ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Baron Hazard on July 19, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
-
So, I'm working on something and i was wondering the forumite's thoughts on a damaging shield spell.
Something like: Strength 9 Air (lightning) Block, for a block:7, duration 3 exchanges.
When attacked, even if the Block isn't overcome, the spell still ends dealing the remainder of its strength as an Air Evocation attack at the attacker.
So block:7 blocks a an attack 4 action, it immediately responds by dealing a weapon:3 Evocation.
does this over power an already over powered factor of the game? spell casters. Is there anyway you'd allow it? do you think some shifts should be committed previously when forming the spell?
Thanks.
-
You would basically be doing two spells with one Action. Thats really out of balance.
You can redirect that spell to turn into an attack, there are rules for that.
But a Block that also deals damage... Thaumaturgy Wards are able to do that... evocation, nope, not in my book.
-
Aye, i was concerned about that. Though i'm glad you mentioned the re-direction rules as i'd missed them.
MOAR questions!
1. Same as above, if you are still interested in weighing in on it.
2. would using evocation to place a maneuver on a willing ally still require a minimum of 3 shifts to be effective?
3. Re-reading the series, would you allow an evocation maneuver to split into two maneuvers (kind of like you can split an attack) i ask because When harry goes to visit mortimer in Grave Peril he uses a race bit of power to slam the door (actually that would be a block... probably...) and then says he uses the rest of THAT spells energy to also pull a chair up to him.
4. Narrative, damage over time maneuvers. Such as using an Evocation Maneuver to set someone on fire. Aspect: 'On Fire.' would this be applied to act similar to the venemous claws, where each round the subject has to roll or take damage? or would fate points be necessary unlike Venomous Claws.
5. On evocation Maneuvers, do you HAVE to pay for persistence on people, or does the applied aspect have the ability to be sticky like a normal maneuver?
Sorry if any of this is plainly answered in the book somewhere that I missed, the pdf totally ruined my ability to read the book cover to cover >>
-
No three is covered somewhere in the rules as overflow. The example is michael, knight of the cross, using three shifts of overflow to run out of a collapsing building after killing something.
Or something like that.
-
Good show Da_gut. Totally love the overflow rules, but for some reason weren't coming up with magic in my head.
-
Aye, i was concerned about that. Though i'm glad you mentioned the re-direction rules as i'd missed them.
MOAR questions!
1. Same as above, if you are still interested in weighing in on it.
been there, done that *g*
2. would using evocation to place a maneuver on a willing ally still require a minimum of 3 shifts to be effective?
I'd say yes, 3 shifts is not really a lot, and in a conflict there needs to be the possibility of failure, like with all other maneuvers.
Outside of a conflict, well, if theres no downside to failing then theres not even a need to roll.
3. Re-reading the series, would you allow an evocation maneuver to split into two maneuvers (kind of like you can split an attack) i ask because When harry goes to visit mortimer in Grave Peril he uses a race bit of power to slam the door (actually that would be a block... probably...) and then says he uses the rest of THAT spells energy to also pull a chair up to him.
Doesn't really need to be a block, i'd actually think it's more of a maneuver.
I can imagine to rule this as a single maneuver placing a scene aspect like "The Wizard is in" which is then tagged in the social conflict that follows. Closing the door and pushing out the chair would be simply description.
If you rule it as a block, then you can go with the redirection rules once more. Close the door as a block with +1 duration, in the next exchange redirect the block spell to push out the chair.
You could also rule this as a "mundane effect", and not require any roll or stress, but then you don't get any benefit, rules-wise.
Lastly, there is the Spin rule. Having gained a lot of shifts on the door-closing-spell you could maybe rule that the remaining shifts can be used to push out the chair. Though Spin is technically only for mundane action iirc.
4. Narrative, damage over time maneuvers. Such as using an Evocation Maneuver to set someone on fire. Aspect: 'On Fire.' would this be applied to act similar to the venemous claws, where each round the subject has to roll or take damage? or would fate points be necessary unlike Venomous Claws.
Damage is done by attacks, not by maneuvers. The Aspect "on fire" does not include Fire Damage.
A DoT attack effect would require you to roll a new attack each exchange to "maintain" the effect.
Another option is to use magical grapples, see the Orbius spell among the Example evocations in YS.
-
Thank you, Tsunami. Aye, my initial thought on aspects (question 4) was indeed that, the special rules for claws made me wonder though.
I added a fifth question up there (possibly while responding.) after that one gets answered, I think thats all the question i have atm, not including anyone that wants to way in on their own input.
-
Aye, i was concerned about that. Though i'm glad you mentioned the re-direction rules as i'd missed them.
MOAR questions!
1. Same as above, if you are still interested in weighing in on it.
Think that one was pretty well covered already.
2. would using evocation to place a maneuver on a willing ally still require a minimum of 3 shifts to be effective?
That should work, if the target is receptive and not actively trying to resist the maneuver go with the base 3 shift minimum.
3. Re-reading the series, would you allow an evocation maneuver to split into two maneuvers (kind of like you can split an attack) i ask because When harry goes to visit mortimer in Grave Peril he uses a race bit of power to slam the door (actually that would be a block... probably...) and then says he uses the rest of THAT spells energy to also pull a chair up to him.
Or it could be a small spell used just for color on the order of his Flicum Bicus candle lighting spell, and it was actually an Intimidation Attack or Maneuver on poor old Mort. Though perhaps you could consider it his Discipline complementing his Intimidation roll.
4. Narrative, damage over time maneuvers. Such as using an Evocation Maneuver to set someone on fire. Aspect: 'On Fire.' would this be applied to act similar to the venemous claws, where each round the subject has to roll or take damage? or would fate points be necessary unlike Venomous Claws.
If you are placing the Aspect 'On Fire' on a person or thing there isn't any damage until it is tagged or fate points are spent to activate it and in that case it is usually used for another roll not as a way to make damage just happen. However if you have blasted someone with Fire and they have taken the 'On Fire' consequence that is a free +2 just waiting to be tagged, same as if you had maneuvered the aspect onto them.
5. On evocation Maneuvers, do you HAVE to pay for persistence on people, or does the applied aspect have the ability to be sticky like a normal maneuver?
You could just let it be sticky especially if you get a number of extra shifts on a roll, or if you want to make it an additional number of power shifts on the spell do it that way.
Sorry if any of this is plainly answered in the book somewhere that I missed, the pdf totally ruined my ability to read the book cover to cover >>
Not a problem, the PDF didn't prepare me for the massive tome-like nature of the physical DFRPG books either.
-
5. On evocation Maneuvers, do you HAVE to pay for persistence on people, or does the applied aspect have the ability to be sticky like a normal maneuver?
Oh Boy... thats a loaded one thats been discussed a lot without a definitive answer.
try these three threads...
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19476.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18142.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16406.0.html
-
I agree with Morgan, a manoeuvre can be sticky if you get at least one extra shift over the enemies defense.
On that original question, I would allow something similar at evocation speed if you had sponsored magic though I'm not sure how balanced that particular version is. Perhaps I would allow the landmine effect of wards as it would take a lot more power to make it deal a lot of damage. The reason being I'm concerned that you could continually create blocks and deal damage at the same time. If that block amount and damage amount compromise each other then it would be fairer.
I think the other questions have been answered perfectly already so I won't weigh in :)
-
Thanks one and all for the weigh ins. You've helped me alot and the full geeky weight of that help shall be revealed soonish like. ;)
-
You would basically be doing two spells with one Action. Thats really out of balance.
You can redirect that spell to turn into an attack, there are rules for that.
But a Block that also deals damage... Thaumaturgy Wards are able to do that... evocation, nope, not in my book.
Some work might need to be done to determine how a block could be used to deal damage, but there is an example given in White Knight of that happening. Ramirez's Water-based shield, dealt damage to beings which ended up coming into physical contact with it. By extension, if a character or creature ended up running full bore into Harry's shield when it was powered up would likely feel like they had just run into a wall, and thus be damaged in that way. I would therefore allow a Block to deal damage to opponents that somehow came into contact with the Block assuming the Block had a nature which could/would deal damage depending on the contact. Again using Ramirez as an example, his Water-based shield utilized the entropic properties of water to break apart/break down material, effectively turning bullets into sand (or flesh into well, salsa...). In the case of an Air-based lightning Block, I would have someone who comes into physical contact with the Block suddenly develop an electric personality...
On the other hand, while I would potentially allow players to position their Block in such a way as to possibly allow others to become damaged by it, I would not allow a player to use the Block as both a defensive casting, and then "launch" it at someone/thing to damage them. At least, not without requiring the player to make a second casting to launch the spell at someone.
-
Some work might need to be done to determine how a block could be used to deal damage, but there is an example given in White Knight of that happening. Ramirez's Water-based shield, dealt damage to beings which ended up coming into physical contact with it. By extension, if a character or creature ended up running full bore into Harry's shield when it was powered up would likely feel like they had just run into a wall, and thus be damaged in that way. I would therefore allow a Block to deal damage to opponents that somehow came into contact with the Block assuming the Block had a nature which could/would deal damage depending on the contact. Again using Ramirez as an example, his Water-based shield utilized the entropic properties of water to break apart/break down material, effectively turning bullets into sand (or flesh into well, salsa...). In the case of an Air-based lightning Block, I would have someone who comes into physical contact with the Block suddenly develop an electric personality...
On the other hand, while I would potentially allow players to position their Block in such a way as to possibly allow others to become damaged by it, I would not allow a player to use the Block as both a defensive casting, and then "launch" it at someone/thing to damage them. At least, not without requiring the player to make a second casting to launch the spell at someone.
Ramirez using his shield to deal damage is actually the example used in YS to illustrate redirecting spells.
The Example is on page 260, and the shield itself is described on page 293.
-
Ramirez using his shield to deal damage is actually the example used in YS to illustrate redirecting spells.
The Example is on page 260, and the shield itself is described on page 293.
Thanks for the reference, I will need to sit down and re-read that particular section. Again.
-
Ok, I am still perplexed on the sheild damage thing. I have the books and have been reading the magic section and particularly the part where Carlos redirects his shield. My problem, though, as that doesn't answer the question of a block that is inherently damaging.
Wizard with Fire evocation brings a shield made of flames. Crazed creature of nevernever attacks with claws and Wizard blocks. What happens?
How does creature not get burned?
Carlos raises his entropy shield as fairy knight attacks with sword. What happens?
How does fairy knight not loose his sword to entropy?
-
Okay, I just want to throw this out here.
IT'S A GAME. These rules are abstractions. That's just how the system works.
When you put up a "block" with a fire shield, that doesn't mean that the creature strikes it instead of you, it could be that the creature starts to swing at you, then shies away because of the intense flame. Regardless of how you do it, and how you flavor it, blocks don't do damage. You can turn an extended one into an attack, but then it's an attack. You can't make blocks do damage under the current system.
The closest you can get is wards, and those are simply two effects stuck together with the magic of thaumaturgy.
-
Indeed, unfortunately you can only do what type of action at a time with evocation, that's the power of ritual magic. The only exception is a grapple, being both an offensive block and a grapple.
Hmm... perhaps if you created a 'defensive grapple' using the same rules. An orbius style spell but rather than blocking an enemy for the duration, dealing one damage each exchange, you put the block on yourself and you deal one damage to anyone that tries to beat the block. It's not much but it's something. In fact, if this is workable (and I'm just throwing ideas around here, this certainly isn't in the book) then rather than deal 1 shift of damage to attackers, perhaps you could push them one zone away e.g. some kind of telekinetic barrier or air barrier; just like the grapple rules state (YS211).
Other than that, yeah the rules only allow one type of action at a time.
-
"By the book" a defensive block action inflicting damage is comprised of two different actions and, therefore, out. However, I've said it before and will say it again, FATE practically begs for house rules...heck aspects are, essentially, mini-house rules in what it might mean from one group to another.
That said, I've been wrestling with the idea of multi-purpose spells as I know my player base will come up with them. Spells that entangle and damage are easy, they can follow the Orbius example via grapple and constriction. However, spells that inflict aspects and damage in one, without requiring two separate spells or the spell to guarantee a consequence are not possible. A "Cloudkill" style spell, where it could inflict an aspect like "Nauseated" while still inflicting a point or two of stress per round due to acidic vapors for the duration of the aspect (yes, I know that attack evocations do not, by the book, last longer than one exchange), or something similar as an example.
I mentioned this in another thread someplace, and I still think it would work...use the basis for the Spin rule, except open it to all actions (therefore, not just practitioners gain this benefit), but allow for attacks that strike with three shifts over their target's defense, or a maneuver that hits with three additional shifts, to enjoy a variant of Spin. In these cases, it could be (for the attack) a fragile aspect, or for maneuvers a limited amount of damage (1 stress, to keep it in line with Spin's +/-1). This would cover the notion of a "damage shield", where a defender's block (with Spin inflicted) could inflict a tad bit of damage, or a legsweep maneuver could do a small bit of physical trauma, and the like. It could also be used to enable two aspects on a target, like a hefty frost spell that would normally inflict a "Frostbitten" aspect could opt for (with Spin) 1 point of physical stress, or possibly even a fragile "Numbed and Slowed" aspect.
-
Okay, I just want to throw this out here.
IT'S A GAME. These rules are abstractions. That's just how the system works.
As incredibly useful as the above wasn't, I am looking for a way to make the rules make some sense. I understand the heat on a fireshield fending off an attack - I could describe that, but an entropy sheild that looks like a shield of liquid - no one will know what it it until they hit it with something. Person or thing throws punch hits shield of destruction and what do they pull back? How does it not inflict some stress? Does their sword, club, staff, etc. not take some damage and weaken?
I try and hit you with my wooden staff and you put up a fire sheild - logically the fire will burn something? If not, we would not have all the discussion of collateral damage from attacks.
I am sorry if my question goes beyond the abstraction of the rules of the game - but it often happens in my games and I was looking for some guidence on a house rule.
BTW - the spin rules sound like a good begining Doc Nova.
-
You have two options to do what you want from where I'm sitting, if you still want to play a game. You either use the rules as written, and find a way to justify it in game for the way it works. Or, you find out every single possible in game justification you will use, and make up a new rules set that is intended to model those in game justifications more perfectly than the current rules set does. What you want doesn't happen the way you want it to with the rules for the game that we are talking about. The problem isn't whether or not it makes sense, because its freaking magic. Its fantasy, it doesn't make any sense except through the effort that we make to invent internal justifications for it.
And what ashern said was important, even if he said it a little bit loudly. These rules are abstractions. No matter what system you deal with, you will have abstractions, and they honestly make it more fun. Trying to go without abstractions in a game would require a ton of rolls just to see how far your character moves when he walks. Just go with it and have fun and don't melt your brain thinking "Why does he not get melted by my entropy shield" or "Why does everyone get one and exactly one action per round even though in real life some people may attack more quickly than others in a fight". You justify these things by the way you describe them as happening. The entropy shield doesn't hurt them because they pull short of it at the last second to avoid burning death. The more fit people get the same number of actions as an unfit person does, but you describe the result of a single dice roll as a flurry of punches for them and a single punch for the chubby guy, and it all works out.
-
Wow, thanks. In two seperate posts by differing people it is basically explained to me that I am an idiot. Been playing rpg's almost 30 years but I need rules abstractions explained to me! I am sorry for questioning any part of the game. Particularly one that supposedly encourages houserules as this one encourages. I thought this was a place to ask for help or to develop those rules. Looks like I was incredibly wrong!! :-[
-
I am not calling you an idiot, and I apologize if it appeared that way. I tried to address what looked like a disconnect, but I apparently missed what the problem was. So, perhaps this is the correct angle. The abilities of everyone needs to have some degree of balance, so that the actions of one powerful wizard does not trivialize the actions of his less arcane allies. Wizards are already extraordinarily powerful in a fight, and if he gains the ability to deal damage as part of a free action (his defense against other attacks) he just gets too far out of hand. Now given all of that, if I still wanted to do a damaging fire shield, here is how I'd go about it. First off, the shield isn't so much a block as a stationary damage spell, so I won't model it as a block. This means it won't really do much against ranged attacks. In this way, I'd customize it as a delayed damage attack. Its still a houserule, and it makes wizards even more powerful than they already were by adding another option to their combat abilities that no one else gets, and its not the nicest thing to house rule a boost to a powerful template without doing the same for the lower end templates like pure mortal and minor talent, but whatever, its your game, and your group gets to decide what works for them. Here is a sample spell that would work like that
Fire Sheild
6 shifts of power
Control with Discipline + relevant bonuses
The first 3 melee attacks against the caster before his next turn require the attacker to beat the targeting roll for the spell or take a 2 stress hit.
Thats actually a pretty balanced spell overall, because you could do a lot more direct damage with a straight up attack.
-
So, if you want a damaging block, my suggestion would be to make it a combination block / maneuver - essentially reduce the strength of the block by three, and add an appropriate aspect to yourself - something like "on fire". If someone attacks you with fists (or maybe even a dagger), you take your free tag to hit them with a two stress hit.
(No, this isn't by-the-book legal, and may need further limitations to be balanced. Experimentation will probably be needed.)
Alternatively, instead of using ordinary evocation, find yourself an appropriate sponsored magic source. Then you can do a plain old reflective ward as an evocation block, using the rules for sponsored magic allowing thaumaturgy with the speed and methods of evocation.
-
ooh, yes, sponsored wards would get the exact effect you are looking for.