Template Balance

[Becq]

Why would "weaponized sleep spells" have any less potential for lethality than other attack spells?  I mean, if you shove three bottles of sleeping pills down someone's throat, what do you think is likely to happen?  Treating this sort of thing by use of compels seems a very elegant way to handle it.  You're not saying "This spell is going to kill the target; deal with it".  Instead, you're saying "This spell is risky.  Would you like to accept that risk, or would you rather make sure you play it safe?"  The player (not the character) then has a chance at controlling the narrative: he can either accept the complication (and the Fate point), buy off the complication (hey, looks like he threw up most of the sleeping pills!), or rethink the action.

This is very much inline with the DF novels; Dresden never blast human with 'non-lethal' fire, and is fairly reluctant to even use force spells against mortals.  I can almost see his player throwing a Fate point at Jim to make sure the target doesn't croak...

The problem with focusing on weapon's rating is that it hits conviction based mages (like Harry) far more than discipline based ones (discipline already add's to damage nearly twice as effectively than conviction and also adds to hit) so you are increasing the games natural bias towards control type wizards who are already much more effective than power type.   

Why is this bad, necessarily?  Harry realizes he has brute power coupled with inferior control; this comes up throughout the series (though less so as the series progresses and Harry's control improves).

Compare a tank gun coupled with little skill to a light pistol coupled with extreme proficiency.  Both combinations have good odds of taking out a target (ie, similar total stress).  But which combination has a greater likelihood of being able to take out a target without killing outright, if that's the attacker's desire?

[ways and means]

That makes sense, though. Someone with a lot of power and little control is naturally going to have more difficulty in a situation where they have to hold back than someone with less power and a lot of control.

Sorry I meant as a balance tool it was weak as the strongest wizards are discipline focused (ten + control) and this doesn't effect their discipline at all.

[Mr. Death]

Sorry I meant as a balance tool it was weak as the strongest wizards are discipline focused (ten + control) and this doesn't effect their discipline at all.

The "strongest wizards" are also listed as having refresh ratings of -15 or higher. Once you're that level, then taking out a bunch of mortal goons in a straight fight really shouldn't be an issue anyway.

[ways and means]

The "strongest wizards" are also listed as having refresh ratings of -15 or higher. Once you're that level, then taking out a bunch of mortal goons in a straight fight really shouldn't be an issue anyway.

You can get control ten, power 8 at 8 refresh with the right focused practitioner build your method isn't even going to balance a well built waist deeper caster.

[Tedronai]

Why would "weaponized sleep spells" have any less potential for lethality than other attack spells?  I mean, if you shove three bottles of sleeping pills down someone's throat, what do you think is likely to happen?  Treating this sort of thing by use of compels seems a very elegant way to handle it.  You're not saying "This spell is going to kill the target; deal with it".  Instead, you're saying "This spell is risky.  Would you like to accept that risk, or would you rather make sure you play it safe?"  The player (not the character) then has a chance at controlling the narrative: he can either accept the complication (and the Fate point), buy off the complication (hey, looks like he threw up most of the sleeping pills!), or rethink the action.

If the table held that perspective, then the wording I provided would be interpreted to include those spells.

This is very much inline with the DF novels; Dresden never blast human with 'non-lethal' fire, and is fairly reluctant to even use force spells against mortals.  I can almost see his player throwing a Fate point at Jim to make sure the target doesn't croak...
Why is this bad, necessarily?  Harry realizes he has brute power coupled with inferior control; this comes up throughout the series (though less so as the series progresses and Harry's control improves).

And he also has an aspect that could be routinely and reasonably compelled to that effect.  On the other hand, there's also no way to determine from the novels whether he in fact refused that compel, saying that, while his attacks are eminently lethal in capacity, it's just not going to substantially hamper his character that scene.

Compare a tank gun coupled with little skill to a light pistol coupled with extreme proficiency.  Both combinations have good odds of taking out a target (ie, similar total stress).  But which combination has a greater likelihood of being able to take out a target without killing outright, if that's the attacker's desire?

The wording I provided also includes this disparity in that I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a justification as to how you were going to use a tank's main gun in such a way that it would not be likely to cause the death of its target, while that act of creativity would be much more easily accomplished for the light pistol.

[Sanctaphrax]

This, this, a thousand times, this. The game isn't made to have everything perfectly balanced so that every template stands an equal chance to be viable in every situation. It's made to reflect the setting of The Dresden Files, where Pure Mortals can get by against your average supernatural (but get stomped by things with significant power), where White Court and Werewolves can hold their own if they're good or lucky, and where the Wizards who sling around the power of the elements with a wave of their staffs can stomp the shit out of things that would eat (literally) the mortals and the werewolves.

A lot of this is wrong.

The whole point of the power levels in the game is to put characters on a level in terms of power. A Chest Deep mortal is not supposed to be weaker than a Chest Deep Wizard. But your average mortal is well below Feet In The Water while your average wizard is probably Submerged.

Also WCVs and werewolves will get killed if they try to fight optimized mortal combatants of the same power level.

Seriously, mortals are pretty kickass. And WCVs and werewolves are distinctly suboptimal. If you were right about the intentions of the game designers (and I'm pretty sure you're not) then they failed really hard.

PS: Why does Harry's identity as a wizard make the game Wizard-centric? He's also really tall, but nobody claims that the game is about tall people.
PPS: Even at 30 Refresh, you might well lack basic combat competence. There are other things to invest in. And Wizards, for all their power, tend to be pretty fragile. So having mooks kill the Merlin would be quite reasonable if not for the Merlin being smart enough to avoid those situations.
PPPS: Using the Laws to balance Evocation is a bad idea. Given how nobody agrees on how the Laws even work, and given that the Laws only apply to a fraction of the game's characters, and given that breaking them is more or less instantly fatal, they make a crappy balancing factor even if you deny the badness of narrative balance.
PPPPS: Wizards aren't actually as supremely badass as people here seem to think. They have a lot of firepower, but not the most. Their out-of-combat abilities are strong, but very narrow. And their basic abilities cost so much that they tend to lack other abilities. Like basic not-getting-killed skills.

[Mr. Death]

A lot of this is wrong.

The whole point of the power levels in the game is to put characters on a level in terms of power. A Chest Deep mortal is not supposed to be weaker than a Chest Deep Wizard. But your average mortal is well below Feet In The Water while your average wizard is probably Submerged.

Even at the same refresh level, wizards are, one on one, more powerful and dangerous than a pure mortal when optimized for combat. The wizard is going to be tossing out Weapon:5 spells at rolls of 5--without taking into account specializations and focus items--and will more likely than not have enchanted armor of significant strength. The Pure Mortal, unless he's carrying a bazooka, isn't going to be doing more than Weapon:3 damage, and his armor, if he has any, is going to be limited in scope of what it can block. Kevlar isn't going to stop a fireball.

Also WCVs and werewolves will get killed if they try to fight optimized mortal combatants of the same power level.

Seriously, mortals are pretty kickass. And WCVs and werewolves are distinctly suboptimal. If you were right about the intentions of the game designers (and I'm pretty sure you're not) then they failed really hard.

All other stats being equal, WCVs and Werewolves who have speed and strength powers are going to beat a mortal combatant, stat for stat.

PS: Why does Harry's identity as a wizard make the game Wizard-centric? He's also really tall, but nobody claims that the game is about tall people.

I would say that the books having several sections dealing exclusively with spellcasting, how to build a spellcaster, and the consequences of spellcasting (the section on the Laws) would make a good argument that the game is kind of centered around wizards. As the game itself notes, "It's not called The Borden Files."

PPS: Even at 30 Refresh, you might well lack basic combat competence. There are other things to invest in. And Wizards, for all their power, tend to be pretty fragile. So having mooks kill the Merlin would be quite reasonable if not for the Merlin being smart enough to avoid those situations.

You could, but, uh, that'd be kind of a screwy way to play. Though I'd say if you're a wizard with most of 30 refresh spent, a lot of that would've likely gone to Refinement, which means your martial abilities are at least decent unless you focused them all on Thaumaturgy, which, again, would be kind of an odd way to play a PC.

And I totally agree, having mooks kill a powerful wizard is possible and reasonable--they just have to catch him unprepared. A wizard can certainly toss up a 9-shift shield to keep goons out--but he has to have a turn first.

PPPS: Using the Laws to balance Evocation is a bad idea.

But...they are a balance against magic. That's exactly what they are. The Laws of Magic are explicitly there to protect pure mortals against wizards. How many times in the books has Harry faced some mortal goons and either gotten his ass kicked, had to run away, or had to brawl it out, because they're mortal and he can't risk killing them with an errant spell? In Storm Front, a mortal goon nicks some of his hair--Harry immediately realizes this is a life and death scenario, and if the goon gets away, some wizard is going to kill him. So Harry...tackles him. Because he can't risk hitting him with a spell and killing him. When Harry's attacked by three goons in Heorot, he has to fight them hand to hand instead of just laying them out with a spell for the same reasons.

Harry makes a deliberate effort over several books to better defend himself hand-to-hand because he can't just toss magic at the human goons he keeps going up against. In game terms, that's a wizard focusing on boosting his Fists and Athletics scores instead of his Conviction and Discipline specifically because of the laws of magic.

In short, if a magical practitioner isn't worried, concerned, or thinking about the Laws of Magic in some way when he casts a spell to attack a mortal, there's something wrong. That makes them a balancing factor meant to limit the number of situations in which "hit it with a Weapon:8 spell" is useful.

Given how nobody agrees on how the Laws even work, and given that the Laws only apply to a fraction of the game's characters, and given that breaking them is more or less instantly fatal, they make a crappy balancing factor even if you deny the badness of narrative balance.

Molly and Harry seem to have broken laws without it being "instantly fatal." And it's not meant to be a full balance to bring Wizards down against everything. As I said before, I believe this is a setting where Wizards are supposed to be badass when they can let loose. Going against mortals is supposed to be one of the times Wizards simply cannot afford to let loose. Letting a wizard blast--without concern or consequence--a room full of mortal goons into submission goes against the spirit and rules of the setting.

PPPPS: Wizards aren't actually as supremely badass as people here seem to think. They have a lot of firepower, but not the most. Their out-of-combat abilities are strong, but very narrow. And their basic abilities cost so much that they tend to lack other abilities. Like basic not-getting-killed skills.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my math example. Wizards can be really damn badass, but generally only in one, maybe two areas until they get to the really high power levels. The problem I keep seeing is people seem to assume if a wizard can toss out a 12-shift shield spell, they can cast other spells of similar power too.

[Viatos]

Even at the same refresh level, wizards are, one on one, more powerful and dangerous than a pure mortal when optimized for combat. The wizard is going to be tossing out Weapon:5 spells at rolls of 5--without taking into account specializations and focus items--and will more likely than not have enchanted armor of significant strength. The Pure Mortal, unless he's carrying a bazooka, isn't going to be doing more than Weapon:3 damage, and his armor, if he has any, is going to be limited in scope of what it can block. Kevlar isn't going to stop a fireball.

Now this I do contest. The Wizard can I-Win with Thaumaturgy, but let's put that aside because that's really a bigger issue. An evocator against a combat-focused Pure Mortal of equivalent refresh in a white room brawl has only even odds.

At 8 Refresh, I take nine stunts: two to improve my defense, two for toughness, three for +1s to attack, two for +2 stress per hit. Now my assault rifle functions as Weapon:7 and I roll +8 with it. My defense is +9 and I can soak several hits even if they get through. All of these bonuses are situational, but not terribly so, and I can overlap situations between stunts that do different things. For instance, "when wielding an assault rifle" and a little relevant flavor could apply to all four categories. I'm good at firing it, I aim for maximum damage, I know how to dissuade attacks by blind-firing, and just holding it lends me resolve and tenacity.

The problem is that's all I can do, butcher people with an assault rifle. I can't fly or summon demons or solve any problems, really, that an assault rifle is not designed to solve. The elements of earth (stone, dirt, metal, lightning) spirit (telekinesis, light, illusion) and fire (flame, ice, purification) are much better at creative problem solving, and if you optimize that to the point where you can hit like a runaway freight train full of pressure-sensitive nuclear warheads, you get way more then just the combat package.

[Tedronai]

Now this I do contest. The Wizard can I-Win with Thaumaturgy, but let's put that aside because that's really a bigger issue. An evocator against a combat-focused Pure Mortal of equivalent refresh in a white room brawl has only even odds.

At 8 Refresh, I take nine stunts: two to improve my defense, two for toughness, three for +1s to attack, two for +2 stress per hit. Now my assault rifle functions as Weapon:7 and I roll +8 with it. My defense is +9 and I can soak several hits even if they get through. All of these bonuses are situational, but not terribly so, and I can overlap situations between stunts that do different things. For instance, "when wielding an assault rifle" and a little relevant flavor could apply to all four categories. I'm good at firing it, I aim for maximum damage, I know how to dissuade attacks by blind-firing, and just holding it lends me resolve and tenacity.

I direct you to the stunt stacking guidelines in the stunt creation rules of YS.
Basically, the above doesn't work. (or at least not nearly so well as intended)

[Viatos]

I direct you to the stunt stacking guidelines in the stunt creation rules of YS.
Basically, the above doesn't work. (or at least not nearly so well as intended)

Hmm. So I guess it's not possible for a mortal to keep up with an evocator even if the mortal sacrifices everything to an exceptionally narrow area of focus.

Carry on.

[sinker]

Why would "weaponized sleep spells" have any less potential for lethality than other attack spells?  I mean, if you shove three bottles of sleeping pills down someone's throat, what do you think is likely to happen?

You're comparing chemicals to magic, which follow different processes.

Chemistry is about knowing that x compound has x effect, and then using the right amount to create the desired effect. Too much (or too little) has a different effect based on the same concept.

Magic is the other way around. It's about purpose. It's about having a desired effect and then filling that effect with power. Too much (or too little) will have the same effect with varying effectiveness, because it's purpose remains the same.

[crystaril]

The thing is, there's a lot more to the game than combat.  A battle-wizard is going to do ridiculous things given inhuman opponents and a clear field.  This is easy to complicate by throwing human opponents or hostages out there to prevent zone-wide attacks, having a mental attack take out his mental track so he can't cast freely, or use magic resistant enemies. 

edit: That same doom-wizard can't convince anyone the sky is blue and wouldn't notice a clue if it bit him on the behind, and probably has no money and no connections.  His friends with presence and rapport and deceit and resources and contacts however... They're all just as important to the story.

I just had a "Longest Day" style adventure where my dudes went through a gauntlet of adventures without any breaks between (they were being chased through the nevernever by... oh lots of things.)  The wizards ended up using their swords for half of it, they ran out of gas.

[ways and means]

I direct you to the stunt stacking guidelines in the stunt creation rules of YS.
Basically, the above doesn't work. (or at least not nearly so well as intended)

This is the main source of the overpoweredness of the wizard, wizards get to stack their far more effective than stunt powers (refinement) to over five times the level of what non-casters can achieve to without any drop in effectiveness. I suppose one way to balance wizards and non-wizards is to allow stunts to stack up to the level of the skill bonus without an penalty.   

[Sanctaphrax]

It isn't so much that Wizards are stronger than mortals as it is that they have a higher ceiling.

Mortals can only invest about 3 or 4 Refresh into combat before diminishing returns ensue. Wizards can invest about 7. But both end up with a (very roughly) comparable amount of power for the Refresh invested.

So mortals are forced to diversify earlier than wizards.

All other stats being equal, WCVs and Werewolves who have speed and strength powers are going to beat a mortal combatant, stat for stat.

All else cannot be equal. The mortal will have the Refresh not invested in Speed and Strength available to use elsewhere.

And a Chest Deep mortal with one or two Superb combat skills, a good weapon, and a few basic stunts will have little trouble being tougher than a Chest Deep Werewolf or WCV can ever be. Seriously.

I would say that the books having several sections dealing exclusively with spellcasting, how to build a spellcaster, and the consequences of spellcasting (the section on the Laws) would make a good argument that the game is kind of centered around wizards. As the game itself notes, "It's not called The Borden Files."

Wizards =/= spellcasters. In fact, I'd argue that Wizards aren't even the best spellcasters.

You could, but, uh, that'd be kind of a screwy way to play. Though I'd say if you're a wizard with most of 30 refresh spent, a lot of that would've likely gone to Refinement, which means your martial abilities are at least decent unless you focused them all on Thaumaturgy, which, again, would be kind of an odd way to play a PC.

Refinement does little for your defences unless you are a Crafter. And even if you are a Crafter, mooks can chew through the uses of your items pretty quick.

Look at the Merlin, either in OW or in Deadmanwalking's writeup. A few gunshots will rip him apart. In fact, the OW version could be killed pretty effortlessly by a few dudes with Good Alertness, Good Guns, and Fair Athletics unless you give him an enchanted item defence.

And I totally agree, having mooks kill a powerful wizard is possible and reasonable--they just have to catch him unprepared. A wizard can certainly toss up a 9-shift shield to keep goons out--but he has to have a turn first.

Actually shield spells are usually a waste of time. You're better off just taking out your opponents. What you really need to do to drop a powerful wizard is attack him while he's away from his Enchanted Items.

But...they are a balance against magic. That's exactly what they are. The Laws of Magic are explicitly there to protect pure mortals against wizards. How many times in the books has Harry faced some mortal goons and either gotten his ass kicked, had to run away, or had to brawl it out, because they're mortal and he can't risk killing them with an errant spell? In Storm Front, a mortal goon nicks some of his hair--Harry immediately realizes this is a life and death scenario, and if the goon gets away, some wizard is going to kill him. So Harry...tackles him. Because he can't risk hitting him with a spell and killing him. When Harry's attacked by three goons in Heorot, he has to fight them hand to hand instead of just laying them out with a spell for the same reasons.

Those would be compels. Which is good, because otherwise a character becomes vastly more tough simply by being labelled mortal.

Molly and Harry seem to have broken laws without it being "instantly fatal." And it's not meant to be a full balance to bring Wizards down against everything. As I said before, I believe this is a setting where Wizards are supposed to be badass when they can let loose. Going against mortals is supposed to be one of the times Wizards simply cannot afford to let loose. Letting a wizard blast--without concern or consequence--a room full of mortal goons into submission goes against the spirit and rules of the setting.

That's why you compel him. Your sig is very accurate in this case.

Most Wizards have 1 Refresh. Which means that one broken Law will render them unplayable unless something weird happens.

Breaking a Law as a source of drama and tension doesn't really work unless you either use different Lawbreaker rules or deliberately build the character for the story.

Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my math example. Wizards can be really damn badass, but generally only in one, maybe two areas until they get to the really high power levels. The problem I keep seeing is people seem to assume if a wizard can toss out a 12-shift shield spell, they can cast other spells of similar power too.

True. With the caveat that, again, shield spells are not very good.

[toturi]

Compels against wizards only work to a certain extent. But it is applicable to other character types as well.

I think a supernatural will have an edge against a mortal in any arena of conflict due to the very simple fact that a -1 Refresh power is allowed to be a little more effective than an otherwise equivalent stunt.