ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: eberg on January 03, 2011, 03:57:55 PM

Title: Spell Damage
Post by: eberg on January 03, 2011, 03:57:55 PM
Due to control bonuses from specialization and foci, it seems like magical attacks are disproportionately powerful compared to any other venue. Bonuses "to hit" are fairly rare in the system, except with magical practitioners. This gets to a point where a very powerful wizard's attacks are nearly impossible to dodge because of the control bonus on top of their Discipline when they cast. I am running a game with serious heavy-hitters on the NPC side and, as I was building the bad guys, became concerned at their damage potential.

My initial idea was to change it so that Weapon rating for spells took two shifts instead of one, like Armor. However, this hurt the PCs more than it did the powerful NPCs and also didn't address the "to hit" problem. What I ended up doing was house-ruling that the Control bonuses only applied to the roll for the purpose of controlling the Power summoned, but not for seeing if it hit. This retains the benefit of control bonuses in allowing you to successfully channel large amounts of power without it also making you hyper-accurate (and, thus, adding even /more/ damage from additional shifts). It also brings shields back to a level of effectiveness that, I feel, better parallels the books and closes the disparity between a powerful mage and a powerful physical combatant.

For example: Bob calls forth 7 shifts of Power and gets +4 for his Discipline roll. He has a +1 specialization control bonus and a +2 focus control bonus, so his Control roll is +7, just enough. However, he only compares the +4 to his target's defense to see if it hits.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Ryan_Singer on January 03, 2011, 06:17:21 PM
Due to control bonuses from specialization and foci, it seems like magical attacks are disproportionately powerful compared to any other venue. Bonuses "to hit" are fairly rare in the system, except with magical practitioners. This gets to a point where a very powerful wizard's attacks are nearly impossible to dodge because of the control bonus on top of their Discipline when they cast. I am running a game with serious heavy-hitters on the NPC side and, as I was building the bad guys, became concerned at their damage potential.

My initial idea was to change it so that Weapon rating for spells took two shifts instead of one, like Armor. However, this hurt the PCs more than it did the powerful NPCs and also didn't address the "to hit" problem. What I ended up doing was house-ruling that the Control bonuses only applied to the roll for the purpose of controlling the Power summoned, but not for seeing if it hit. This retains the benefit of control bonuses in allowing you to successfully channel large amounts of power without it also making you hyper-accurate (and, thus, adding even /more/ damage from additional shifts). It also brings shields back to a level of effectiveness that, I feel, better parallels the books and closes the disparity between a powerful mage and a powerful physical combatant.

For example: Bob calls forth 7 shifts of Power and gets +4 for his Discipline roll. He has a +1 specialization control bonus and a +2 focus control bonus, so his Control roll is +7, just enough. However, he only compares the +4 to his target's defense to see if it hits.

One thing you might want to note is that nerfing the groups most effective attacks doesn't just hurt the mage, it takes down the combat effectiveness of the whole group.

That said, yes, Wizards are much more powerful than any other character concept in the game. Tanks focused on grappling are the only ones that come close, and they lose effectiveness when forced to fight more than one enemy at a time.

You basically have two options:

1) Many human opponents. Laws of Magic tend to tie up the wizard into playing support for the other characters in combat encounters against human opponents.

2) Nerf Wizards, as you suggest. This completely changes the dynamic, though.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Wolfwood2 on January 03, 2011, 08:42:18 PM
1) Many human opponents. Laws of Magic tend to tie up the wizard into playing support for the other characters in combat encounters against human opponents.

2) Nerf Wizards, as you suggest. This completely changes the dynamic, though.

A more subtle way to nerf wizards is to carefully ration out their opponents over a scene (so they can't try to blast them all at once).  They have a powerful weapon in Evocation, but it only has 4 or 5 (if using a Mild Consequence) "shots" in it.  Once that last mental stress box has been filled in, things get very interesting indeed and it becomes a question of how much the wizard is willing to damage himself to keep zapping away.

It really does get easy to use all that mental stress, especially if you want to toss down a nice Maneuver or something with Evocation as well.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Sanctaphrax on January 03, 2011, 10:12:53 PM
Personally, I don't think a fix is needed.

Evocation is, at the higher levels of play, by far the most powerful attack method. It is balanced partly by the stress that it inflicts on the user and partly by the amount of refresh it costs.

An evoker should be compared to a character with an amount of refresh equal to the evoker's Evocation + Refinements cost purely in combat powers and stunts.

If you're worried about having a baddie wipe out the party with one or two spells, have him use spray attacks. This is both a way to make the fight easier and a way to bring the entire party into the fight.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: riplikash on January 03, 2011, 10:38:01 PM
It is the same problem (or non-problem) D&D has had for years and the solution is the same. Casters are nukers, but with no stamina, and more traditional fighters can't put out the same dmage, but can go the distance.

So either let sprinkle in opponents slowly or don't give your casters a chance to rest. Make a longer encounter that doesn't allow them to rest. Make the casters carefully choose their targets.

This is a strong theme in the books too (especially in the first half of the series). It is often pointed out that in a strait fight Dresden could smear a lot of his opposition, but by the time he is actually facing them he has already casted a lot of magic and is too exhausted to do so.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: MijRai on January 04, 2011, 03:27:44 AM
And don't forget mortals! Can't kill a mortal without breaking a Law. Make them be resourceful in other ways.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: JesterOC on January 04, 2011, 03:41:12 AM
Since the player dictates how he takes out his target, you should not have to worry about a wizard killing a mortal on accident.

JesterOC
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: MijRai on January 04, 2011, 05:26:21 AM
Since the player dictates how he takes out his target, you should not have to worry about a wizard killing a mortal on accident.

JesterOC


You can dictate to a degree. But when you use a spell that is Weapon 4 or above (grenades or stronger), you don't get much of a choice. Either the grenade missed, or it blew him up.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: admiralducksauce on January 04, 2011, 12:30:29 PM
You can dictate to a degree. But when you use a spell that is Weapon 4 or above (grenades or stronger), you don't get much of a choice. Either the grenade missed, or it blew him up.

There are a lot of very-much-alive people with shrapnel wounds that would argue otherwise.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Papa Gruff on January 04, 2011, 01:10:13 PM
There are a lot of very-much-alive people with shrapnel wounds that would argue otherwise.

Even take out results have to stay within the realm of reason. This has been discussed to death in other threads...

Ask yourself: How much is a lot? I bet you can't come up with a significant number of people who survived bad shrapnel wounds.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: JesterOC on January 04, 2011, 03:59:18 PM
It is pretty clear to me, the victor decides how the loser is taken out (p203).

...taken out, meaning the character has decisively lost
the conflict. His fate is in the hands of the oppo-
nent, who may decide how the character loses.

The only time the text mentions that it has to be within the realm of reason is to stress that you should not die of shame. So yes it should be within reason but it is easy to describe how someone stayed alive in the face of superior firepower.

This is trivially easy for a wizard.
If a wizard uses electricity to hit their opponents with a 1 million volt blast of electricity (Weapon 8 lets say) the victims can easily be said to live because you could say it had nearly no amps.

For standard weapons it just requires a bit of imagination, the targets ducked behind a wall just in time, and it protected them from most of the blast, the swordsman missed all the major organs etc.

As a rule of thumb, you can't force murder onto a PC.

Edit: Upon further reflection I agree that if a viable fiction can not be determined, I can see murder being forced upon a PC. EI Blowing up something huge with a bunch of people in it, I can't see how you could say that no one died. But I think the rule of thumb for normal conflicts still holds.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: JesterOC on January 04, 2011, 04:14:41 PM
Even take out results have to stay within the realm of reason. This has been discussed to death in other threads...
Just because it has been discussed to death does not mean they were right. Letting the winner decide the fate of the loser is an extension of the just say yes theme of the game. If the PC's want to play a game of the A-Team then let them play it.

Ask yourself: How much is a lot? I bet you can't come up with a significant number of people who survived bad shrapnel wounds.
Statistically speaking more people survive combat wounds then die from them. Just check any modern war stats.

Iraq war stats - Most of these are from bombs much bigger than grenades
US deaths ~4K
US wounded ~32K

Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: admiralducksauce on January 04, 2011, 04:24:57 PM
http://asiancorrespondent.com/31470/75-wounded-in-bangkok-grenade-attack-as-tensions-escalate/

http://www.thesurvivorsclub.org/extreme/a-marines-journey-surviving-four-grenade-blasts-in-one-day

I will admit that perhaps I keyed off the example given (a hand grenade) and not the mechanical example (Weapon:4).  Grenades are hardly binary weapons (either no injury or complete salsa).  I actually agree with the point made above, that if a character is attacking a target of normal toughness with a frag grenade (or Weapon:4*), he is not looking to subdue said target.  To me it's about intent, and I try to discern what the player means to do with their weapon before the dice fall.

When it comes to beings of supernatural toughness, well, I suppose it's up to the group.  Maybe grenades and 50 BMG is the only way a group can wound certain critters.

*I'd personally make grenades Weapon:3, not 4.  The benefit is that they hit an entire zone.  To me, a .50 BMG round is more like Weapon:4 and assuming no concessions, I don't see any Taken Out result as reasonable other than "limb blown off" or "killed messily".
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: JesterOC on January 04, 2011, 04:33:34 PM
*I'd personally make grenades Weapon:3, not 4.  The benefit is that they hit an entire zone.  To me, a .50 BMG round is more like Weapon:4 and assuming no concessions, I don't see any Taken Out result as reasonable other than "limb blown off" or "killed messily".

If the character shooting the .50 says something like this. "I don't want to kill the guy, just take him out of the fight, I'll aim for his firearm". On a hit you describe how the target's gun explodes in his hands and the guys hands are shattered due to the impact, and he gets minor shrapnel woulds everywhere else.

However if the shooter says "I aim for his head" and he hits, well he already decided to kill so he can't back out of it now.

JesterOC

p.s.
Oh just like you said...
To me it's about intent, and I try to discern what the player means to do with their weapon before the dice fall.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Papa Gruff on January 04, 2011, 05:26:34 PM
Just because it has been discussed to death does not mean they were right. Letting the winner decide the fate of the loser is an extension of the just say yes theme of the game. If the PC's want to play a game of the A-Team then let them play it.

I have nothing against the rule that the victor of a conflict decides the take out. I have nothing against a player describing a takeout result that keeps a NPC alive instead of killing it, for as long as it makes sense. I can even overlook the occasional description of something unreasonable for as long as it doesn't become a regular thing.  If my players decide to use their maximal brute force time after time after time and always find excuses why they haven't killed their opposition at least to me it makes no sense.

If a player wants to leave somebody alive and it seems not reasonable, the GM should probably try to find a way to compel the player to a reasonable outcome. At least that's what I'd do. If the PC buys out then it goes the way he likes, if not then the guy is dead. In my opinion that is probably the fairest way to handle it, and it's in line with the yes/roll/compel theme.

But lets please stop derailing this thread. I'd be happy to discuss some more elsewhere.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: JesterOC on January 04, 2011, 05:38:01 PM
But lets please stop derailing this thread. I'd be happy to discuss some more elsewhere.

Agreed. So I will give my opinion to the OP.

Don't change the magic system. Use multiple opponents in multiple zones to prevent the one huge smackdown spell that can take out all the opponents. Spell casting takes mental stress, a wizard can't keep casting spells for long.

Also after a bit of exposure to a wizard a named NPC will start looking for magical protection.

JesterOC
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Papa Gruff on January 04, 2011, 07:59:37 PM
Agreed. So I will give my opinion to the OP.

Don't change the magic system. Use multiple opponents in multiple zones to prevent the one huge smackdown spell that can take out all the opponents. Spell casting takes mental stress, a wizard can't keep casting spells for long.

Also after a bit of exposure to a wizard a named NPC will start looking for magical protection.

JesterOC

I concur with this, yet I can't say that I don't have problems scaling against my two submerged PC sometimes.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: eberg on January 11, 2011, 07:22:15 PM
I think people are misconstruing my problem (which I might not have been clear enough about). I'm less concerned with the potential to kill lots of opponents in the same zone or even about damage (mostly), since I am not changing the Weapon ratings. Folks who can pull Power 5+ are still hitting hard. My problem is with the ability to hit unfailingly. Simply, defenses do not scale to how "to hit" rolls scale for wizards, if you include control bonuses. Even magical defenses, like the +5 block your average wizard will throw up during a fight are practically useless against someone with some refinement and good foci who has a base +9 to hit you. Similarly, that individual is going to have any easy time hitting anything with less than Superb Athletics and Mythic Speed. I don't feel like this situation reflects the books at all, where magical shields are shown to be very effective and fast monsters are shown to be tough to target. Most wizards are going to have +4 or +5 Discipline to begin with, so they are already expert marksmen. Giving them at least a +2 bonus to hit on top of this makes them nigh-unstoppable, particularly since they are hitting with Weapon 4+ attacks.

I don't feel that addressing that "nerfs" wizards. They are still throwing around attacks with a Weapon rating that outstrips anything less than a tank or a demon with Claws and Mythic Strength and their magic gives them unparalleled flexibility. A monster's claws are good for one thing, a Wizard can do /ANYTHING/ given time and prep. I just don't think they need a "to hit" bonus and the attendant extra damage this gives them, ON TOP of these advantages.

And, as I said, my concern is less about my PCs power and more about their enemies. The PCs are losing a couple points of stress in damage and are missing a little bit more. One tough NPC in my current major plotline is going from a +8 to hit to a +4, meaning that the PCs shields and dodge rolls may actually save them from his Weapon:8 attacks (I calculated that, if they didn't get a shield up in time and rolled badly on their dodge, they could potentially take 20 shifts of damage from one of his attacks).
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: devonapple on January 11, 2011, 07:38:20 PM
One could perhaps do this:
The first any 3 or 4 shifts above the needed to hit roll = extra shifts of damage. I think we can all agree that there should be some damage benefit for rolling well.
After that, every 3-4 shifts (no rounding up or down) means the caster gets to tack a Fragile Aspect (3 shifts) or Sticky Aspect (4 shifts) on the target, with any leftover shifts are disregarded.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: AlexFallad on January 11, 2011, 08:58:25 PM
I pretty much agree with the OP.  The Wizard's Control roll is functioning to both control the power and generate accuracy.  At a minimum, he seems to have a reasonable house rule that accuracy is generated only by the Discipline. 

The swing Wizards get to accuracy and therefore damage reminds me of WEG's Star Wars D6 system and their Lightsaber Combat mechanic.  Use of the power generated a Force bonus to hit and damage...I'll spare the gruesome details but Jedi Knights would hit and deal devastating damage far above their peers to ridiculous levels.  Some folks were okay with it, some folks had a problem with a blaster rifle doing 5D6 damage and a Jedi doing 13D6 with a lightsaber...
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: sinker on January 11, 2011, 09:08:59 PM
If your issue is with damage I'd say that devonapple has a pretty elegant solution (I.E. cap it). If your issue is with wizards being expert marksmen I'd say that's a pretty accurate representation of the books. It seems to me that wizards hit most of the time, unless we're dealing with supernatural baddies with extra speed or shielding (in which case maybe the issue is with supernatural speed or shielding and not the wizard).
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: BumblingBear on January 11, 2011, 09:52:07 PM
If your issue is with damage I'd say that devonapple has a pretty elegant solution (I.E. cap it). If your issue is with wizards being expert marksmen I'd say that's a pretty accurate representation of the books. It seems to me that wizards hit most of the time, unless we're dealing with supernatural baddies with extra speed or shielding (in which case maybe the issue is with supernatural speed or shielding and not the wizard).

If people are having problems with wizard damage, I agree that this is the best solution.

That said, I don't think the game is broken.  Wizards /CAN/ lay the smack down.  By Changes,
(click to show/hide)

I think that it is realistic that wizards are to be feared.  That said, it also goes with the flavor of the books that smart fighters don't fight fair and use sneaky tactics.

I'd argue that a sneaky character who is good with guns is as dangerous as a nasty evocator.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Sanctaphrax on January 11, 2011, 10:37:13 PM
If you want wizards to be powerful but innacurate, you could try having control bonuses increase control and damage instead of control and accuracy.
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: bibliophile20 on January 12, 2011, 12:05:41 AM
And don't forget, the baddies can always "jiggle the elbow" a bit; it's completely workable for enemies to compel tags and aspects on the wizard's Discipline roll to reduce it.  The wizard will end up getting a bundle of fate points from the compels, but drop enough of them and the firecracker will fizzle.  And aspects like "The Building Was On Fire And It Wasn't My Fault" are begging for compels from the GM for creative misfires. 
Title: Re: Spell Damage
Post by: Drashna on January 13, 2011, 06:04:22 AM
inhuman speed gives +1 to athletics to dodge, or +2 if moved (IIRC).  So if it's fast, its likely to have a 4-5 athletics anyhow.  That's 5 min, to 7.  Now suppose the baddie/target decides to invoke aspects? "It's dark here", and his high concept.  That's a 9 shift defense. Maybe 11.  I'm sorry, but I see this as balanced.  And that's also assuming that you have no stunts to boost it, and aren't taking a full defensive action (2 higher).