A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?

[Poit]

EDIT: Here is how my full write up of those stunts would look:

"See it Comming" You are good at predicting what people are about to do. You may defend against physical attacks with alertness as long as you can see them

"Honeyed Words" Most of your conversations lead people to believe you are honest. You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts when incorporating lies into your conversation.

"Acrobat" You are skilled at moving your body in ways people dont expect. You may use performance to defend against physical attacks as long as you narate it colorfully.

I believe the Italicized portions are your issue with the power since it doesnt have that, but the nature of the power is to litterally see the future so they dont really need a caveat such as the ones I have stated.

Honeyed Words might be workable. The other two are too strong.

I agree with Sanctaphrax, though I don't really like the wording of it.

For See it Coming, the limitation isn't really a limitation. For attacks you're unaware of, isn't your defense reduced to mediocre? Saying "you can use this skill to defend against attacks except when you can't defend against attacks" is identical to saying "you can use this skill to defend against attacks". More appropriate might be something like "you can use this skill to defend against attacks from enemies you have placed 'Studied' (or a similar aspect) on".

For Honeyed Words, the phrase "when incorporating lies into your conversation" is too nebulous, I think. If the restriction was instead something like "when you have already successfully lied in the current conflict" or "when you have not unsuccessfully lied in the current conflict", that would be better-defined, and either of those fits with the description of the stunt.

Your restriction for "Acrobat" is not a restriction reliant on the character, but rather the player's ability to come up with stunts. I think it'd be more appropriate for the restriction to instead be "as long as you have sufficient room for your acrobatic maneuvers", or something similar.

[Lavecki121]

That makes sense; my point was however that power rules there doesn't need to be a restriction unless it has to be there. I think alertness makes the most sense(it's hard to avoid an attack if you don't know it's happening) so this stunt is to show the ability to see the attack earlier, rather than reading quicker. I think I could even justify defending against physical attacks with scholarship and am actually going to try and make a stunt moving dodge into every available skill in my next post

EDIT: Mostly to see if I can; not to dispute anyone

[toturi]

The balance of the game as a whole begins to break down as refresh enters the teens, but yes, Pure Mortals are one point where it breaks down particularly severely.

May I ask how? Please bear in mind I usually only allow canon/RAW Powers and Stunts, only rarely allowing re-skinned Powers and Stunts and I have yet to encounter this breakdown for optimised characters (Pure Mortal or not).

My rough outline for optimal build for the Pure Mortal: take minimal Stunts (which have no canon/RAW Power equivalent, so that a Supernat would have to take those same Stunts to have access to those particular abilities without the Pure Mortal bonus to show for it) and have mostly Positive Aspects that overlap. In gameplay, assuming that there are appropriate Aspects, play up those areas where your Stunts give you the edge, act as a Declaration machine, and/or FP alpha strike (usually in those areas where your Stunts already give you an edge). Oh and keep swapping an Aspect/Stunt every Milestone to keep any NPC who has encountered the character guessing.

[Sanctaphrax]

Being a supernatural lets you spend each and every Refresh point on Powers if you want. How useful that choice is depends on how many Refresh points it applies to.

So the benefit of taking Powers goes up and up, while the mortal bonus stays the same at +2 Refresh.

It might be advisable to make the mortal bonus a fraction of total Refresh instead of a flat number.

(That would also prevent mortal supremacy in really low Refresh games. But since almost nobody plays below Feet In The Water, I doubt you care.)

That makes sense; my point was however that power rules there doesn't need to be a restriction unless it has to be there. I think alertness makes the most sense(it's hard to avoid an attack if you don't know it's happening) so this stunt is to show the ability to see the attack earlier, rather than reading quicker. I think I could even justify defending against physical attacks with scholarship and am actually going to try and make a stunt moving dodge into every available skill in my next post

EDIT: Mostly to see if I can; not to dispute anyone

There are quite a few such stunts on the list already, you know.

I went through and gave them all restrictions a while back, because the physical defence trapping is really powerful. If you can add 2 to all of your defence rolls for 1 Refresh, that's probably the most efficient combat bonus you'll ever find.

The thing about all of the powers in the game is that they have to make sense. Players are going to build based on character concept, and the vast, vast majority of them simply do not support A Few Seconds Ahead in a logical way.

Posts like this confuse me. You demonstrate the problem, then claim you've demonstrated the exact opposite.

The concept doesn't support AFSA, so the guy playing it gets gimped. That sucks.

Yes, while I do explore concepts that do not appear to optimal at first, once I have determined the concept to be sub-optimal, I store it away as another concept that just doesn't make Tier 1.

Ah, okay.

What I've been trying to say is that A Few Seconds Ahead forces me to store away a bunch of concepts in that "not good enough" category.

I'll still make those characters from that category sometimes, but I resent that I have to.

I mean, half the reason I play DFRPG is its comparatively strong mechanical balance. This goes against that.

In DFRPG, a Wizard and a mortal can both be similarly effective. Neither is actually more powerful than the other, mechanically.* So I can play either without worrying. I really like that.

I suppose you don't mind discarding a concept as much I do. You can just say "the idea is weak so I won't play it" where I would say "the idea is weak and that is a failure on the game's part".

*Barring Orbius, certain thaumaturgy issues, and unusual Refresh levels. The GM can generally fix the first two and the third doesn't matter in most games.

[Lavecki121]

The thing is I don't see how it is all that game breaking to defend with your apex skill. If this same skill is being used to attack than maybe but there are stunts (at the very least homebrew) that let you attack with athletics, the only downside being you can't benefit from speed powers. I don't see this as much different from defending with weapons, and I can't figure out why you would limit the skill for physical defense when it is a normally, non combat skill

[Llayne]

Why wouldn't a skill moving the attack trapping of Fists to Athletics benefit from Inhuman Speed? I thought it read something like: "+1 to athletics (including the dodge trapping). +2 when spritining." I don't have the books in front of me.

I personally dislike the fact that Speed's +1 to dodge won't apply to my character if I have Footwork or a similiar stunt. If I move faster I should be harder to hit regardless of what skill I'm using, unless the narrative of my dodging is pretty damn weird. IDK, maybe it's just the tables I've been playing on.

[Taran]

I've always figured that if a power or stunt applies to a specific trapping, if you move said trapping to another skill, the power or stunt should still be applicable.

[Lavecki121]

I've always figured that if a power or stunt applies to a specific trapping, if you move said trapping to another skill, the power or stunt should still be applicable.

This was my understanding as well

[Mr. Death]

Posts like this confuse me. You demonstrate the problem, then claim you've demonstrated the exact opposite.

The concept doesn't support AFSA, so the guy playing it gets gimped. That sucks.

How is he gimped? As I said, there are numerous ways to meet or exceed the benefits of AFSA for the same or lesser refresh costs (the simplest and most cost effective being to just have a decent dodging stat, which characters are inclined to have anyway).

Nearly everyone I've ever played with, if they're told that their character concept doesn't support a power they want, will just shrug, go, "Okay, what can I get?" and move on.

The problem is that you completely neglect character concept as a balancing factor. You seem to be arguing under the premise that the only thing worth using as criteria to decide a character type is, "What is the most effective and efficient thing to do?" A lot of people don't.

In DFRPG, a Wizard and a mortal can both be similarly effective. Neither is actually more powerful than the other, mechanically.* So I can play either without worrying. I really like that.

I suppose you don't mind discarding a concept as much I do. You can just say "the idea is weak so I won't play it" where I would say "the idea is weak and that is a failure on the game's part".

What you seem to totally discount is all the players who aren't basing every single one of their character design decisions on, "Will this be the most optimal course of action?"

Most everyone I've played with will just play a character concept. That's it. Not, "the idea is weak in stats," but "this is an interesting character type, so I'll give it a shot."

Do you want to play a character concept that doesn't have awesome defense and attack stats, but high Lore? Go ahead! Use that high Lore and your other skills to adapt to situations and avoid straight slugging it out with monsters. A character isn't "gimped" or somehow broken just because he can't defend on par with Shiro or deflect witty repartee so deftly that Lara can't even get him to glance at her cleavage. It just means the character has a different focus, and DFRPG is a game where a character who hits the books isn't worse than a character who hits the monsters.

The game isn't a competition or a tournament. You're not "cheated" somehow if you didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game. The important thing, the way I see it, is building a character that good stories could be built around. Whether or not the character is maximally efficient and spending all his skill points and refresh in the Top Tier Way should be, at best, a secondary concern.

[cold_breaker]

How is he gimped? As I said, there are numerous ways to meet or exceed the benefits of AFSA for the same or lesser refresh costs (the simplest and most cost effective being to just have a decent dodging stat, which characters are inclined to have anyway).

Nearly everyone I've ever played with, if they're told that their character concept doesn't support a power they want, will just shrug, go, "Okay, what can I get?" and move on.

The problem is that you completely neglect character concept as a balancing factor. You seem to be arguing under the premise that the only thing worth using as criteria to decide a character type is, "What is the most effective and efficient thing to do?" A lot of people don't.
What you seem to totally discount is all the players who aren't basing every single one of their character design decisions on, "Will this be the most optimal course of action?"

Most everyone I've played with will just play a character concept. That's it. Not, "the idea is weak in stats," but "this is an interesting character type, so I'll give it a shot."

Do you want to play a character concept that doesn't have awesome defense and attack stats, but high Lore? Go ahead! Use that high Lore and your other skills to adapt to situations and avoid straight slugging it out with monsters. A character isn't "gimped" or somehow broken just because he can't defend on par with Shiro or deflect witty repartee so deftly that Lara can't even get him to glance at her cleavage. It just means the character has a different focus, and DFRPG is a game where a character who hits the books isn't worse than a character who hits the monsters.

The game isn't a competition or a tournament. You're not "cheated" somehow if you didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game. The important thing, the way I see it, is building a character that good stories could be built around. Whether or not the character is maximally efficient and spending all his skill points and refresh in the Top Tier Way should be, at best, a secondary concern.

QFT. As a note: optimized regardless of concept is something brought over from rules heavy systems like D&D - because it's fun in those systems. If someone tries to play like that here, they will end up bored really fast compared to the interesting personalities that come out of concept driven characters, where a weakness is the fuel that drives your strengths.

[toturi]

I personally dislike the fact that Speed's +1 to dodge won't apply to my character if I have Footwork or a similiar stunt. If I move faster I should be harder to hit regardless of what skill I'm using, unless the narrative of my dodging is pretty damn weird. IDK, maybe it's just the tables I've been playing on.

Actually I do agree that moving the trapping from one skill to another does not benefit from some other ability that keys off the original skill.

The game isn't a competition or a tournament. You're not "cheated" somehow if you didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game. The important thing, the way I see it, is building a character that good stories could be built around. Whether or not the character is maximally efficient and spending all his skill points and refresh in the Top Tier Way should be, at best, a secondary concern.

To me, the game is a competition or a tournament. At least the character generation portion is. The competition is all the other concepts in my head. I feel cheated if if I didn't build someone who's got the best possible efficiency. It's a roleplaying game, so therefore I game, most "roleplayers" are so enamoured of the "roleplaying" that they lose sight that it is first and foremost a game and games have winners. The way I see it, the best stories are built around maximally efficient top tier characters. And during character generation, spending all skill points and refresh and shaping Aspects in the Top Tier Way should be, at the minimum, the primary concern. I find optimised builds easily shape up into interesting concepts.

[Mr. Death]

I feel compelled to say that I completely disagree with pretty much everything you're saying in that last paragraph as emphatically as I can without actually setting fire to something and putting on warpaint. But we went over all of that in a previous thread.

[Sanctaphrax]

The thing is I don't see how it is all that game breaking to defend with your apex skill. If this same skill is being used to attack than maybe but there are stunts (at the very least homebrew) that let you attack with athletics, the only downside being you can't benefit from speed powers. I don't see this as much different from defending with weapons, and I can't figure out why you would limit the skill for physical defense when it is a normally, non combat skill

Defending with your apex skill isn't inherently game-breaking.

It's just very useful, and you'd be a fool not to take it if your normal physical defences are crummy.

And it's not good for the game to have things that you'd be a fool not to take. Theoretically all stunts are equally powerful and there are no wrong choices; this changes that.

Why wouldn't a skill moving the attack trapping of Fists to Athletics benefit from Inhuman Speed?

It would, normally.

But the stunt in question (which applies to thrown weapons IIRC) specifically prohibits the use of Speed bonuses. Wouldn't be fair otherwise.

Actually that stunt might be a bit too good anyway, depending on how you interpret the thrown weapon rules.

QFT. As a note: optimized regardless of concept is something brought over from rules heavy systems like D&D - because it's fun in those systems. If someone tries to play like that here, they will end up bored really fast compared to the interesting personalities that come out of concept driven characters, where a weakness is the fuel that drives your strengths.

Wait, what?

First time I read this I thought you were saying something incredibly silly. Re-read and now I'm not sure what you mean.

Could you re-phrase?

...You seem to be arguing under the premise that the only thing worth using as criteria to decide a character type is, "What is the most effective and efficient thing to do?"...

No, no, no, no, no.

No.

No.

We've had this rough conversation plenty of times before. I've explained over and over that that's not what I'm saying.

I've done so in this very thread.

So can you please do me a favour?

Re-read my posts. Try to think of other ways to interpret my position. Try to rephrase my position in one of your own posts.

And then maybe I can get my point across.

I mean...it would be one thing if you disagreed with me. But I don't know if you actually do. I know you disagree with the person you imagine me to be, but...that guy sounds like a lunatic.

And while we're at it, maybe you can help me understand your argument. So far as I can tell you have two main lines of argument here.

The first is that AFSA isn't too strong because people who want it probably have enchanted defence items.

The second is that it doesn't matter if it's too strong because real roleplayers don't care.

Is that a fair summary?

PS: I am not toturi and I don't really share his approach, but I have found that optimized characters tend to have more interesting concepts than un-optimized ones. Probably because optimization requires you to a) understand the game and b) care about your character.

[Lavecki121]

Defending with your apex skill isn't inherently game-breaking.

It's just very useful, and you'd be a fool not to take it if your normal physical defences are crummy.

And it's not good for the game to have things that you'd be a fool not to take. Theoretically all stunts are equally powerful and there are no wrong choices; this changes that.

Then why do they exist? AFSA aside are the proposed stunts (at least the reworked one's by poit) valid? I think the balance comes from the trade between fate points and skill points. I may be a fool to not take the stunt, but maybe I have more important things to worry about than my physical defense.

[GryMor]

AFSA is a very good hole patcher power, it is a very BAD optimization power. For equivelent additional refresh investment, many optimized character designs can achieve better results through other mechanisms. Specifically:
Casters can get Lore +1 physical and social defenses with 1 refresh in refinement (+1 Crafting Power, a physical defense item and a social defense item).
Mortals can get +1 or +2 on their apex combat skill for defense and patch up the other one to apex level.
Other supernaturals can invest in half of Inhuman Speed... and ok, no really good social defense powers, but you could go for an attack and just crush the mortals. Either way, you can break your skill cap.
The key points about AFSA are that it doesn't break cap and it doesn't stack with much of anything else. Optimized characters are better off investing elsewhere, non optimized characters with a good lore and no apex physical nor social defenses who have powers anyways, could get AFSA to patch up their defenses, and that is really not a problem, they are going to need it.

As for how it works for social defenses, it robs the element of surprise, you have a moment to think about things and see reactions ahead of time. Watch NEXT sometime to see this power dialed up to 11.