ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: dlw32 on August 11, 2010, 05:52:24 PM
-
newbie looking for validation on a spell; am I close? (it's meant to be my PC's rote spell, ignore the notes like "with the Staff"):
Traxi (Pull; with the Staff):
Type: Earth Evoc Attack
Power: 6 Shifts of power
Control: Discipline (+2 Staff Focus, +1 Earth Specialization) vs Target's Might
Duration: 1 or more attack
Effect: Control the earth’s magnetic field to draw something metal to you. If the object is held the spell power is compared to the holder’s Might, otherwise, use the spell’s power as a Might check on the lifting chart (pg 321).
Also, is there a place where we can look at spells people have put together? I love the flexibility of being able to pull a spell together on the fly, but I'd like to see what other people have done and verify what I'm doing.
-
As described, that would technically be a Maneuver, not an Attack. Other than that, looks good.
-
As described, that would technically be a Maneuver, not an Attack. Other than that, looks good.
From your pespective, could you explain what you mean by it's technically a Maneuver? what would that mean and how would that play out in combat?
-
I guess I was focused on it being a disarming spell. If I'm trying to pull something (a gun?) from someone's hand, wouldn't that be an attack?
I can see if the object isn't held, it looks more like a maneuver.
What if I use it to attack; like if the guy is between a folding chair and me?
-
Disarming someone is a maneuver. You give them the aspect disarmed.
-
Disarming someone is a maneuver. You give them the aspect disarmed.
This is where things get confusing for me with Maneuvers. In game terms, if a person has the aspect disarmed, how does that actually prevent them from using their weapon other than just saying disarmed? They can spend the exchange getting rid of the aspect to get their weapon back right?
-
You get rid of aspects placed by maneuvers with another maneuver. But, given the inherent temporary nature of something like disarmed, I could see saying it can't be made sticky, regardless of how many shifts you get.
-
But, given the inherent temporary nature of something like disarmed, I could see saying it can't be made sticky, regardless of how many shifts you get.
Why is that? You still need a maneuver to get your weapon back or draw your backup pistol. I'd call it an Athletics roll against mediocre (+0). If it's not sticky, you get your weapon back or draw a new weapon for free, if it's sticky you have to ready your weapon (whichever it is) and need your whole action.
-
Why is that? You still need a maneuver to get your weapon back or draw your backup pistol. I'd call it an Athletics roll against mediocre (+0). If it's not sticky, you get your weapon back or draw a new weapon for free, if it's sticky you have to ready your weapon (whichever it is) and need your whole action.
Doing any of those things is at most a supplemental action. It makes no sense to require a maneuver to do any of those things. That's why, in a lot of cases, it doesn't make sense to allow disarmed to be sticky.
-
Drawing a weapon is a supplemental action (YS 213). I'd say that "Disarmed" could be sticky so long as the subject took no action to try to rearm. So if they had two pistols, drew one and you disarmed them of it then the "Disarmed" would stick unless they used part of their next action to draw their other pistol, which you could try to prevent them from doing by rolling to maintain/defend the Maneuver (the example works better when considering it as a skill-based disarm, but it pretty much holds for a spell-based you just switch your defense/maintenance bit for the effect strength used to place the aspect).
-
Well if you're actively preventing rearming, or if rearming is not practical for some reason, I'd just say disarmed is sticky in that case. I wouldn't require rolls to maintain the maneuver, unless it was to oppose the maneuver to remove the disarmed aspect.
-
There are ways to disarm someone sticky - or even permanently.
With weapons/guns;
Hit their hands. Endurance check to pick up the weapon again despite the pain. (i.e. remove the aspect)
Destroy their weapon. They need to draw another weapon. This works especially well against a wizard's focus.
Kick their weapon out a window (supplemental action after disarm). They need to draw another weapon.
With Might;
Rip their weapon out of their hands. They need to draw another weapon AND you now have their weapon to use.
Break their weapon. They need to draw another weapon.
Throw their weapon out a window (supplemental action after disarm). They need to draw another weapon.
With Magic;
[fire] Heat Metal; They can't use ANY metal object as it is superheated unless they make endurance rolls or take physical stress. Some weapons (such as guns) might be destroyed anyway.
[air] Freeze Metal; as above. Guns and explosives don't go boom but don't fire either.
[earth] Shatter; destroys objects.
[water] Meltdown; as above.
[spirit] Fade; weapons and objects become insubstantial for a short time. Good for when you want to disarm but also protect some object somebody is carrying.
-
They need to draw another weapon.
Drawing a weapon is a supplemental action. If that's an option for the disarmed person they shouldn't have to perform a maneuver to remove the aspect. Maybe it makes more sense to say it's sticky but can just be removed with a supplemental action instead of a maneuver when recovery or replacement of the weapon would normally just be a supplemental action.
-
Except that most people don't bring a second weapon with them and sometimes it is not feasible to have a second weapon. I.e. someone is not going to have a second Sword of the Cross if he's disarmed and a wizard is not going to have a second focus. Similarly, most warriors can't carry a second battleaxe or AK-47; there's simply not enough room.
-
Didn't have a chance to read the whole thread yet, but I thought I'd throw this idea in real quick:
The best way to model this might be as a block, rather than an attack or a maneuver.
-
Except that most people don't bring a second weapon with them and sometimes it is not feasible to have a second weapon. I.e. someone is not going to have a second Sword of the Cross if he's disarmed and a wizard is not going to have a second focus. Similarly, most warriors can't carry a second battleaxe or AK-47; there's simply not enough room.
Well if they don't have a second weapon, what I said before obviously doesn't apply. Your statement about most people* not bringing a second weapon isn't true. Their second weapon probably isn't as good or as big, but they would still be armed. Besides what if they switch to fists? How is a disarmed aspect still relevant? Mechanically speaking that is, they still have to deal with the fact they don't have the weapon or focus in the fiction e.g. can't make a guns attack if you don't have a gun.
* Well, I'm assuming people who expect to be in a fight and are armed is what we're talking about by most people here.
-
I still tend to say that you need a maneuver in order to remove a sticky (and also a fragile one that has not been tagged yet) aspect coming from a maneuver. But the aspect you put on someone must be justified and someone with weapons on hand (but not drawn weapons) cannot be considered "Disarmed", so the aspect should be something like "Lost his Gun/Focus/Whatever". He still has do a maneuver to get his gun/focus/whatever back, but can draw another weapon. There is an example in which a character aims, but has to use a fitting aspect (p. 114).
Why I think you cannot remove an aspect coming from a maneuver? Every line of text regarding temporary aspects coming from maneuvers say you must take a maneuver roll to remove it, at least against the environment at mediocre (+0) and use your action during your exchange. I've re-read pages 114 (Temporary Aspects) and 207-210 (Maneuvers).
-
I'm still new at this mind you (and possibly bearing the baggage of many years of many different RPG's), but I don't get running this as a maneuver.
The target has a metal object in hand (let's pretend he only has one on his person). I cast a spell that pulls it to my hand. He's not going to re-arm just because the aspect Disarmed is fragile; my PC's not going to say "oh, it's your turn now" and give it back. The target is going to have to pry it from my hand now.
I get adding maneuvers to a zone like Icy Surface or High Winds or Unstable Footing. I get adding maneuvers to people (though that still feels like it should be an attack; they get to resist) like Knocked Down or Blind or Weakened.
Disarmed doesn't feel like an aspect.
-
It explicitly is, though. See YS p. 209.
It could (and should) be assumed that if you only beat them by enough to get a Fragile Aspect, you just managed to knock the weapon aside and really messed up their grip, or knocked it down precisely at their feet, or something else quick and easy to recover from, depriving them of it's use only very briefly indeed. Now if you get it as a Sticky Aspect, then you can take it away from them and use it yourself, and them taking it back requires a Maneuver on their part to remove the Aspect and get it back.
Does that make more sense?
-
It explicitly is, though. See YS p. 209.
It could (and should) be assumed that if you only beat them by enough to get a Fragile Aspect, you just managed to knock the weapon aside and really messed up their grip, or knocked it down precisely at their feet, or something else quick and easy to recover from, depriving them of it's use only very briefly indeed. Now if you get it as a Sticky Aspect, then you can take it away from them and use it yourself, and them taking it back requires a Maneuver on their part to remove the Aspect and get it back.
Does that make more sense?
What you are saying makes sense from the perspective of the book, but what if you just want to take the person's weapon and not have to worry about a fragile aspect? it seems like taking a whole turn just to put a fragile aspect on a target that they can undo next round with an action (thus eliminating your aspect tag next round) is a waste of an exchange in combat. Time might be better spent actually doing damage. Sorry if I'm missing something basic...
-
What you are saying makes sense from the perspective of the book, but what if you just want to take the person's weapon and not have to worry about a fragile aspect? it seems like taking a whole turn just to put a fragile aspect on a target that they can undo next round with an action (thus eliminating your aspect tag next round) is a waste of an exchange in combat. Time might be better spent actually doing damage. Sorry if I'm missing something basic...
Uh...you only put a Fragile Aspect on someone if you tie their defense roll (or, with magic, use only 3 shifts of power), if you beat it by even a single point, it's Sticky. So if you're unarmed, they're definitively better (since you do no Stress at all with an attack that hits by zero).
You're almost never trying for Fragile Aspects. Though even if you were, they're worth it if you use a bit of teamwork, since four people can do them while a fifth (your heavy hitter) can then tag them all and take something the hell out.
-
it seems like taking a whole turn just to put a fragile aspect on a target that they can undo next round with an action (thus eliminating your aspect tag next round) is a waste of an exchange in combat.
Disregard my comments on removing the disarmed aspect with a simple action. I was arguing an edge case there, not the norm. Anyway, I've thought about it and now think the way to go there would be to not allow a disarmed aspect in the first place if it could easily be dismissed by the situation (going with something like I have his gun as suggested above).
Remember you team mates can make that free tag too. Worst case scenario, your opponent spends an entire action to remove the aspect, you come out even there. Keep in mind you could use your free tag if you're opposing his roll to remove the aspect.
-
Or you could just do direct damage with an attack (or the 'breaking" use of Might) on their weapon. 8+ shifts would be enough to break a wall. Breaking their weapon should be much easier.
-
Er, no. Fate doesn't work like that. You want to do a called shot to a specific target area? That's a maneuver. You want to disarm them? That's a maneuver. Now, if you make that a sticky disarmed tag, and then pick up the weapon (probably a supplemental action for you) - *then* you could break it. But as long as it's in their hands, no, it's *not* easier to break than a wall. Walls don't dodge.
Breaking someone's weapon would be a fairly good example of a minor to moderate consequence (depending on how much time and effort it'd take for that character to acquire a replacement), or result of a concession, though. But, again, you as the attacker can't just declare that.
-
I beg to differ. YS320 says;
Breaking
Items can take stress like characters can;
assume that an item has 2 stress boxes, modified
by the item quality in the same way as the
Endurance skill (page 130). An item “defends”
against attempts to break it using either its
quality rating or an appropriate skill used by
whoever is holding the item. Most items do not
suffer consequences; once their stress track is
bypassed, they are considered inoperable.
So, they can defend with weapons or fists or guns or even athletics against an attack on the weapon they are holding but said weapon can be attacked and broken just fine. Naturally, items of power can't be broken like this and especially sturdy and hard items (like a sword made of metal) are going to have a very high "quality" rating but something like a wooden focus or a gun? Easy meat for the guy swinging that battleaxe to cleave in two.
-
I find it interesting that your example is a one-off section on uses of the craftsmanship skill, and that there's *nothing* in the chapters on combat implying that you can do this in a combat setting.
I direct you to YS308, where it points out that intent precedes mechanics. If your intent is to deprive your opponent of the use of their weapon, that's a maneuver to disarm. If the intent is to *permanently* deprive them the use of their weapon, that's trying to inflict a consequence on them - a straight up attack, albeit possibly one preceded by a maneuver to declare a called shot. If you succeed, then they can accept the suggested consequence (broken weapon), or substitute one of their own (like sprained wrist, or broken wrist, or what-have-you, depending on the level of consequence involved.)
-
If you give somebody an aspect like "Blinded", that gives you the ability to try to compel them potentially to hit another target right? What is the cost of that, is it a fate point or would it be free if you invoked it on the free use?
-
I'd tend to say that would cost you a fate point; your free tag on "blinded" would, after all, only give you a +2 bonus to your defense. Of course, the GM could *also* compel that blinded aspect - though more likely to make them just plain miss (or accidentally set the building on fire if they're using that kind of weapon) - or even just to make them not attack because they know they can't see what they're doing.
-
My intent is to permanently disable/break their weapon, not their ability to hold a weapon. Thus breaking objects rules are used. Also, Might refers to that section about breaking things as well. It is not only for craftmanship. If it were, it would say so. And how do you use craftmanship to attack an item held from an enemy anyway? (cause for them to have to defend against something they are holding, you are obviously attacking it)
Besides, you can use Might to snatch the weapon then use a supplemental action to break it in your hands.
-
I've been known to disagree with Belial666 quite a lot upon occasion, but he's spot on on this one. Destroying objects in combat is absolutely a valid tactic for someone using Evocation or possessing Inhuman or better Strength. It fits the game's flavor, makes sense, and there's no earthly reason it shouldn't work.
Now, a sword (just for example) is going to be just ridiculously tough and require quite the hit to destroy (and a smart weapon specialist will have some backup weapons on hand anyway)...but it's still a valid tactic.
-
Yes, your intent is to break their weapon. But, unless you actually push them all the way to taken out, you don't get to declare consequences. If they decide that their weapon survived your hit, but the force of the impact sprained their wrist? That's what happened. If they decide they got mostly out of the way, taking only a cut across their arm? That's what happened. The section on breaking objects with might refers explicitly to barriers - a far cry from being able to just casually destroy your opponent's weapons.
How do you use craftsmanship to attack an item held by an enemy? That's a very good question. Thank you for exactly making my point for me.
And what on earth gives you the idea that you can either 1) outright snatch a weapon with might, or 2) break it as a supplemental action?
Regardless, I'm going to cease this discussion after this post. I've made my point, and given the relatively loose nature of the rules, neither of us will be able to make any sort of absolute proof of our position; I'll simply stand back and let others reading this make their own conclusions.
-
My point is that while disarming someone might be a maneuer to apply an aspect on the character, breaking a weapon is not a consequence or aspect on the character; it is an effect on an object they are holding. You can break objects. If you don't like this interpretation, OK. I'll be just making a maneuer to apply the "broken" sticky aspect on the object. Frankly, it is easier and applying aspects on objects is covered by the rules as well. They can later use craftmanship to remove the "broken" aspect by repairing if they want - of course, repairs take a long time so for the purposes of combat the aspect can't be removed. Which is the whole point here.
-
My point is that while disarming someone might be a maneuer to apply an aspect on the character, breaking a weapon is not a consequence or aspect on the character; it is an effect on an object they are holding. You can break objects. If you don't like this interpretation, OK. I'll be just making a maneuer to apply the "broken" sticky aspect on the object. Frankly, it is easier and applying aspects on objects is covered by the rules as well. They can later use craftmanship to remove the "broken" aspect by repairing if they want - of course, repairs take a long time so for the purposes of combat the aspect can't be removed. Which is the whole point here.
I don't think you can put the aspect "Broken" on a weapon. It's a bit like putting the aspect "Dead" (or at least "Incapacitated") on an enemy. Since objects have a stress track, you have to destroy it via attacks. You also have to go through the stress and consequences when you want to kill someone via magic, so why shouldn't you have to go through the stress track of weapons?
-
Okay, all interesting points, but getting back to my start... well, maybe let's simplify. I want a spell to use magnetism to pull a metal object I can see to me. What would that look like?
Part b, what changes if the object is being held by someone?
-
Okay, all interesting points, but getting back to my start... well, maybe let's simplify. I want a spell to use magnetism to pull a metal object I can see to me. What would that look like?
Part b, what changes if the object is being held by someone?
Part a: It's a maneuver. Depending on the weight of the object, it requires at least 3 shifts. Maybe modified by the Lifting table on page 321.
Part b. The same, but the target has a Might resisting roll.
In both cases: I'd say the aspect is "Lost the Object". If it's fragile, the target can get it back after a few exchanges or after it was tagged (or, of course, with a counter-maneuver). If it's sticky, the target has to do a maneuver to get it back (it's like in the other corner of the room or maybe the caster of the spell has it in his hand, what would lead to a resisting roll against the counter-maneuver). In my opinion, the aspect "Disarmed" can only be used, if the target has no other weapon at hand.
-
Well, if it's in your zone, relatively small, and unattended, I'd say that falls under the Mundane Effects category. I.E. if there's nothing that would've prevented you from walking over and grabbing it in the same time frame, it's not a serious spell, and doesn't even cost stress; at worst, this sort of thing is a supplemental action.
If it's bigger, or farther away, or there's something else complicating things (like trying to grab the keys to the cell you're stuck in), it becomes a maneuver - as posted by Bernd.
If somebody is holding the thing, it becomes a two-part operation: a maneuver to disarm, opposed by... probably might, but maybe alertness (if it's something they might not notice moving, like a key hanging off their belt), or potentially weapons or guns for appropriate items. Maybe even athletics, if they describe a defensive action like turning around to impose their body mass between you and the suddenly mobile item.
And then a second action to actually grab the item yourself; if it's relatively small, that's probably a supplemental action, doable as part of the same exchange at the normal cost of -1 to the initial maneuver; if it's large, bulky, critically important for you to have (like a weapon of any stripe), or farther away, I'd require a second full action to actually get the item to you - though if you put a duration on your initial spell, I wouldn't charge extra mental stress for doing so. Though, if you've got a fate point to spare and an appropriate aspect to tag for effect...
This is likely to change with GM, though; some will be more (or less) lenient. It'll also vary by game type; if you're running a more cinematic game, where people casually use guns to disarm folks, drive off bridges and somehow land right-side-up and keep going, etc - then directly grabbing an enemy's weapon off a maneuver is totally appropriate. (And they'll happily do the same to you, given the opportunity.)
-
Ok, so based on some discussions I'm trying to understand this. dlw32 and I had talked and we're still confused. There are two possible situations that each seem to need to be treated as separate spells. The reason this matters is because they would be two different rotes I think.
Spell a. Electromagnetically pull a metallic object out of a person's hand would be done as a maneuver of something like disarmed. I think this works well.
Spell b. If you wanted to take that same metallic object and throw it at the person to hurt them, that would be an attack.
They can't be the same rote right?
-
Correct. Mechanically, they can't be the same rote due to the different thing you're doing.
IC, you could justify this as the difference between pulling something (which requires only a strong magnetic field), and pushing something (which requires a much more carefully shaped magnetic field, as well as an actual flowing current to produce the appropriate force, not to mention the much finer requirements needed to aim it).
That said, if there was a metal spear on the far side of the guy, pointed directly at him, I'd let a player use rote a to attack, as a weapon rating equal to the normal power of that maneuver. However, setting up this sort of situation would probably require some form of declaration or assessment to generate an appropriate "standing in front of a spear" aspect that you could tag for effect in order to make your rote function differently from normal.
-
Correct. Mechanically, they can't be the same rote due to the different thing you're doing.
IC, you could justify this as the difference between pulling something (which requires only a strong magnetic field), and pushing something (which requires a much more carefully shaped magnetic field, as well as an actual flowing current to produce the appropriate force, not to mention the much finer requirements needed to aim it).
That said, if there was a metal spear on the far side of the guy, pointed directly at him, I'd let a player use rote a to attack, as a weapon rating equal to the normal power of that maneuver. However, setting up this sort of situation would probably require some form of declaration or assessment to generate an appropriate "standing in front of a spear" aspect that you could tag for effect in order to make your rote function differently from normal.
But could you do spell A (taking a weapon) as an attack instead of a maneuver?
-
Generally speaking, no. By the base rules, no. Were I GMing, I might allow it in some unusual circumstances, as I outlined in the third paragraph of my previous post.
Or am I misreading your question, here? What exactly do you think you're doing where taking a weapon away from someone is an attack?
-
Hmm ... what if you cast it as a Maneuver to apply an Aspect of In My Magnetic Grip to the weapon? Thereafter, as long as the Aspect is still on the weapon, the caster can use his Weapons rating to make bludgeoning attacks or throw the weapon away. The initial spell would be defended against with the target's Might, and the bludgeoning attacks would be defended against with Athletics as normal. Does that sound ok?
-
It was all about trying to get the two spells to be a single rote. If I could make the maneuver of disarming an attack that would make it a single attack rote. if it doesn't work at all in that way then that's fine. Thanks.
-
Just make a telekinesis Rote that replicates throwing things.
Ridiculously Efficient Throwing Rote MkVIII
Spirit (Force) or Earth (Gravity/Magnetism)
8 shifts of power, requires something to be thrown.
With a word and a gesture you throw the target of the spell, using the object (or creature!) as a thrown weapon. The Power of the spell is your effective Might to judge what objects you can throw; the current spell could throw up to heavy furniture. Your skill for throwing the object is your Control roll. Weapon Rating and other effects depend upon what you are using as a thrown object. Typically, keys, small stones and other light objects are weapon 0. Knives, average stones, glass bottles and the like are weapon 1. Baseball bats, heavy stones, chairs, dogs and the like are weapon 2. Axes, swords, spears, small boulders, most adults and light furniture are weapon 3. Medium boulders, heavyset adults, heavy furniture, bikes, ponies and the like are weapon 4. Therefore, about the limit of the effective weapon rating is half your Power or less. You could substantially increase that if you are creative; a 200-pound boulder may only be weapon 4 against a vampire but a couple of gallons of Holy Water might not. And 20 pounds of TNT rigged to go boom if thrown would ruin most peoples' day.
Disadvantages;
1) You got a crappy Weapon Rating.
2) You need a lot of Power to throw really big things. Throwing even a small car would require a 10 power rote.
Advantages;
You can both attack and disarm. Attack by throwing the target into a wall or something big into a target. Disarm by throwing the target's weapon. If they want to keep their weapon, that's OK; they get thrown along with it.
You can effectively attack two targets at once; just throw one into the other. You're technically attacking only one and using the other as a weapon but both should take the damage.
You can totally hose someone in specific situations; throw off a bridge or high building, throw before a passing car/train, throw into the sea/magma and so on.
Magic Immunity does not defend against throwing objects into somebody.
You can get creative; the rote allows you to throw much bigger stuff than you normally could. Bombs away!
You could totally use this as a social attack; throw their pants off. (OK, I got a bit carried away)