nothing that is dependent upon powers or IoP's - etc. help Mortals.

Balance by definition has to be even across the board in some fashion.

It also doesn't address the concern of escalation.  Which; even if escalation doesn't bother you brings up an issue all by itself.  Mortals are fragile since they cannot have the toughnesses etc.  Therefore, when everything has either:

A) high mundane/magical armor
B) toughness/recovery/immunity
C) magical blocks

The distance between the supernatural and True Mortals widens substantially.

[UmbraLux]

It wasn't intended as a house rule, merely the natural outcome of the standard complimentary skills rules when using a weapon long and heavy enough to the point where it should be actively advantageous to hitting things with it if you are strong enough to maneuver it adroitly.

That's not how complimentary skills work.  They give either a +1 or -1 depending on whether the secondary skill is higher or lower than the primary.  See YS213, second paragraph.

-----
Becq has a good point on targeting.  That solution also seems a bit complex - though I may simply not be understanding it fully.  (I thought devonapple's example was correct...until people said otherwise.) 

I wonder what taking Conviction out of attacks would do.  The caster would have to rely on targeting (Discipline), specializations, and foci for damage.  Seems much closer to weapon use's skill + weapon + stunts.  Wouldn't need to change maneuvers or blocks, Discipline and Conviction don't combine for those.  Have to think about it more.

[GryMor]

That's not how complimentary skills work.  They give either a +1 or -1 depending on whether the secondary skill is higher or lower than the primary.  See YS213, second paragraph.

Correct, and that is the rule in play, except, the strength powers modify that rule for Might complimenting other skills, and in the case of Mythic Strength, the change that +1 to a +3.

[Mr. Death]

If you can actually swing it at all, I think I'd have an easier time getting out of the way of or parrying or blocking a longsword than a telephone pole, so yes, I think sufficiently strong individuals can be 'more accurate' with a very large weapon than they can be with a normal sized weapon.

Dropping out of the supernatural powers case for a moment, do you think you would have an easier time avoiding a might 4 weapons 0 person throwing a table at you than having that same person throwing a dagger?

In what case is it ever easier to swing something that takes much, much more strength to lift than a normal object?

It boils down to this: Which is easier for you to swing? A baseball bat, or a tree branch? Even if you have supernatural strength, it's still going to take more effort just lifting the tree branch than the baseball bat. It's simple physics: Larger, heavier objects take more effort to move, particularly with dexterity and accuracy, than lighter, smaller objects. Applying the strength bonus in the way you're suggesting means that someone is quicker, more dextrous, and more accurate swinging around a ton of metal than they are swinging a baseball bat, when the exact opposite should be true.

[ways and means]

Allowing Might to modify any skill that might mite effect is perfectly raw as is the strength powers increased bonus when might modifies something.

"Supreme Strength. Whenever using your
Might to modify (page 214) another skill, it
always provides a +3 regardless of the actual
comparison of your Might score to the skill
in question." Your Story

As too whether might can modify weapons combat there is no rule prohibiting it, some logical reasons why it should apply in certain occasions (strength meaning you can swing a heavier sword faster etc) and some balance reason why GM's don't like it. It isn't a matter of house rules its a matter of interpretation of the RAW and what suits your table.

[UmbraLux]

Correct, and that is the rule in play, except, the strength powers modify that rule for Might complimenting other skills, and in the case of Mythic Strength, the change that +1 to a +3.

The Strength powers already tell you exactly how much they add to melee combat.  See Hammer Blows, Lethal Blows, and Devastating Blows.  It's not going to stack with a separate trapping of the same power. 

[Becq]

In what case is it ever easier to swing something that takes much, much more strength to lift than a normal object?

My opinion on Might modifying (some) attack rolls has slid from "of course not" to "undecided".  Here's why:

1) The rules seem at the least vague on the subject, and possibly support the "accurate telephone pole" theory.  After all, the rules state:

In combat, Might can help you with particular applications of Fists and Weapons: if physical force is a very significant element at play, Might will modify (page 214) the primary skill.

And it's hard to argue that physical force isn't significant when attacking someone with a telephone pole.
2) Maybe it does make sense that it's easier to hit with unwieldy objects.  After all, which is easier to dodge; a police baton or a telephone pole?  So maybe it's less a matter of increasing accuracy, and more a matter of decreasing defense options.  Remember that modifiers that represent taking advantage of an opponent's weaknesses (tagging an opponent's consequence, for example) grant a bonus to "accuracy".

I think that as long as you DON'T increase the weapon rating of the object as well (which would grant a double bonus), it works.  So, for example:
Person A hits you with a pole arm.  He gets his normal weapon skill and adds weapon:3.
Person B hits you with a ploe arm, but has Mythic Strength.  He gets his normal weapon skill and adds weapon:9 (which includes the +6 stress from Mythic Strength).
Person C hits you with a telephone pole, which requires Mythic Strength (and which he has).  He gets his normal weapon skill modified by +3 per Mythic Strength's Supreme Strength (or at least this interpretation thereof), and adds weapon:9 to the result (which again includes the +6 stress from Mythic Strength).  Note that the telephone pole was statted only as a "pole arm" rated at weapon:3 -- but that also required Mythic Strength to wield, therefore allowing the modification.  So it's going to do more stress, but that stress is also going to be harder to dodge.

[UmbraLux]

To me, C looks like Might should be restricting Weapons.  Not complementing.

[Silverblaze]

I am just as guilty of thread drift and derailment as anyone, but if we want to debate this superstrength accuracy thing and such can we move it to a new thread.

EDIT: creating the new thread in hopes people use it.

I'd really like to see if balancing evocation is possible.  I honestly don't think it is.  however, waxing philosophical about accurately swinging telephone poles doesn't really create a balance across the board.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

house rule
 

noun

a rule that is used in a game only in a specific place, as a particular casino, or only among a certain group of players.

Thus an interpretation that only applies to some is a house rule.

[Becq]

To me, C looks like Might should be restricting Weapons.  Not complementing.

Well, the rules (YS135, qoted above) do indicate that Might modifies in cases like this, which means either complement or restrict depending on relative values.  Though in the particular example of using an oversized weapon, the only choices are "you have enough strength, so modify means a bonus" or "you don't have enough strength, so the object is too heavy to use as a weapon".