ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ahunting on July 12, 2010, 10:12:02 AM
-
So on YS pages 213-214 we see a discussion of terms concerning combining skills, and the ramifications.
I'm wanting to check on what all that means. For somethings this seems pretty clear.
Under Strength abilities one of the trappings is something similar to the Superior Strength trapping.
In effect which will basically add +1 to any attack you can make strength an important factor in.
(Which seems like common sense for the purposes of Weapon and Fist attacks.)
Now from that logic, it seems like for the purposes of game balance you should be able to use speed
to add to Guns. But I don't really have a sound rules quote to stand on there.
I have considered the argument of using strength with guns, from the position you could resist recoil better,
and their for be more accurate, but I'm not sure that would fly. (All of that is kinda off topic but it is relevant in some ways.)
From their we move away from "Modify" and into complementary. Complementary appears in the Righteousness supernatural power. It appears often in the skill trappings, and its defined on page 214. However my question on this is what does "could only add to the primary skill" actually mean in practice? 213 seems to suggest that if the skill is higher it just adds +1. It was suggested as an alternative interpretation that it straight add the skill to the other skill, another interpretation i have seen is that it adds the deference between the two skills as a bonus.
What do you all think? Is the whole discussion crazy?
-
As a rule, having Might higher than your Fists or Weapons DOES NOT give +1 on most attacks, thus neither does Inhuman Strength. It gives the bonus to a very specific category of actions in very specific circumstances. The Complementing skill rules are for doing two things at once or other complicated things, not for justifying getting bonuses to a particular skill all the time, that would most certainly be noted were it the case. As it IS oted in Righteousness (it explicitly adds to EVERYTHING), but very much not in Inhuman Strength.
So, basically, your premise is faulty.
-
So we have two distinct issues I'm mainly interested in.
On the first one, your interpretation of the Superior Strength trapping is that it does not add in anyway to making Weapon of Fist Attack? So in effect your saying being Inhuman, Supernaturally or Mythically strong will in no way make it easier for you to connect a blow? Thus basically making the 3rd Strength trapping in effect useless? Thus also invalidating the Exerting Force trapping of the Might skill? Really?
Next as you agree on Righteousness, it does explicitly add to everything. What value is added?
The more I read it the more sure I am about the discussion on page 213, that it will straight add +1 if conviction is greater then the other skill in question. Do you agree with that point, or can you find another value to apply there?
-
So we have two district issue I'm mainly interested in.
On the first one, your interpretation of the Superior Strength trapping is that it does not add in anyway to making Weapon of Fist Attack? So in effect your saying being Inhuman, Supernaturally or Mythically strong will in no way make it easier for you to connect a blow? Thus basically making the 3rd Strength trapping in effect useless? Thus also invalidating the Exerting Force trapping of the Might skill? Really?
Uh, basically. Yeah. And I'm hardly alone. No other skill has that kind of blanket power to modify, and even all the examples in Exerting Force are the kind of very specific edge cases I'm talking about. The developers have said as much themselves, too. It hardly makes Might useless (or even less useful than other skills), and the Inhuman Strength powers are still some of the most badass in the game, so I fail to see the problem.
Next as you agree on Righteousness, it does explicitly add to everything. What value is added?
The more I read it the more sure I am about the discussion on page 213, that it will straight add +1 if conviction is greater then the other skill in question. Do you agree with that point, or can you find another value to apply there?
No, that's entirely correct. And awesome. Adding +1 to nearly all your skills is a hell of a cool ability.
-
Uh, basically. Yeah. And I'm hardly alone. No other skill has that kind of blanket power to modify, and even all the examples in Exerting Force are the kind of very specific edge cases I'm talking about. The developers have said as much themselves, too. It hardly makes Might useless (or even less useful than other skills), and the Inhuman Strength powers are still some of the most badass in the game, so I fail to see the problem.
Can you give me a source on where the developers have said such things? If thats the case I can't agree on strength being among the most Badass powers in the game, without giving a static bonus to connecting they just adding damage. If thats the case then most super strong critters should be built primarily to grapple. The other method leads to more interesting varied builds. Your way puts Strength's effectiveness behind, Speed, Toughness, Stunts, and Items of power. Hitting is alway better then hitting hard.
No, that's entirely correct. And awesome. Adding +1 to nearly all your skills is a hell of a cool ability.
Ok so spend a fate point and get a +1 to any skill with a rating below your conviction for one Exchange. Good to know.
-
Can you give me a source on where the developers have said such things? If thats the case I can't agree on strength being among the most Badass powers in the game, without giving a static bonus to connecting they just adding damage. If thats the case then most super strong critters should be built primarily to grapple. The other method leads to more interesting varied builds. Your way puts Strength's effectiveness behind, Speed, Toughness, Stunts, and Items of power. Hitting is alway better then hitting hard.
It really doesn't. Sure, damage isn't as good as attacking, but you get +2 damage, while someone with Speed only gets +1 to dodge, and someone with Toughness only gets a single point of Armor.
And this was months ago, man. I'll try and dig it up, though.
Ok so spend a fate point and get a +1 to any skill with a rating below your conviction for one Exchange. Good to know.
Uh, no. You get +1 to everything you do with skills below your Conviction until your chosen purpose is complete. Even if that takes years. Re-read the power and what it does.
-
It really doesn't. Sure, damage isn't as good as attacking, but you get +2 damage, while someone with Speed only gets +1 to dodge, and someone with Toughness only gets a single point of Armor.
2 to 1 damage to hit effect isn't close to even. 1 armor and +2 consequences out races that considerably, +1 to dodge vastly out distances it given its potential to wipe out the total effect, never mind the mobility advantage in a system that lacks any kind of real zone control. Depending on the value of refresh within a given power level 4 to 1 is about right at the low end, and 3 to 1 at the higher end. The nature of the system leads to Average being so constant, anything that shifts that value on the table is far more important then damage potential, if additional shift didn't add i would give it to ya. The nature of Offense winning ties helps a little but not that much. Given the average number of combats (Low), length of combat (Not Long), Its almost certainly better to hold 2 fate points then try for a static +2 to damage. Unless of course you plan on grappling as your favorite attack method, then its not bad.
And this was months ago, man. I'll try and dig it up, though.
I appreciate it. Cause if that the case it makes it much easier to assign relative values.
Uh, no. You get +1 to everything you do with skills below your Conviction until your chosen purpose is complete. Even if that takes years. Re-read the power and what it does.
Eh, its better then i thought, I'll give it that. Still not impressed, desperate hour does help some.
-
+2 Consequences? It's +2 Stress Boxes, which is probably coler, actually, but in my experience no match for Inhuman Strength long-term. And bear in mind that Inhuman Strength has numerous out-of-combat uses (lifting being the most obvious) as well as it's effectiveness with Grapples. Probably more than Inhuman Speed (which is indeed really cool, but does nothing at all for your offense, and has limited utility out of combat), and certainly more than Inhuman Toughness (no use at all outside combat). Try running a combat or two between two people armed with swords, one with Inhuman Strength, the other with Inhuman Speed and everything else even. You'll see how nasty Inhuman Strength is pretty rapidly.
I'm looking, but I haven't found it yet. I will say, that re-reading p. 214 certainly doesn't give the impression that this sort of thing is intended to usually be a general thing, nor does p. 183 expand it's applicablity for Might, it just means it'll always add, not subtract, not even if you have Mediocre Might.
It's a fairly awesome ability if you already have Conviction as a pinnacle skill and some FP to throw around. Not so much if those two things aren't true.
-
You know what? I just realized there's proof right in the books I'm right on Might not usually adding to attacks.
Look under, say, the Ghoul entry in OW p. 59. They possess Great Athletics and Fists, and both Inhuman Srength and Speed. In the notes section at the bottom, they're listed as having "Great attack, Superb defense". That's true of ever entry with such notes (and there are quite a few). The defense bonus from Inhuman Speed is listed, no such bonus is listed on attack from Inhuman Strength, and were such a thing universal, it would be.
-
Inhuman Speed gives bonuses to: mobility (in and out of combat), active defense, all other uses of athletics, initiative and a relatively minor bonus to strealth.
Inhuman Strength gives bonuses to: damage, lifting, breaking, grapples and mobility (wall? what wall?).
Inhuman Toughness gives bonuses to: armor, physical stress track. However, it is almost always half as cheap as the others, even with a very minor catch.
-
2 to 1 damage to hit effect isn't close to even. 1 armor and +2 consequences out races that considerably, +1 to dodge vastly out distances it given its potential to wipe out the total effect, never mind the mobility advantage in a system that lacks any kind of real zone control. Depending on the value of refresh within a given power level 4 to 1 is about right at the low end, and 3 to 1 at the higher end. The nature of the system leads to Average being so constant, anything that shifts that value on the table is far more important then damage potential, if additional shift didn't add i would give it to ya. The nature of Offense winning ties helps a little but not that much. Given the average number of combats (Low), length of combat (Not Long), Its almost certainly better to hold 2 fate points then try for a static +2 to damage. Unless of course you plan on grappling as your favorite attack method, then its not bad.
1. Strength powers stack for damage. Weapon:2 ~= 2 fewer attacks needed to drop a target. The reason it is fewer attacks is because you effectively ignore lower boxes (unless the target takes a consequence, in which case you tag that consequence for a free +2 and possibly ignore their lower boxes--like the one they took a consequence to avoid).
1b. Grab a sledge hammer and you are looking at Weapon:5 (Weapon:3 for a two-handed weapon and +2 for inhuman strength), you don't even need effect to force a consequence or take out on a mortal.
2. Those things with strength can throw cars at you.
3. +1 Athletics for dodging isn't all that hot. Especially since mortals can take a stunt to use their attack skill for the physical defense trapping. Inhuman Speed doesn't transfer its +1 Athletics to another skill if you move the trapping.
3b. My attitude to Speed is that I only saw it on an NPC. Since NPCs have less (or no) fate points, +1 doesn't help that much when the players can just try to robo-cop the guy.
4. Toughness doesn't give consequences (Recovery lets you use a supplemental action to get back a mild though), but it does give more stress boxes. But stress boxes tend to act more as "It takes +1 attack to get me per extra box I have." So going from 4 to 6 boxes is about 50% better. But toughness can be ignored by the catch.
5. Armor, while great, doesn't stack. So if you have Toughness armor and Kevlar, only one applies.
6. I mentioned above, but it bears repeating: Strength powers stack with your weapons/claws.
-
1. Strength powers stack for damage. Weapon:2 ~= 2 fewer attacks needed to drop a target. The reason it is fewer attacks is because you effectively ignore lower boxes (unless the target takes a consequence, in which case you tag that consequence for a free +2 and possibly ignore their lower boxes--like the one they took a consequence to avoid).
Agreed. The drop out theory is good, generally very nice for stomping out unimportant baddies. But when you do that out, and you release you will only hit 1/4 as often you need really high effect. I'm just saying in the cost benefit, your probably better off having two points of fate, then static +2.
1b. Grab a sledge hammer and you are looking at Weapon:5 (Weapon:3 for a two-handed weapon and +2 for inhuman strength), you don't even need effect to force a consequence or take out on a mortal.
Yeah but it doesn't matter if you swing a weapon 10 if ya can't hit'em.
2. Those things with strength can throw cars at you.
Agreed. And a Car is very hard to dodge or parry. Thus why i think it should be bonus to hit to be really strong. I mean just think, with inhuman strength you could easily swing a desk or some other large object. There really isn't a way to parry such a thing, but if you take what has been said as rules as written then it has no effect.
3. +1 Athletics for dodging isn't all that hot. Especially since mortals can take a stunt to use their attack skill for the physical defense trapping. Inhuman Speed doesn't transfer its +1 Athletics to another skill if you move the trapping.
That becomes a question of Maximum possible bonus. If you can push static defense to 2 above its basically all over but the shouting, unless something is carrying a whole lot of fate, or has friends. Creative spell casting can overcome. (Aspect creation spell, Super high block all's). If your taking Speed powers, and decided to defend with your fist then you weren't really paying attention. If your saying you decide to take the stunt that changes the defense dodge trapping to fists and that power doesn't carry over that just sucks. Doesn't change my point ether way.
3b. My attitude to Speed is that I only saw it on an NPC. Since NPCs have less (or no) fate points, +1 doesn't help that much when the players can just try to robo-cop the guy.
NPCs are always going to be as challenging as your DM has determined they are. In this system your likelihood of getting killed is really a measure of your devotion to your goal and thats really cool honestly. Concession is a wonderful system. So its not the end of the world if your GM makes something to strong. But believe me something thats got Speed bonus vs. Something that is at the logical Cap for attack is at a huge advantage. (Its not as noticeable at inhuman, but Supernatural and Mythic. As its basically clear that Max is 5 (6 with a stunt), the critter that needs a 7 to hit, or heaven forbid an 8 better be ready to make some aspect and spend fate, cause the bell curve does not love you. (Magic doesn't suffer this as much. Sense you can just be like I need 10 discipline roll anyways, but do you really want magic to be that off the hook better then a fellow PC who has spent refresh into being unspeakably strong?)
4 Toughness doesn't give consequences (Recovery lets you use a supplemental action to get back a mild though), but it does give more stress boxes. But stress boxes tend to act more as "It takes +1 attack to get me per extra box I have." So going from 4 to 6 boxes is about 50% better. But toughness can be ignored by the catch.
Stress is really good no way around it. 2 extra boxes of stress at the top end, way better then +2 damage given that those two boxes are worth 5 and 6 stress, if you is at least endurance 3. It pure physical at least.
5. Armor, while great, doesn't stack. So if you have Toughness armor and Kevlar, only one applies.
So the only armor that stacks is the stunt natural armor vs fists? But yes Armor is clearly way better the +2 damage. The enchanting system stands as proof of that.
6. I mentioned above, but it bears repeating: Strength powers stack with your weapons/claws.
Yup. Good times, I hope your building stealth to take advantage of that refresh choice.
-
Agreed. The drop out theory is good, generally very nice for stomping out unimportant baddies. But when you do that out, and you release you will only hit 1/4 as often you need really high effect. I'm just saying in the cost benefit, your probably better off having two points of fate, then static +2.
Not 90% of the time you aren't. If you're fighting something with Defense 2 or more greater than your Offense, AND you don't have very many Fate Points aside from these two maybe you're right.
That's kinda specific though. When fighting people with Defense roughly equal (which includes one point higher) to or lower than your Offense (ie: a lot of the time), Inhuman Strength is clearly superior to two FP. And even when fighting someone with Defense of 7 to your 5, if you've got three or four Fate Points (or Tags, from either Navel Gazing Aspects or your friends), Inhuman Strength is STILL better (since it's an FP equivalent on every hit you make, and with three FP, you'll likely hit three times).
Yeah but it doesn't matter if you swing a weapon 10 if ya can't hit'em.
True, but there are lots of ways to hit. Even if you only hit half as often as an opponent, (about how it is if their Defense is one higher than your Offense and your Offense is equal to their Defense), you can still win if their attacks do little enough to you comparatively.
Agreed. And a Car is very hard to dodge or parry. Thus why i think it should be bonus to hit to be really strong. I mean just think, with inhuman strength you could easily swing a desk or some other large object. There really isn't a way to parry such a thing, but if you take what has been said as rules as written then it has no effect.
Uh...you can't parry thrown weapons, and you should be able to dodge a thrown car. A car wielded as a melee weapon, well, that's a corner case on parrying, but disallowing it seems reasonable. You can still totally dodge out of the way, though.
That becomes a question of Maximum possible bonus. If you can push static defense to 2 above its basically all over but the shouting, unless something is carrying a whole lot of fate, or has friends. Creative spell casting can overcome. (Aspect creation spell, Super high block all's).
You ignore the possibilities of Fate Points, Navel Gazing Aspects, and Maneuvers targetting other skills. All of which can really shift this kind of fight.
If your taking Speed powers, and decided to defend with your fist then you weren't really paying attention. If your saying you decide to take the stunt that changes the defense dodge trapping to fists and that power doesn't carry over that just sucks. Doesn't change my point ether way.
It is a downside of Inhuman Speed, though.
NPCs are always going to be as challenging as your DM has determined they are. In this system your likelihood of getting killed is really a measure of your devotion to your goal and thats really cool honestly. Concession is a wonderful system. So its not the end of the world if your GM makes something to strong. But believe me something thats got Speed bonus vs. Something that is at the logical Cap for attack is at a huge advantage. (Its not as noticeable at inhuman, but Supernatural and Mythic. As its basically clear that Max is 5 (6 with a stunt), the critter that needs a 7 to hit, or heaven forbid an 8 better be ready to make some aspect and spend fate, cause the bell curve does not love you. (Magic doesn't suffer this as much. Sense you can just be like I need 10 discipline roll anyways, but do you really want magic to be that off the hook better then a fellow PC who has spent refresh into being unspeakably strong?)
Yeah, someone with Mythic Speed is a bitch and a half to hit. And someone with Mythic Strength will kill you in a hit or two, and someone with Mythic Toughness is effectively unkillable. And? Mythic stuff shouldn't be coming up that much, it's explicitly not reccomended for PCs and comes up all of five times (and two of those are Recovery, the least directly scary) in OW (Uber-Ghouls, Outsiders, Sue, Magog, and Tessa). It's supposed to be that badass.
Stress is really good no way around it. 2 extra boxes of stress at the top end, way better then +2 damage given that those two boxes are worth 5 and 6 stress, if you is at least endurance 3. It pure physical at least.
They're very nice, but they tend not to last long vs. Inhuman Strength.
So the only armor that stacks is the stunt natural armor vs fists? But yes Armor is clearly way better the +2 damage. The enchanting system stands as proof of that.
No, it really doesn't. Free high-shift blocks are better than bonus damage, but that's hardly the same thing.
Yup. Good times, I hope your building stealth to take advantage of that refresh choice.
Speaking as someone who currently has two PCs with Inhuman Strength, I disagree vehemently. Have you actually tried this out (or even worked out the actual probabilities), or are you just complaining in a vaccuum here?
EDIT: Edited for phrasing.
-
Completely on board with DMW here. Navel-gazing manuevers and/or passed tags from teammates make hitting extremely easy with a little set up, and with somehing as simple as Inhuman Strength, a Baseball Bat, and a single shift of a effect, you're forcing any mortal and many kinds of supernaturals (like, say, Wizards) to take a consequence, or be Taken out. Then, once they've taken the consequence, as mentioned, TAG IT. Which helps you hit again, and force another instant consequence.
Furthermore, Strength is not solely used as a damage booster, even including indirect methods like Weapon: 5 huge honking cars. --Grappling for high stress hits with a bonus to control said grapple with cause serious problems for just about any opponent.
--Being able to force your way around a booby trapped door by plowing through the wall is an example of a very handy non-combat use.
--Might is quite capable of modifying skills other than direct physical attacks--Intimidation via thugpower, Athletics for climbing attempts like pulling oneself out of a pit, or even something like a Performance test to impress someone with feats of strength.
-
Not 90% of the time you aren't. If you're fighting something with Defense 2 or more greater than your
Offense, AND you don't have very many Fate Points aside from these two maybe you're right.
If you have more then 2 combats in a game maybe. But our games averages 2 combats, and tend to not last beyond 3 rounds in any given combat. Maybe your game is very different from that standard I don't know.
That's kinda specific though. When fighting people with Defense roughly equal (which includes one point higher) to or lower than your Offense (ie: a lot of the time), Inhuman Strength is clearly superior to two FP. And even when fighting someone with Defense of 7 to your 5, if you've got three or four Fate Points (or Tags, from either Navel Gazing Aspects or your friends), Inhuman Strength is STILL better (since it's an FP equivalent on every hit you make, and with three FP, you'll likely hit three times).
That depends on your refresh total also Navel gazing takes time and actions. Which you may not have.
True, but there are lots of ways to hit. Even if you only hit half as often as an opponent, (about how it is if their Defense is one higher than your Offense and your Offense is equal to their Defense), you can still win if their attacks do little enough to you comparatively.
This not really true, ambush, and straight attack are the ways to hit. But on that line of thought all other things being equal if you hit 1/4 as often and not 4 times as hard your going to lose.
Uh...you can't parry thrown weapons, and you should be able to dodge a thrown car. A car wielded as a melee weapon, well, that's a corner case on parrying, but disallowing it seems reasonable. You can still totally dodge out of the way, though.
So your saying exerting force make sense for using large objects? Also the fact that a car is way way bigger then a sword makes no difference? I also disagree that its impossible to parry thrown weapons, ever used a shield?
You ignore the possibilities of Fate Points, Navel Gazing Aspects, and Maneuvers targetting other skills. All of which can really shift this kind of fight.
I don't ignore them. But what you can spend your enemy can spend as well, also it not uncommon to be out of fate, or to be fighting something that doesn't have positive refresh. Often it is better not to give the big bad points to use against you.
Yeah, someone with Mythic Speed is a bitch and a half to hit. And someone with Mythic Strength will kill you in a hit or two, and someone with Mythic Toughness is effectively unkillable. And? Mythic stuff shouldn't be coming up that much, it's explicitly not reccomended for PCs and comes up all of five times (and two of those are Recovery, the least directly scary) in OW (Uber-Ghouls, Outsiders, Sue, Magog, and Tessa). It's supposed to be that badass.
With that interpretation I'd rather fight someone with Mythic strength then the other two options every day and twice on sunday, and I'd still rather fight the other two Mythic guys then a decent mage. Sure Mr.Mythic could deal something like 9 or 10 Weapon But if he cant swing for more then 6 its not tough to insure he will never connect.
No, it really doesn't. Free high-shift blocks are better than bonus damage, but that's hardly the same thing.
They have assigned relative values to those in enchanting system. Its not perfect, but it is an easy way to think about relative values, in how the system values them at least.
Bullshit. Speaking as someone who currently has two PCs with Inhuman Strength, pure bullshit. Have you actually tried this out (or even worked out the actual probabilities), or are you just bitching in a vaccuum here?
I believe foul language is against the user agreement, I am personally not offended, but this is a public board, so please refrain.
Yes I have played with it, I have a white court Vampire, built to serve as a tank for the party, he also uses an item of power sword with true aim, and a max Athletics plus speed to be very hard to hit. I also have a Warden built, weapon primary with the High Concept "Sword of the Wardens", let me tell you right now My Warden would win every single fight between the two and the warden isn't built to max efficiency. We have played under the method i have put forward here for about 2 months, and found it works pretty well. Spellcasting is still MUCH Stronger then Stat power sets. But with +1 hit it at least insures your casters don't want to get anywhere near something that fast, strong and tough. But believe me if casters can sit there and defend against strong critters on an even footing nothing in supernatural world stands a chance.
When my group starts a new system we alway test it by making the min/maxiest things we can think of, see what it looks like, see what beats that, then one more layer to see what beat that. Thus we figure out what actually work, and then settle down to make real characters. We have done this for maybe 8 or 9 systems, it usually works. We are rarely surprised by things as a result. It really helps GMing to know what the worst thing you can put on board, and what level of challenge you can expect.
We determined a 12 shift throwing focused Practitioner is probably about the strongest thing starting, outside superlatives, and lawbreaker builds. Superlative effects are always hard to account for numerically as they invalidate normal modeling and lawbreaker ignoring the pyramid, also is very problematic mathematically, but it is a good refresh value standard. You can get close to that top spellcaster power level under our interpretation of the stat builds but its still not AS good. After doing the math generically the best thing you can do is start combat have someone do a heavy aspect adders spell, have the next guy throw a super block, and then punch out just about anything in this system, if you have a sword of the cross this gets really easy. PI and Mythic Rec can overcome, but the people most likely to discover Catches and create catch satisfiers are those with access to thaum. (See my statement about superlatives earlier).
What is the downside to accepting this concept? Suddenly mortals with might 5 can add +1 if their fists or weapons if those skills are below 5? Is it really causing a huge imbalance to make Super Strong critters better at hitting? The fact is both of those things are false, you can use trapping shifts to make someone who grapples and does function exactly as I'm putting forward, this way just allows for more varied and interesting variety of builds and more realistic thugs. Why are you fighting this? Just out of reflex or does it actually seem like a major balance issue to you?
-
The gaping flaw in your analysis is that you compared strength powers to spellcasting. Spellcasting is by far the most powerful thing in the game, so saying that something doesn't beat it is hardly an argument in my view. Inhuman strength is at least 4 stunts worth of abilities, and it stacks with everything else you have for those type of effects, so it is a mile away from being underpowered.
-
Yeah, thats like saying that "Well, martial arts suck because guns > fists."
-edit-
Personally, Im playing a red court vamp in one game, and so far Inhuman Strength has been massively awesome. I have Fists, Might, and Stealth at Great (+4) and Im not having a problem in combat. Plus, with my might effectively at 7 for lifting purposes, i can throw people as ranged weapons, which is sort of funny.
-
If you have more then 2 combats in a game maybe. But our games averages 2 combats, and tend to not last beyond 3 rounds in any given combat. Maybe your game is very different from that standard I don't know.
My games average only a single combat, but it's usually a big one lasting significantly more than three rounds. I don't think I'm alone in this either. I'm guessing most of your fights are either against mooks or a single bad guy you can team up on, right? And PCs certainly aren't going to be going down very often in fights that short. I really think that your fights are the ones departing from what the system was designed for.
That depends on your refresh total also Navel gazing takes time and actions. Which you may not have.
Sure, but with prep-time you can stack up a few, and when fighting something significantly worse than you, you make the time.
This not really true, ambush, and straight attack are the ways to hit. But on that line of thought all other things being equal if you hit 1/4 as often and not 4 times as hard your going to lose.
Yeah, but -1 to hit does not equal hitting 1/4 as often.
So your saying exerting force make sense for using large objects?
I might in theory allow that, if you're strong enough to use whatever it is as a weapon anyway.
Also the fact that a car is way way bigger then a sword makes no difference?
Mechanically? No, not really.
I also disagree that its impossible to parry thrown weapons, ever used a shield?
Um...I'm talking game rules, not reality. You need a Stunt or an item (like, say, a shield) to do that mechanically speaking.
I don't ignore them. But what you can spend your enemy can spend as well, also it not uncommon to be out of fate, or to be fighting something that doesn't have positive refresh. Often it is better not to give the big bad points to use against you.
Invoking your own Aspects doesn't give the enemy Fate Points, and most combat characters have at least an Aspect or two they can use on attacks. Also, weren't you the one arguing that FP were better?
With that interpretation I'd rather fight someone with Mythic strength then the other two options every day and twice on sunday, and I'd still rather fight the other two Mythic guys then a decent mage. Sure Mr.Mythic could deal something like 9 or 10 Weapon But if he cant swing for more then 6 its not tough to insure he will never connect.
Yes it really is. Barring Evocation of your own or Mythic Speed, it's really hard to not get hit by someone with a base of 6 who fights at all intelligently. Really damn hard.
They have assigned relative values to those in enchanting system. Its not perfect, but it is an easy way to think about relative values, in how the system values them at least.
They're valued equally, then. Armor: 1 is two Shifts, as is Weapon: 2.
I believe foul language is against the user agreement, I am personally not offended, but this is a public board, so please refrain.
Um...okay? I actually think you're incorrect about that (I see swearing here fairly regularly, and it's casually easy to have the board censor that stuff if you want it too), but I really don't care enough to argue the point. I'll even edit 'em out of the previous post.
Yes I have played with it, I have a white court Vampire, built to serve as a tank for the party, he also uses an item of power sword with true aim, and a max Athletics plus speed to be very hard to hit. I also have a Warden built, weapon primary with the High Concept "Sword of the Wardens", let me tell you right now My Warden would win every single fight between the two and the warden isn't built to max efficiency. We have played under the method i have put forward here for about 2 months, and found it works pretty well. Spellcasting is still MUCH Stronger then Stat power sets. But with +1 hit it at least insures your casters don't want to get anywhere near something that fast, strong and tough. But believe me if casters can sit there and defend against strong critters on an even footing nothing in supernatural world stands a chance.
Spellcasting has longevity issues, which you likely haven't run into due to the ridiculous shortness of your combats, but yeah, it's king of the hill for the first three or four rounds...which doesn't make it unstoppable. Maneuvers and fate Points together can get through even an 8 or 10 shift Defense and then the poor Wizard is gonna die vs. just about anything supernatural. I can show you how this works in practice f you like.
When my group starts a new system we alway test it by making the min/maxiest things we can think of, see what it looks like, see what beats that, then one more layer to see what beat that. Thus we figure out what actually work, and then settle down to make real characters. We have done this for maybe 8 or 9 systems, it usually works. We are rarely surprised by things as a result. It really helps GMing to know what the worst thing you can put on board, and what level of challenge you can expect.
Your testing clearly didn't take several important game concepts into account. I'm quite serious, if Maneuvers and other Aspects granting Tags aren't included in your outline you're going to wind up with an extremely skewed view of how the game works. Ditto all combats taking four rounds or less. Or all being against a single opponent.
We determined a 12 shift throwing focused Practitioner is probably about the strongest thing starting, outside superlatives, and lawbreaker builds. Superlative effects are always hard to account for numerically as they invalidate normal modeling and lawbreaker ignoring the pyramid, also is very problematic mathematically, but it is a good refresh value standard. You can get close to that top spellcaster power level under our interpretation of the stat builds but its still not AS good. After doing the math generically the best thing you can do is start combat have someone do a heavy aspect adders spell, have the next guy throw a super block, and then punch out just about anything in this system, if you have a sword of the cross this gets really easy. PI and Mythic Rec can overcome, but the people most likely to discover Catches and create catch satisfiers are those with access to thaum. (See my statement about superlatives earlier).
Yeah, that works well as a 'perfect storm' type effect to kill a single opponent. Do your players never fight groups of about equal skill to their own, or large numbers of mooks?
What is the downside to accepting this concept? Suddenly mortals with might 5 can add +1 if their fists or weapons if those skills are below 5? Is it really causing a huge imbalance to make Super Strong critters better at hitting? The fact is both of those things are false, you can use trapping shifts to make someone who grapples and does function exactly as I'm putting forward, this way just allows for more varied and interesting variety of builds and more realistic thugs. Why are you fighting this? Just out of reflex or does it actually seem like a major balance issue to you?
It's compleely unnecessary, clearly not the way the game is intended to work (see my previous post on every stat-block in the books), and makes Inhuman Strength distinctly overpowered. Yes, really.
-
The gaping flaw in your analysis is that you compared strength powers to spellcasting. Spellcasting is by far the most powerful thing in the game, so saying that something doesn't beat it is hardly an argument in my view. Inhuman strength is at least 4 stunts worth of abilities, and it stacks with everything else you have for those type of effects, so it is a mile away from being underpowered.
"This", "QFT", "See above", and a dozen other similar statements. Spellcasting is not designed to be directly comparable to the physical enhancers, for a variety of reasons.
However, while I thoroughly disagree with your assessment of Strength, I'm going to attempt to provide an answer that is helpful for you (referring to the OP here) at the table--you asked, in an above post, what the downside(s) of allowing Might to enhance attacks would be. So, here is my attempt at providing you with a fair assessment of the issue, so that you and your group can decide what works at your table--because honestly, even if it turns out well and truly broken and rule-bending, all that matters is tat you have fun.
--If Might can enhance both Fists and Weapons, they gain a serious advantage over Guns, which has no such modifying skill. Even if it did, it would make the investment required for a character to participate in physical combat lower (which might not be a bad thing) and punish those characters who spent skill points getting better Fists and/or Weapons than Might (which definitely is a bad thing, in my book)
--Brawny thugs become the default combat archetype, making finesse based fighters less of a worthwhile option, mechanically.
--Inhuman/Supernatural/Mythic Strength becomes the best physical option for combat. Regardless of whether it is currently "strong" or "weak," it becomes heinously powerful. Not only can you land your combat-ending attacks more easily, but when you find an opponent you don't need the bonus to hit for--a slow bruiser of some kind, say--it becomes an additional bonus to damage! It is capable of negating most of both Toughness and Speed despite costing the same.
--God help anyone who fights a super-strong person stacking on speed--they will close on you and destroy you before your initiative even comes up. The synergy between Speed and Strength is already incredible because of the ease of closing to melee and getting the first turn. Odds are extremely good 4 refresh spent on the Inhuman of both could take out any single opponent of equivalent Power level.
The net effect of all this is the combat paradigm shifts tremendously. Currently, the system is designed around setting up an overwhelming attack via manuevers, or relentlessly grinding someone down with tagged consequences. In this version, combat becomes about the Alpha Strike--he who hits first, hits last.
-
OK guys. Pretty much the only way to confirm something is to test it. We have two submerged characters, one with Mythic Strength, the other with Mythic Speed. Both have weapons and athletics at superb (+5), both have great endurance and great might. Both have a greatsword (weapon 3) and tactical vest (armor 2). I'm gonna roll 20 exchanges in various scenarios and assume both fight to the end. Let's see who dies first.
Speed contender: Attack 5, Defense 8, weapon 3, armor 2, goes first
Strength contender: Attack 5, Defense 5, weapon 9, armor 2
Cage Match: Both contenders in a single zone. Attacks only.
In this match, the strong character dies by round 14 (!). The speedster does not even take a single hit. Total attack roll is 79 for speedster and 73 for the strong guy in those 14 rolls, meaning the speedster is luckier. If we reverse the rolls (giving the strong guy the lucky ones), the speedster dies in round 12 while the strong guy has filled all his stress track and taken a mild and a moderate consequence. If tags were used, the strong guy dies at round 13 while the speedster would still have died in round 12 and the strong guy would have taken a severe and an extreme consequence.
Advantage: speedster.
Dueling Ground: Both contenders in a zone. Maneuers allowed.
In this match, the infuriating speedster used an athletics maneuer to remove an aspect (or gain a defense aspect) every time the strong guy tried to use a maneuer to impose off-balance or aim against him. He managed to land 2 blows for 2 and 3 stress each while the strong guy managed to land one blow for 3 stress and a moderate consequence. After 20 exchanges, the battle ended effectively in a draw.
Do note that both fights happened without Fate points used. You can go back and apply FPs in the rolls (both guys start with 3 of them) in which case both fights end up exactly the same (since both guys can use fate points at the same rolls)
Here are the rolls. First test was a failure due to bad code.
http://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=101832
-
That second one still ignores possibilities like the Strong Guy using Intimidate to put Aspects on the Fast Guy, or other non-Weapons or Athletics Maneuvers, but it does look pretty good.
-
On the other hand, there's the possibility to use Athletics to apply "tripped" or "overextended" aspects, in which case the Athletics guy wins.
And I haven't done tests with uncaged combat yet; when the speedster has enough room to move in a zone, attack and move off the zone (taking 2 zones of free move every exchange), he imposes another -1 penalty on the attacker's actions cause the attacker has to follow... and he does get penalties for moving while the speedster does not.
-
On the other hand, there's the possibility to use Athletics to apply "tripped" or "overextended" aspects, in which case the Athletics guy wins.
Not necessarily, if the Strength guy can keep up using some other skill he's equally better at (possibly including Might) he can still keep up fairly readily.
And I haven't done tests with uncaged combat yet; when the speedster has enough room to move in a zone, attack and move off the zone (taking 2 zones of free move every exchange), he imposes another -1 penalty on the attacker's actions cause the attacker has to follow... and he does get penalties for moving while the speedster does not.
That's legitimate. Though not always an available option. Someone with Mythic Strength can really alter the terrain on a battlefield to keep it from being available, too. Plus there are thrown weapons, which wouldn't take the penalty at only one zone's distance...but then we get into the speedster using ranged attacks which gets potentially really bad for the Strength guy.
And all that leaves out the possibility of Grapples, which the Strength guy listed has a base of 7 in, after all (and I can make a strength guy with a base of 9).
Really, no single theoretical exercise is ever going to account for all the possibilities inherent in the system.
Also, for actually comparing usefulness, other tests other than one-on-one fights are needed. For example, your two characters could each go up against a selection of mook-style minions (maybe Ghouls). I suspect the Strength guy will finish them up pretty quick, but get hurt doing so, while the Speed guy will be untouched but take a long while to get them all. Stuff like that.
-
My games average only a single combat, but it's usually a big one lasting significantly more than three rounds. I don't think I'm alone in this either. I'm guessing most of your fights are either against mooks or a single bad guy you can team up on, right? And PCs certainly aren't going to be going down very often in fights that short. I really think that your fights are the ones departing from what the system was designed for.
We have had both mixed fights, longer fights, short fights, Mooks, Big Bad(s), PC vs PC, a single pc vs small groups divided party fight (Really 6 simultaneous different fights) and a few Social Ones. Even a couple fights where all we did was run away, (We ran into a baby dragon in one game, and 3 loup garou in another). But the average is 2 Combats and 3 rounds. In the two different games I'm in, both my characters have run out of consequences (baring extremes), filled two stress tracks (mental and Physical), expended all Item uses and have been taken out, ether by concession or defeat. I don't pretend to know what the gold standard of any systems combat is, personally I think it lives with the GM.
But I have been playing RPGs for a long time, and I'm not really impressed with the idea of getting stuck in a combat that lasts most of a session. I can always go back to playing 4th Edition for that. Narrative system strength is always the story. If your story is to fight one fight most of your session more power to ya. Fights that last long then 3 rounds usually means a PC is going to die for keeps in our game. I don't know how deadly the stuff you fight is, but clearly it doesn't hit as well, so I could see how you could last longer.
Sure, but with prep-time you can stack up a few, and when fighting something significantly worse than you, you make the time.
Oh for more prep time. Sometimes you have no choice it is true, but sometimes you just get taken out as well.
Yeah, but -1 to hit does not equal hitting 1/4 as often.
but -2 is.
I might in theory allow that, if you're strong enough to use whatever it is as a weapon anyway.
I'm just saying it should be possible. Exerting force in combat is logical.
Mechanically? No, not really.
lol ok different stroke different folks i guess.
Invoking your own Aspects doesn't give the enemy Fate Points, and most combat characters have at least an Aspect or two they can use on attacks. Also, weren't you the one arguing that FP were better?
Our interpretation of combat fate expenditure include who ever is on the receiving end gets the fate point(s), it makes more dramatic combats. (We played a lot of exalted) You should try it. But yes fate points are better.
Yes it really is. Barring Evocation of your own or Mythic Speed, it's really hard to not get hit by someone with a base of 6 who fights at all intelligently. Really damn hard.
Fortunately Evocation is very common, and you don't actually need mythic, 7 and some team work can manage, depending on how long it lasts, and what else you pack along.
Spellcasting has longevity issues, which you likely haven't run into due to the ridiculous shortness of your combats, but yeah, it's king of the hill for the first three or four rounds...which doesn't make it unstoppable. Maneuvers and fate Points together can get through even an 8 or 10 shift Defense and then the poor Wizard is gonna die vs. just about anything supernatural. I can show you how this works in practice f you like.
Its true about the longevity issue, but i would add if you can't win a fight in 3 rounds with magic your using it wrong. I guess you could be fighting something that is superlative, but that tends to be obvious by the end of the first round.
Your testing clearly didn't take several important game concepts into account. I'm quite serious, if Maneuvers and other Aspects granting Tags aren't included in your outline you're going to wind up with an extremely skewed view of how the game works. Ditto all combats taking four rounds or less. Or all being against a single opponent.
I agree that it would be very skewed. But tags and fate are situational advantages, in the same way that terrain and starting conditions are situational. They can manufactured, and strategized around, but the argument i will beat you with my pile of conditional advantages can only really be take so far in discussion of effective builds, and testing has worked well so far, the resulting character function at the level was aiming for without getting to crazy.
Yeah, that works well as a 'perfect storm' type effect to kill a single opponent. Do your players never fight groups of about equal skill to their own, or large numbers of mooks?
The more memorable recent fights in our games (Sorry to my GMs for brutally shortening). In one game two weeks ago we beat 12 agents using Poisoned Dart Firing SMGs who jumped us from helicopters by surprise. (Yeah most of us Epicly failed that alertness roll). In another recent game we had 2 party members run into a Nazi Ice Giant, some Nazi Skin Heads, and Kincaid. (They lived, and achieved their objective, and didn't get killed by Kincaid, i call it a win.) In the other game we had 4 players vs 3 advanced hexen wolves in (They had names), that was tough with two player missing. Most recently we fought some kind of mutant super ghouls (one of them was regularly hitting 11 during that combat), then my White court invaded an ancient church fortress in Paris and got beat by 3 hunters, a bunch boobie traps, and some kind superlative Faith magic (it turned him mortal). This saturday I think we have an epic throw down with a Loup Garou that is enslaved by the winter court, while finishing up with the 4 other knight candidates and their crews, which will hopeful finish up the current plot line of deciding which wyld fae lord becomes the Lord of the Spring for this year.
It's compleely unnecessary, clearly not the way the game is intended to work (see my previous post on every stat-block in the books), and makes Inhuman Strength distinctly overpowered. Yes, really.
I guess I will just have to agree to disagree there. I find the systematic challenge as enjoyable as the role playing challenge personally. If your think its balanced to allow magic to rule the system i guess it is based upon a book about a wizard, but it seems sadly against the spirit of the books to allow it to be that way.
-
Ive seen this argument a few times, and Im still going to say that wizards aren't the biggest power in the verse, why? Cuz in the books they arent either.
One thing that everybody seems to forget is there are ***allot*** more nasties out there than there are wizards. Sure, a wizard might be able to decimate a few reds, but there are WAY more reds than there are wizards.
My RCV can probably trounce a wizard without too much fuss.
-
Magic is strong. But it costs ALOT. Immunity to magic is just 3-4 pts cost. So the first time you fight an Orge... whoops!
Also, stunts and minor powers are your friend;
The strong guy can have "Unstoppable", a stunt that allows using Might as defense.
The fast guy can have "acrobatic attack" that allows a certain attack with athletics instead of, say, fists.
That means both can have equal attack and defense with one point of expenditure more.
-
I agree with you about not wanting magic to be the strongest thing in the game, but I disagree about your conclusions in that regard. You shouldn't try to make your favorite set of powers stronger so that they can compete with magic, because by doing so, you just exacerbate the problem. Seek balance from the baseline, which is the pure mortal, and not the apex, which is the magic caster. Inhuman Strength is already a much better than average power, and there is no reason why the system should be "balanced" by making it competitive with the apex powers.
-
Seek balance from the baseline, which is the pure mortal, and not the apex, which is the magic caster.
What do you mean by that? If your trying to balance Caster, and you agree it is the apex how does changing mortal achieve that objective?
-
What he is saying is dont raise everything to the power of a wizard, if you are trying for balance, lower wizard to the power of everything else.
-
We have had both mixed fights, longer fights, short fights, Mooks, Big Bad(s), PC vs PC, a single pc vs small groups divided party fight (Really 6 simultaneous different fights) and a few Social Ones. Even a couple fights where all we did was run away, (We ran into a baby dragon in one game, and 3 loup garou in another). But the average is 2 Combats and 3 rounds. In the two different games I'm in, both my characters have run out of consequences (baring extremes), filled two stress tracks (mental and Physical), expended all Item uses and have been taken out, ether by concession or defeat. I don't pretend to know what the gold standard of any systems combat is, personally I think it lives with the GM.
True enough, but you're arguing that the game is inherently unbalanced and not worth it if you don't get an accuracy booster from Inhuman Strength. If your game's House Rules are a large part of the reason for that (as seems clear after this post, IMO) then your argument is significantly less valid.
But I have been playing RPGs for a long time, and I'm not really impressed with the idea of getting stuck in a combat that lasts most of a session. I can always go back to playing 4th Edition for that. Narrative system strength is always the story. If your story is to fight one fight most of your session more power to ya. Fights that last long then 3 rounds usually means a PC is going to die for keeps in our game. I don't know how deadly the stuff you fight is, but clearly it doesn't hit as well, so I could see how you could last longer.
Oh, they don't last that long time-wise OOC (maybe a third of the session, average)...just quite a few rounds.
Oh for more prep time. Sometimes you have no choice it is true, but sometimes you just get taken out as well.
Sometimes, yeah.
but -2 is.
Well, sure, but if we're talking Supernatural stats at +4 Stress you ARE doing something like 4 times the damage, effectively.
I'm just saying it should be possible. Exerting force in combat is logical.
Potentially, yeah, but not all the damn time.
lol ok different stroke different folks i guess.
Indeed.
Our interpretation of combat fate expenditure include who ever is on the receiving end gets the fate point(s), it makes more dramatic combats. (We played a lot of exalted) You should try it. But yes fate points are better.
Uh...this is a giant House Rule that vastly changes the entire operating paramenters of the game. It means, inherently, that while all your arguments may be entirely valid for your own game, they are not necessarily equally valid in a non-House Ruled game. This rule makes having a superior Defense WAY more of an insurmountable advantage than it is in standard DFRPG, and explains a lot of your attitude on that subject.
Fortunately Evocation is very common, and you don't actually need mythic, 7 and some team work can manage, depending on how long it lasts, and what else you pack along.
Well, sure. Teamwork can always keep a particular guy from getting hit...though in that case you better hope he doesn't focus on an easier target. And Evocation isn't that common.
Its true about the longevity issue, but i would add if you can't win a fight in 3 rounds with magic your using it wrong. I guess you could be fighting something that is superlative, but that tends to be obvious by the end of the first round.
Um...not really. There's that whole 'needing to have something going defensively', that potentially makes that a bit hard, and things with Inhuman and higher Toughness can often take a few attacks from a full-on Evocation specialist. Particularly if there are several of them mixed in with the party.
I agree that it would be very skewed. But tags and fate are situational advantages, in the same way that terrain and starting conditions are situational. They can manufactured, and strategized around, but the argument i will beat you with my pile of conditional advantages can only really be take so far in discussion of effective builds, and testing has worked well so far, the resulting character function at the level was aiming for without getting to crazy.
I'm glad it worked out for you, then. But my point does still stand, at least somewhat.
The more memorable recent fights in our games (Sorry to my GMs for brutally shortening). In one game two weeks ago we beat 12 agents using Poisoned Dart Firing SMGs who jumped us from helicopters by surprise. (Yeah most of us Epicly failed that alertness roll). In another recent game we had 2 party members run into a Nazi Ice Giant, some Nazi Skin Heads, and Kincaid. (They lived, and achieved their objective, and didn't get killed by Kincaid, i call it a win.) In the other game we had 4 players vs 3 advanced hexen wolves in (They had names), that was tough with two player missing. Most recently we fought some kind of mutant super ghouls (one of them was regularly hitting 11 during that combat), then my White court invaded an ancient church fortress in Paris and got beat by 3 hunters, a bunch boobie traps, and some kind superlative Faith magic (it turned him mortal). This saturday I think we have an epic throw down with a Loup Garou that is enslaved by the winter court, while finishing up with the 4 other knight candidates and their crews, which will hopeful finish up the current plot line of deciding which wyld fae lord becomes the Lord of the Spring for this year.
Wow. That actually sounds really awesome. I'm going to give you some advice: Don't change your game's rules because of this thread. It sounds like the combination of House Rules you've got going makes for some fun, dynamic, and cool combats for your group, and changing them to anything everyone is less familiar with can only hurt that.
But also remember that they ARE House Rules, and thus lessons learned playing under them don't necessarily apply to non-House Ruled games (which can, BTW, be just as fun).
I guess I will just have to agree to disagree there. I find the systematic challenge as enjoyable as the role playing challenge personally. If your think its balanced to allow magic to rule the system i guess it is based upon a book about a wizard, but it seems sadly against the spirit of the books to allow it to be that way.
Your House Rules make magic significantly more effective than it would be otherwise (if nothing else by reducing the number of rounds combat takes, though the Fate Point thing helps them out quite a bit, too). My magic users are nasty...but they regularly run out of juice sometime around round 5, and are hardly unstoppable even before then. the most effective PC in a direct fight is the guy with Superb Athletics and Fists, as well as Claws and Inhuman physical stuff, not any of the three magic users.
-
I really like the system, and I'm certainly not going to change how we have been playing. When we looked at it, we came to the conclusion we reached b/c we felt it was the only logical way to interpret the rules. We neglected to bother to check all our sources clearly, but given how testing kept coming out, it was the only logical interpretation we could find. The math still seems very clean, Focused Partitioner with super refinement guy comes up only one shift difference then mythic strength and item of power guy, under our method, he'd be epicly bad the other way. (Yes so the testing naming scheme is a little lame).
I'd never nerf one thing in a system when i could buff everything else instead.
-
The Strength guy's really not that badly off the other way if everything is taken into account. Still, just looking at the numbers, I do understand what you're referring to.
-
wait, I'm missing part of the conversation. What is his house rule for magic?
-
wait, I'm missing part of the conversation. What is his house rule for magic?
No House Rule for magic...but his House Rules combine to make fights shorter...like under four rounds short. Which makes magic much cooler, kinda by definition.
Also, there's the "whenever someone spends a Fate Point, the person they're spending it against gets it" House Rule...which makes anybody with a really high Defense (like a lot of magic users) net alot of FP since that's the only way to hit them.
-
To be fair fate changes hands real fast in our fights. Losing tends to be very profitable in terms of fate. But winning tends to be very expensive. Self compelling is very popular, we get into a lot of trouble, mostly with very little help from the GM. We probably could have a whole session with no combat but what we bring upon ourselves, and it might be far more dangerous then anything the plot would have put in front of us.
-
To be fair fate changes hands real fast in our fights. Losing tends to be very profitable in terms of fate. But winning tends to be very expensive. Self compelling is very popular, we get into a lot of trouble, mostly with very little help from the GM. We probably could have a whole session with no combat but what we bring upon ourselves, and it might be far more dangerous then anything the plot would have put in front of us.
To be honest, fate points aren't about fair. That takes away the whole point of fate points: to come through in a clinch (a.k.a. not be fair to the npcs).
Fate points are mostly for players to help direct the game (and to make it up to players that take fewer powers/stunts). In this case, using fate points directly on an enemy is retarded unless you are going for overkill to ensure they don't live long enough to spend them back at you. I.e. magic is bad ass because you have no reason to not spend fate points to ensure your 7 Shift attack spell lands with 5 shifts of effect for a 12 physical stress attack. Not to meant that a four round combat means you rarely run out of mental stress track for casting spells.
Way to make magic even better and pure mortals worse. *thumbs up*
You basically gave every bad guy an aspect of "I hate when fate points get spent against me." Summary: dumb house rule.
-
I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'dumb'. I can see it being fun in it's own way, though I must admit that it does screw over Pure Mortals quite a bit.
What it is is such a fundamental change in both the game an style that any rules discussion comparing the variant to normal DFRPG is going to be completely useless, and somewhat annoying for everyone involved since the basic context they're operating from is so utterly different.
-
I wouldn't go so far as to call it 'dumb'.
I am pretty sure it is "dumb." The whole point of playing the Fate system is to use Fate Points. It is right there in the name. But this house rule makes it disadvantageous to use fate points (for the most part).
It takes away the whole reason to play a Fate system game. Ergo: dumb house rule.
It is like playing Exalted without motes of essence.
Or D&D4e without powers, action points, miniatures, and a grid (and "No, I don't want to hear about someone's '1337' home group does without any or all of those things").
Or Bang! without the Sheriff's Badge (okay, the badge isn't necessary but it is hilarious to see a grown man wearing a plastic sheriff's badge).
Taking away the core mechanic (which this does by making fate points so tactically bad it is pointless) just raises the question of "why use this game for this setting."
There are other systems that can be used for a DF style game.
Without fate points, Average (and sometimes Fair) skills are useless to the point of not righting them down (unless they give static bonuses, like an extra stress box).
-
To be honest, fate points aren't about fair. That takes away the whole point of fate points: to come through in a clinch (a.k.a. not be fair to the npcs).
Fate points are mostly for players to help direct the game (and to make it up to players that take fewer powers/stunts). In this case, using fate points directly on an enemy is retarded unless you are going for overkill to ensure they don't live long enough to spend them back at you. I.e. magic is bad ass because you have no reason to not spend fate points to ensure your 7 Shift attack spell lands with 5 shifts of effect for a 12 physical stress attack. Not to meant that a four round combat means you rarely run out of mental stress track for casting spells.
Way to make magic even better and pure mortals worse. *thumbs up*
You basically gave every bad guy an aspect of "I hate when fate points get spent against me." Summary: dumb house rule.
I personally feel they are there to add drama, Its very amusing being compelled by your own party to do something silly. My trouble gets compelled all the time by the party, to get my poor character shot by snipers. We seriously consider switching an aspect to F%&#ing Sniper Rifle.
One of our players drives a taxi, and we compel him to show up a just the right time with his Cab all the time.
Another of our player is denarian with shepherd the weak as an aspect so there he is doing something middle evil and suddenly gets compelled to save someone in the scene, its really very funny.
Honestly I don't care a wit if you like our methods or not, we have fun and that is the point of the game.
-
But this house rule makes it disadvantageous to use fate points (for the most part).
It has never stop anyone from spending fate points, that much i promise you.
-
I am pretty sure it is "dumb." The whole point of playing the Fate system is to use Fate Points. It is right there in the name. But this house rule makes it disadvantageous to use fate points (for the most part).
It takes away the whole reason to play a Fate system game. Ergo: dumb house rule.
It is like playing Exalted without motes of essence.
Or D&D4e without powers, action points, miniatures, and a grid (and "No, I don't want to hear about someone's '1337' home group does without any or all of those things").
Or Bang! without the Sheriff's Badge (okay, the badge isn't necessary but it is hilarious to see a grown man wearing a plastic sheriff's badge).
Taking away the core mechanic (which this does by making fate points so tactically bad it is pointless) just raises the question of "why use this game for this setting."
There are other systems that can be used for a DF style game.
Without fate points, Average (and sometimes Fair) skills are useless to the point of not righting them down (unless they give static bonuses, like an extra stress box).
Eh I stopped being 1337 after i quit raiding :)
-
Personally, I wouldn't play with those house rules, as, like has been mentioned before, you exacerbate the very problem you are complaining about because of them (more powerful wizards).
Consider that a wizard only has maybe one or two fate points to spend per session. A pure mortal might have 4 or 5, even more. The pure mortal in your system is screwed (he spends 5 fate points, then gets hit by five since you just tossed em over to the bad guys). The wizard, however, doesn't need fate points (the thing that is supposed to balance high refresh templates against low refresh templates), he can just shoot out his overly optimized 12 shift evocations each round and tear it all up.
Thats why you think everything is weak compared to wizard, because in your system, you are completely correct. Everybody who is not a Adjusted Refresh 1 Wizard is going to suck.
-
If they're having fun, the House Rule is an awesome idea--for their table. From a ownership-neutral standpoint, yes, the House Rule is a major balance issue. But ahunting's group is having fun, and so I think the rule can be said to be serving its purpose.