It is a weakness, but describing it as a need for prep time is misleading. Makes it sound like Wizards are weak whenever a fight they didn't expect shows up, when actually they're just fine as long as they've got their stuff. And if they don't have their stuff, prep time probably won't save them.
Tomato tomahto, then. I consider having the foresight to bring their stuff to be more or less the same as prep time. Also prep time helps because, as you pointed out, because of the other stats they need high, a wizard typically has a lower initiative. So being able to take a round or two of prep before a fight properly starts can make a difference if once it does everyone else on the field gets to go before you.
A sword wielded by a strong and skilled person swings harder and cuts deeper.
Isn't that obvious?
Reflected by a high Weapons stat, by my preference. I just think the flat +2 to damage is too much, and pushes mortal melee weapon damage to a degree it's not supposed to go.
It's not something I've done. If you just take 5 Refresh points and spend them on being strong and tough with a Catch of Cold Iron, you can probably kill Ursiel 1v1 with Great Weapons.
I'm not talking crazy munchkin characters here. Just basic "combat skill is in the highest slot, spent some Refresh on fighting" characters.
By "something I've done" I mean coming up with these stunts.
The mortal has a massive pile of FP and can wear armour. He'll win, no problem.
Obviously he'll fight better if he invests Refresh in fighting. But he can win without doing so.
There's a significant difference between "he can win by spending his fate points" and "he'll always win just by hitting attack over and over." The former, to me, is more in keeping with the spirit of the game's world for mortals.
Imagine a stunt that gives you +3 stress with Fists attacks if you happen to be holding a greatsword or a warhammer.
Ta-da! Armed Arts as a stress booster!
A stress booster that, at best, brings you on par with someone just using the Weapons skill. It's not the idea of melee attacks having Weapon ratings that I'm against, it's the idea of melee attacks having weapon ratings of 4 and 5 that I'm against. The book pretty clearly suggests that Weapon:4 and above is, again, either massively destructive or damn near impossible to carry around, unless you're using Supernatural power of some kind.
Yes. But they must be bought separately. Weapon Focus just pumps accuracy.
For clarification purposes, assume I'm just lumping them all together, because if you're taking one, you might as well take the whole set.
I know.
Nonetheless, 2 is obviously not the maximum.
The maximum you're supposed to get without some kind of penalty or additional cost, then. The full +2 shouldn't be for something you're going to be using all the time.
Fair.
I think you're wrong though. I mean, I'm pretty sure most games wouldn't let you bring a broadsword or assault rifle everywhere. And that's not necessarily a Compel, since a weapon's not part of your character.
And if you're using a weapon that you can take everywhere, you're weakening yourself.
If a weapon is so central to the character you're taking stunts just for it, then I'd say yes, it's a compellable part of the character. Generally speaking, I tend to hold that any situation that makes your character significantly less effective (like a sword wielder being forced to forgo his sword) is grounds for a fate point.
Maneuvering is still valuable. The only time it's not is when you can easily inflict consequences. Against tough, fast, or magically protected foes, you'll likely maneuver a lot.
Not if even that toughness, speed, and protection is already overcome by these types of stunts.
Shooting counts as a straight fight. Her apex skill is Guns, she's better at fighting outside of hand-to-hand.
But she's still held up as one of the top physical fighters in the series. She might be better at guns, but she's clearly supposed to be high up there on a physical sense. And yet the only time she tussles with anything supernatural physically and isn't maimed or nearly killed, it's when she's literally got God (and Bob) on her side.
That, to me, heavily implies that pure mortals shouldn't be able to just fist fight supernatural creatures, while these stunts make any physical confrontation
heavily slanted in favor of a pure mortal.
Really?
I thought my games were pretty violent, but I find people invest plenty in stuff other than ass-kicking. I mean, violence only gets you so far.
I didn't say it was the
only stats they had, just that they focused there. My players put things into stuff like Investigation and stuff as well, we just eschew social conflict mainly because we're primarily free-form roleplayers, and would rather social stuff come down to roleplaying than dice rolling.
It's meaningful, but it doesn't prevent you from fighting alongside one another.
No, but it means certain characters are always going to make the meaningful contribution to a fight while others don't.
Because that's how the system works. Things stack unless specifically prohibited. This isn't in doubt at all, it's all over the rules.
(Also you can stack armour under certain special circumstances.)
Where does it say that? If anything, I remember the rulebook having to note specifically where things
do stack, especially in regard to stunts.
They are. Stunts can't take you to the level that a supernatural combatant will have. Unless, of course, you cripple your supernaturals OW-style.
This is the attitude I'm talking about--the thinking that the entirety of one of the rulebooks is "crippled" because of the overinflation of PC abilities.
No they aren't.
Compare, say, Bow Specialization with Inhuman Strength.
Bow Specialization gives +2 stress with bows.
Inhuman Strength gives +2 stress with bows, +2 stress with thrown weapons, +2 stress with unarmed attacks, +3 to lift, +3 to break, +1 to grapple, automatic +1 when Might modifies, +1 stress to grapple attacks, +1 zone moved in a grapple, and +2 stress with melee weapons.
Most of that isn't going to come into play in a fight. Lifting and breaking are typically out of combat, I honestly find grappling next to useless unless you're built specifically for it (takes at least an extra round to set up, and the target's almost always going to try and break it with their apex skill). But physical attack for physical attack--and this sort of stunt is only going to encourage that--the weapon specialization matches the bonus to Inhuman Strength.
You can still maneuver if you want. You just don't have to.
And with these stunts, you'll rarely have to.
Incidentally, where does it say that?
I don't have the page number offhand, but it's a mix of the text and a sidebar, where the text notes that most fights will boil down to a lot of maneuvers and blocks more than attacks, with the sidebar of Harry saying that's how a lot of his fights played out.
It means they are similarly able to accomplish things. Murphy's player has as much power as Harry's does.
But not the same way. Look at the story Aftermath, for instance. Murphy outright says if Harry was there, he'd have solved the thing in minutes--put up a tracking spell, waltz in, blast the badguys with fire, then go home and have a beer. Murphy might eventually get to the same result, but she has to do a lot of maneuvering, set up an ambush, several declarations, and in the end she barely scrapes out of it alive. Mortals might make it to the same destination, but they have to take a different route--and these stunts bypass all that.
Min-maxing is and should be a seperate issue from story focus. I have had bad experiences who use "story focus" as an excuse for poor character building and making the game un-fun for the rest of the group.
If you want to roleplay an incompetent twit and the GM has no problems with it, then even if you are a good friend (and the guy whose character was an incompetent twit remains a good friend), I will be quite happy that "my character could kick your character's ass" and have my character do so.
I have called people out for making poor tactical choices in-game and/or using their characters' abilities in a sub-optimal manner because it forces the rest of the players and their characters to pick up the slack. I can do without such self-maturbatory tendencies in games I play. I find such "story focused" (but not optimised) characters incredibly selfish, instead of hogging the spotlight because their characters are uber-capable and moving the plot forward, these characters are hogging the spotlight and bogging the game down because they are uber-incompetent!
And often these are the players who have the gall to whine (to other people and on forums) that they are simply "roleplaying" and the other guys are "min-maxers", "powergamers" or "munchkins". I feel myself wanting more to take a swing at these clowns than those players who bring one-dimensional giant thews barbarians who can benchpress the world or fighters whose roundhouse kicks can kill gods.
I have to disagree with all of this. It sounds a lot more like you just don't like that they're not playing the game the way you do. There's a lot more vitriol and anger in this post than there should be. Don't get yourself so bent out of shape just because someone else builds and plays a character in a way that you don't approve of.
And really, what's the fun in making all the right tactical choices? Can you imagine how boring the books would be if Harry did everything right?
