Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?

[Lavecki121]

Ok well since there is only one stunt that is comparable to inhuman strength, plus with an iop sword, you could take supernatural strength for the same cost as inhuman and still have those stunts which would apply to the iop and the mundane sword you carry around too, so no, I don't think they are comparable

Also that one stunt doesn't include the other three or four that strength gives you

[Sanctaphrax]

Most of my PCs carry their favoured weapons most of the time. Going by my experiences, I'd expect Weapon Specialization's restriction to be slightly heavier than that of Defend My Tribe.

What it comes down to, still, is that just having a particular weapon is not a strict enough restriction for the full bonus to these stunts...

It's possible. Though it does depend on the game.

Stunt balance is by its very nature somewhat situational. If you don't think needing a specific weapon is enough of a restriction for your game, you may well be right.

But it is a restriction, even if you think it's too small. Now that you've acknowledged that, I'm satisfied. At least on that point.

As for the other points...

That's costly, though--getting creative lets you do more without spending your whole pool of fate points. The game should normally reward creativity. These stunts reward complacency.

Creativity is still useful no matter how good your numbers are. These stunts don't reward complacency any more than a higher skill or a physical Power does.

Apply those stunts to a Submerged pure mortal, and I can't think of anything in OW that can hit them physically (some of the spellcasters can manage it, maybe the Plot Device level characters), and only the ones with Supernatural Speed would ever avoid a hit.

This is one of the notable issues with OW. It shows up without the stunts too, though. A PC with Superb Athletics and Supernatural Speed really doesn't have to worry much about (most) Denarian attacks. Evokers and emotion inciters can mess up pretty much anything in the book with one hit, and serious Crafters are pretty much untouchable.

Sanctaphrax, you say it's okay because Items of Power are balanced based on it, but Items of Power are supernatural powers--which are supposed to be more broadly applicable than stunts. You can't use the same rubric for one as you would the other.

Items Of Power are stronger than these stunts, as they should be. But the same basic principle underlies both.

(If you don't believe that Items Of Power are stronger, consider that you can get Inhuman Strength and True Aim on a sword for 1 Refresh. That's arguably better than all 3 stunts, and it costs way less. Because it's a Power.

IoPs have the extra benefit of attracting Compels with their Aspects. This doesn't actually make them stronger, but it doesn't make them weaker either, and it's cool. So it's a net plus for the user, in my eyes.)

Hell, even the one supernatural power I can think of that provides a flat bonus to the attack skill--True Aim in the Sword of the Cross--still has a more strict restriction than "just holding this sword."

Nope. Read it again.

All of its supposed restrictions are contained in the other Powers of the Sword. Namely, IoP and Divine Purpose. So True Aim has no restrictions of its own; it's literally a flat +1 Weapons.

Needing to uphold the Sword's purpose might sound like a drawback, but it's handled through Compels so it pays for itself.

[Sanctaphrax]

So with my previous assumption:

Ghoul (per OW):
    +4: Fists; Athletics
    +3: Endurance; Alertness; Intimidation; Presence
Powers:
    Claws (weapon 2 fist attack)
    Inhuman Strength & Speed
    Supernatural Recovery


Pure Mortal (No stunts) (A)
    +4: Weapons; Athletics
    +3: Alertness; Endurance

Now if we assume all is equal (which will be everyone rolls 0) then Ghoul goes first. Generally you wont be in the same zone as an opponent at start. So ghoul moves toward mortal A and attacks. A takes hit the hit and is down a mild consequence with 2 stress, cant hit them back. A takes another hit next turn now has Mild, Moderate and 2 stress. Same next turn only now we have all but extreme and no stress. And so it goes on.

Yeah, no.

First, a sensible mortal would wear armour. The fact that ghouls (by default) fight naked is one of their biggest weaknesses, and there's no sense in giving mortals that same weakness.

Second, the mortal has no reason to take a consequence against that first attack. They can just let their fourth (or second, if they wore armour) stress box fill in.

Third, the mortal would not be well-advised to attack there. A maneuver would be more useful. If the mortal were armoured I'd probably give the same advice to the ghoul.

Fourth, this even-roll assumption of yours is unrealistic and biases things in favour of the ghoul.

As for the more complex example after this one, I think you're ignoring supplemental action penalties. And maybe consequence tags too. I'm not sure though; the text block gave me some trouble.

It applies to a mock fight and I did find one example being in Shiro's write up as a +1 to block, which would make the assumption that they should be limited to just +1 and not +2

Blocks are not the same as defence rolls. So the example isn't really applicable.

[Mr. Death]

Most of my PCs carry their favoured weapons most of the time. Going by my experiences, I'd expect Weapon Specialization's restriction to be slightly heavier than that of Defend My Tribe.

It's possible. Though it does depend on the game.

Stunt balance is by its very nature somewhat situational. If you don't think needing a specific weapon is enough of a restriction for your game, you may well be right.

But it is a restriction, even if you think it's too small. Now that you've acknowledged that, I'm satisfied. At least on that point.

I've been acknowledging it. I've referred to it as too light of a restriction or not enough of a restriction since this whole topic started.

Creativity is still useful no matter how good your numbers are. These stunts don't reward complacency any more than a higher skill or a physical Power does.

Useful, yes, but with these stunts, unnecessary.

Nope. Read it again.

I read it thoroughly the first time. It says:

When swung in keeping with its
purpose, a Sword of the Cross grants a +1 to
the wielder’s Weapons skill.

Whereas the stunt just says when wielding this weapon. Meaning that while Michael can't use that bonus for anything but God Approved smiting, a sword-wielder with the stunt can and will use it against anything and everything.

Hell, in the books, Harry mentions that Michael seems less invincible when he's out with Harry as opposed to fighting his own fights--so you could interpret that to mean that Michael isn't getting that +1 even when he's fighting demons, vampires, and monsters.

The stunts, however, only have the restriction of using that weapon--which is, in fact, a much looser restriction than a power. You're giving a stunt a full benefit with a looser restriction than an equivalent power, which is just backwards.

Yeah, no.

First, a sensible mortal would wear armour. The fact that ghouls (by default) fight naked is one of their biggest weaknesses, and there's no sense in giving mortals that same weakness.

Remember, though, that Armor:2 against things like claws is going to be heavy chainmail or plate--and while I think you can justify carrying around Weapon:3 in a dufflebag or something, wearing heavy armor like that is a little more difficult (and uncomfortable). Either you're wearing this bulky armor under your clothes all day, or you've got it in the dufflebag, in which case you'd need time to put it on if something came up.

If anything, I'd say that a mortal at this level--remember, only just learning about the supernatural, so unlikely to have invested in medieval battle armor--might have Armor:1 if they've got a really tough leather jacket.

Third, the mortal would not be well-advised to attack there. A maneuver would be more useful. If the mortal were armoured I'd probably give the same advice to the ghoul.

Indeed he would. In fact, that rather proves my point--without the stunts, the pure mortal has to pull tricks, maneuver, and etc. to have a chance. This example was about roll vs. roll, stat vs. stat, to show the difference the stunts make.

Blocks are not the same as defence rolls. So the example isn't really applicable.

True, but I could argue that a block could get a higher boost than a defense--after all, if you're blocking, that takes up your whole action, and you have to maintain the block round to round if you want to keep it up, so it makes some sense that if you're going to devote a round to it, it could get a better bonus than a stunt to just boost defense, which is a free action.

[Lavecki121]

I agree with the first three and I apologize. I had forgotten about a lot of this. The fourth point however is what the basis is off of. A true even roll. It may be unrealistic, but it should be based off of something. Rolling zero is the same as both rolling four or -2. It stays even. You can't make a prediction on different rolls and if you truly did it would still favor the ghoul because he has higher stats in some spots.

What is the difference exactly? I know there is one but why would someone use a block when one on one?

[Mr. Death]

What is the difference exactly? I know there is one but why would someone use a block when one on one?

Well, a block isn't just defense. You could block them from using a particular technique (e.g., using one of their own stunts or powers), or from using a particular weapon, or from closing the distance to you, etc.

[Lavecki121]

Well, a block isn't just defense. You could block them from using a particular technique (e.g., using one of their own stunts or powers), or from using a particular weapon, or from closing the distance to you, etc.

Seems strange to use it one on one when you have to sustain it every round

[Tedronai]

It's not a terribly effective strategy in 'white-room' 1v1 combat.  In the presence of complicating factors such as those that come up in more realistic examples of play, it is ocassionally useful, even in 1v1.

[Sanctaphrax]

I've been acknowledging it. I've referred to it as too light of a restriction or not enough of a restriction since this whole topic started.

Really.

Maybe this was all a big waste of time, then.

Useful, yes, but with these stunts, unnecessary.

Still necessary, actually. So long as you're up against something stronger than you. The stunts make the set of things stronger than you smaller, but that's inevitable when you're spending Refresh on becoming stronger.

I read it thoroughly the first time. It says:

...

Whereas the stunt just says when wielding this weapon. Meaning that while Michael can't use that bonus for anything but God Approved smiting, a sword-wielder with the stunt can and will use it against anything and everything.

Michael can't use the sword for anything other than god-approved smiting, period. He gets the bonus to 100% of the situations that he can use the sword in. And the limitations on how he can use the sword are not part of True Aim. As is the need to use the sword at all.

So True Aim is not restricted.

(True Aim also adds to both attack and defence, unlike the stunts we're discussing here. It may even add to knowledge, depending on how you read it.)

Hell, in the books, Harry mentions that Michael seems less invincible when he's out with Harry as opposed to fighting his own fights--so you could interpret that to mean that Michael isn't getting that +1 even when he's fighting demons, vampires, and monsters.

You're kidding, right?

Remember, though, that Armor:2 against things like claws is going to be heavy chainmail or plate--and while I think you can justify carrying around Weapon:3 in a dufflebag or something, wearing heavy armor like that is a little more difficult (and uncomfortable). Either you're wearing this bulky armor under your clothes all day, or you've got it in the dufflebag, in which case you'd need time to put it on if something came up.

If anything, I'd say that a mortal at this level--remember, only just learning about the supernatural, so unlikely to have invested in medieval battle armor--might have Armor:1 if they've got a really tough leather jacket.

There's no reason a low-level character can't be well-equipped. Power doesn't affect the kind of mundane equipment you can use.

And if you own medieval battle weaponry that you actually know how to use, you are likely to own medieval battle armour.

Anyway, I'd expect having armour to be much easier than having a weapon. Wearing chainmail makes people think you're weird, but it doesn't attract the kind of negative attention that carrying a broadsword does.

True, but I could argue that a block could get a higher boost than a defense--after all, if you're blocking, that takes up your whole action, and you have to maintain the block round to round if you want to keep it up, so it makes some sense that if you're going to devote a round to it, it could get a better bonus than a stunt to just boost defense, which is a free action.

Yes, that stunt is weak. No matter how strong you think defence stunts should be, it's weak. Using blocks in a duel is rarely a good idea.

Mundane blocks are mostly useful in team fights.

You can't make a prediction on different rolls and if you truly did it would still favor the ghoul because he has higher stats in some spots.

If you're willing to do the necessary work, you can make a probabilistic breakdown that takes into account all possible rolls. I'm pretty sure that the mortal would win a large majority of the time in such a breakdown. A big stack of FP and +1 effective weapon rating is better than +1 defence, better initiative, and the ability to wipe away two milds with supplemental actions.

[voidronin]

There's no reason a low-level character can't be well-equipped. Power doesn't affect the kind of mundane equipment you can use.

And if you own medieval battle weaponry that you actually know how to use, you are likely to own medieval battle armour.

Anyway, I'd expect having armour to be much easier than having a weapon. Wearing chainmail makes people think you're weird, but it doesn't attract the kind of negative attention that carrying a broadsword does.

The issue with armor is that it stands out more than a weapon (depending on location) and in YS p.202 under armor it states that armor lags behind weaponry as far a availability. I live in Tokyo and it is far more likely/ accepted (Here) to see people carrying wrapped weapons (generally in a cloth case) than wearing/ carrying armor of any kind, though a duffel bag filled with armor is way more common than someone actually wearing it on the subway. This also goes for modern armor/ weapons, not to mention that armor is also generally more expensive by at least one category than most equivalent tier weapons.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Just two cents:

I was coming up with a Fate Core superhero game for a new group, creating example characters from DC and Marvel to help them understand how capes are put together.  When coming up with stunts (particularly for characters like Green Arrow and Hawkeye) that boosted attacks, I basically started using these guidelines:

To gain a bonus on attack rolls, characters must meet either ONE difficult circumstance or TWO relatively common circumstances simultaneously.

[Mr. Death]

Really.

Maybe this was all a big waste of time, then.

Yes, really. In previous threads of this discussion I also referred to it as too weak of a restriction.

Michael can't use the sword for anything other than god-approved smiting, period. He gets the bonus to 100% of the situations that he can use the sword in. And the limitations on how he can use the sword are not part of True Aim. As is the need to use the sword at all.

So True Aim is not restricted.

(True Aim also adds to both attack and defence, unlike the stunts we're discussing here. It may even add to knowledge, depending on how you read it.)

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I should've said "God endorsed" smiting. Things like him following Harry to smite ghosts and that one demon are things God might approve of, but not necessarily things God is giving his full and conscious support to Michael behind.

I don't think it adds to both attack and defense--I'll have to check, but in the Notes section on Michael and Shiro, I believe it notes their defense as being equal to their Weapons skill without any additional bonuses.

You're kidding, right?

No, I'm simply remembering things that Harry says outright in the books. He says that he thinks that Michael enjoys less benefit from up above when he's out with him as opposed to when he's doing his Wander The Earth knight errant schtick. He says directly that while Michael comes back nearly unscathed on those missions, he more frequently gets injured when he's out with Harry--i.e., that there are things that Michael fights where he can use the sword but does not get the full benefit of the sword.

True Aim has the restriction directly in its description. Saying it's unrestricted means ignoring that.

There's no reason a low-level character can't be well-equipped. Power doesn't affect the kind of mundane equipment you can use.

No, but it puts an upper limit to, for example, the Resources or Craftsmanship rating. And if this character is saving his highest stats for in-combat stuff (Athletics, Weapons, Alertness, Endurance) then it's going to be less likely that he has the resources or crafting ability to make Armor:2.

And if you own medieval battle weaponry that you actually know how to use, you are likely to own medieval battle armour.

Own, yes. Be constantly wearing? No.

Anyway, I'd expect having armour to be much easier than having a weapon. Wearing chainmail makes people think you're weird, but it doesn't attract the kind of negative attention that carrying a broadsword does.

Only if you're carrying the broadsword out and open as a naked blade. As has been pointed out, a broadsword or an axe can be stuffed in a bag, out of sight, and brought to bare in combat relatively quickly. Armor, however, is not. There really aren't very many occupations where you can wear chainmail or plate--hell, even cops only put on the heavy duty vests when they are reasonably certain they're going to get shot at with heavy weaponry.

Look at Michael. When does he have his sword either on him, or within easy reach? Pretty much all the time. When is he wearing his armor? Only when he's either walking into a party full of vampires, or when he's walking into a fight with Denarians.

Armor is heavy, bulky, hot and uncomfortable. Even the stuff that would have trouble defending against a butter knife is--my brother does renaissance faires, and the one time he tried wearing an aluminum chainmail outfit, he gave up on it after half a day because it was too damn hot and uncomfortable just walking around in it. And he's someone who makes a hobby out of putting on full plate and fighting in the stuff, so it's not like he's out of shape.

It is much less likely that someone is going to be normally wearing armor capable of even slowing down supernaturally powerful and sharp claws than that they're going to be carrying an equivalent weapon. If the character has anything resembling a normal life--a mundane job he has to go to, hobbies that don't involve smiting evil, or family events to go to--they're really not going to be wearing heavy armor all of the time.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think it adds to both attack and defense--I'll have to check, but in the Notes section on Michael and Shiro, I believe it notes their defense as being equal to their Weapons skill without any additional bonuses.

You are wrong about Shiro and right about Michael. In all likelihood, though, Michael's description is probably just not counting the bonus that Michael will likely receive from True Aim. It ignores it on attack, too, after all. And it doesn't mention the likely bonus to his Athletics defence from Righteousness.

That aside, the way the Power is written is fairly clear. The writeup should take precedence over the examples if there is a contradiction.

Perhaps I wasn't clear. I should've said "God endorsed" smiting. Things like him following Harry to smite ghosts and that one demon are things God might approve of, but not necessarily things God is giving his full and conscious support to Michael behind.

...

No, I'm simply remembering things that Harry says outright in the books. He says that he thinks that Michael enjoys less benefit from up above when he's out with him as opposed to when he's doing his Wander The Earth knight errant schtick. He says directly that while Michael comes back nearly unscathed on those missions, he more frequently gets injured when he's out with Harry--i.e., that there are things that Michael fights where he can use the sword but does not get the full benefit of the sword.

Dude, the way the Power is written is clear. Very clear. The sword cannot be used except in keeping with its purpose, and when used in keeping with its purpose it gives +1 Weapons.

If you want to adjust Michael's power to fit (your interpretation of) his narrative role, use his Aspects. That's what they're for.

True Aim has the restriction directly in its description. Saying it's unrestricted means ignoring that.

The "restriction" does not actually restrict anything.

It does not limit the Power's applicability in any way, shape, or form. Because in any case where it would, the Power is already unusable.

So ignoring it is appropriate.

No, but it puts an upper limit to, for example, the Resources or Craftsmanship rating. And if this character is saving his highest stats for in-combat stuff (Athletics, Weapons, Alertness, Endurance) then it's going to be less likely that he has the resources or crafting ability to make Armor:2.

You don't need high Resources or Craftsmanship to own armour. Characters are assumed to have the tools for their job. And even if you start without armour for whatever reason, once you get some you can keep it until something happens to it.

The issue with armor is that it stands out more than a weapon (depending on location) and in YS p.202 under armor it states that armor lags behind weaponry as far a availability. I live in Tokyo and it is far more likely/ accepted (Here) to see people carrying wrapped weapons (generally in a cloth case) than wearing/ carrying armor of any kind, though a duffel bag filled with armor is way more common than someone actually wearing it on the subway. This also goes for modern armor/ weapons, not to mention that armor is also generally more expensive by at least one category than most equivalent tier weapons.

Yeah, available weapons are better than available armour. Rating 3 vs rating 2, generally speaking.

But I know that I, personally, would have a much easier time wearing chainmail than carrying a battle axe. One would be uncomfortable and likely to get me weird looks, the other would get me arrested.

Do people seriously carry swords in public in Tokyo?

[Sanctaphrax]

Minor correction: it's arguable whether Michael's description ignores True Aim on attack. But that's my reading.

[voidronin]

The only time I have heard/ seen someone actually wearing weapons were at official ceremonies/ functions. Weapon laws are fairly strict here to include import, export and ownership of swords. If you have the correct license and participate at the correct level of martial arts a person can carry/ own a real martial weapon. The police are allowed to stop you an inspect your credentials and as such they must be kept with the weapon at all times. The practice of carrying training weapon in similar cases is also very common. It is fairly common to see someone on the subway either going to or coming back from weapons training with a large cloth case on their back or over their shoulder. In game terms, with the right attitude (Presence) or a magical glamor the likelihood of someone here carrying a large "live" martial weapon is pretty good.

It is not much different than carrying guns in the states (depending on the state). People carrying a pistol or having rifle in the window of their trucks might get a few looks but if its legal in their state the looks are less "OMG they have a gun" and more "i dont like that they have a gun." On the other hand if people see someone walking downtown in full plate the person will stand out, might not be allowed into certain storefronts, questioned by children and possibly the police. If the person is wearing full modern swat gear the reactions are more likely to be far worse.