ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: riplikash on January 18, 2011, 03:14:29 PM
-
So maybe I've misread something, but are backstabs and silent take-downs just impossible in this game? You know, short of nuking someone with magic or burning through 5 fate points to invoke tons of aspects.
Here is my understanding, please tell me if I'm missing something.:
To take out your average accountant you need to do 15 stress damage in 1 round. Lets assume you are a world class martial artist, so +5.
Maneuver to hide in shadows +2
Has a special takedown stunt +2
declare he is unaware and tag that +2
invoke special forces training +2
invoke darkness in building +2
And there is no margin of error here.
This seems excessive to take down an accountant, and most PCs wont have this level of specialization. And heaven help me if I want to ambush a PC. There has to be a better way to go solid snake on a bunch of mooks. Last game I basically just did concessions for the mooks, but I wasn't very happy with it. Any ideas on how to handle these situations?
-
Your average accountant will be an NPCs and faceless NPCs won't take all the consequences for something like this. Unless your GM hates you.
-
also, when you're attacking from Stealth, according to page 142 of your hymnal, they can only defend themselves with an effective skill level of +0 (meaning a flat die roll).
-
I was thinking of same thing. The solution I came up with is doing a maneuver. Applying an aspect like "throat slit" or "broken neck" or "black jacked" or the like and then paying a fate point to compel. seeing how most low mooks and crumby henchmen in my campaign won't have any starting fate points it would mean being taken out right away. where as more note worthy opponents will have starting fate points they can buy off the compel, making it more dramatic.
-
I like the maneuver idea, that's pretty elegant. One round to set up the maneuver, one round to attack, dealing the mook's 2 or 3 stress, and tagging/compelling the maneuver to keep them down.
-
Not that its necessarily a flaw, but wouldn't that same mechanic allow people to take out mooks WITHOUT using any sort of stealth, just by putting a "knocked out" aspect on them? I suppose putting an aspect on the mook requires GM permission, but it seems odd to bypass most of the conflict result rules by spending a fate point, when there are already rules for spending fate points during a conflict.
-
That's why I mentioned my alteration, where the maneuver is used to create an aspect which you can tag during the subsequent attack. The way I'd do it would involve an actual attack roll.
-
As Doc Chaos mentioned mooks shouldn't have consequences, so realistically you should only have to deal four or five stress which should be easy to pull of if they have a defense of 0.
Of note there's very few ways to reliably disable (but not kill) others without a lot of skill/training involved, so that kind of thing is what I would qualify as "lethal intent" (meaning the take out should likely be death).
-
There's very few ways for a normal human to disable (and silence) another normal human non-lethally, yes. But for supernatural characters, you could have all sorts of things; stingers with knock out toxin, vulcan nerve pinches, kung-fu chi strikes, hypnotic gaze, etc. Many Dresnden characters who aren't mortals would likely be able to find a way to do it.
-
I don't like that "throat slit" aspect idea, if only because I pretty much never apply rules to my PCs that don't also apply to my NPCs which will lead to a LOT of character death since baddies tend to out number the good guys. The obvious solution is that non-main villains don't tend to get consequences. Also of note, even if mooks do get consequences in your campaign there's nothing saying that you have to kill them in one hit to take them out. Your average accountant would probably take one consequence and then offer a concession along the lines of "Left for Dead" or "Bleeding Out".
-
So maybe I've misread something, but are backstabs and silent take-downs just impossible in this game?
And heaven help me if I want to ambush a PC. There has to be a better way to go solid snake on a bunch of mooks. Last game I basically just did concessions for the mooks, but I wasn't very happy with it. Any ideas on how to handle these situations?
Well, I think that it might be easier if the attacker had a weapon of some sort. A garrote or a commando fighting knife might make the silent takedown more efficient.
-
It is possible, get surprise and the victim rolls at +0 to defend. Add a couple of aspects (you should have time to set several up if you have time to set an ambush up), add weapon skill and weapon rating. You're probably at +13 or better for combat oriented characters. If the victim isn't conceding prior to taking all three levels of consequences, he probably has taken at least two you can tag when following up. With the right rolls or an NPC who concedes prior to consequences, your victim is taken out in one hit. But, if you want to be certain, set it up so two of you take one down...or set up more aspects to tag.
-
Instead of applying an aspect via a manuever, why not just make an attack for consequence. Like an addictive saliva consequence. All the attack shifts could go towards a consequence that is something like "knocked out cold" or "throat slit", and compel the consequence as normal. Or tag for another attack.
But most of the surprise attacks we're talking about here are hand to hand which would probably involve a grapple result as well as a more specific attack. So the grapple could prevent the victim from alerting others while the results of the attack take effect. Why not do this as a grapple with weapon:+x added as well as any other tags, declarations, etc?
-
Instead of applying an aspect via a manuever, why not just make an attack for consequence. Like an addictive saliva consequence. All the attack shifts could go towards a consequence that is something like "knocked out cold" or "throat slit", and compel the consequence as normal. Or tag for another attack.
Generally you need powers for inflicting direct Consequences, but we've produced at least one Stunt (Brutality) on the Custom Stunts thread which allows the user to directly inflict consequences.
If the GM allows it, you could reskin it to be a "Knockout" stunt which allows you to inflict consequences with a decent Burglary/Stealth/Weapons/Fists/whatever-you-determine-it-to-be roll.
-
But there are certain characters, Mainly non combat oriented characters or with diminutive that can't come up with 13 plus shifts in one attack (At least two of my players). But realistically anyone should be able to take down an opponent in one hit. I like DFRPG due to it's small amount of numerical mechanics when it comes to conflict. I would say that a maneuvers like I mentioned before are rather realistic and convey a "critical hit" better then a lucky die roll IMO. I thought about it after my original post though and figured that it might be more difficult to get such an aspect put on some one but haven't figured out too many ways to represent that yet. I have a feeling that this might get brought up a lot in my campaign due to the fact that one of my player has an aspect "sneak attack". And anything that might not have an anatomy that the character maneuvering knows about would be unable to have this aspect applied to them.
Plus I would say that such an aspect could be put on someone in normal conflict as well. Yet again as a maneuver with a compel, but that person is going to be actively defending so would have a better chance of not getting hit. Plus if you fail the other combatant could make a deceleration that you have "overextended" yourself or "left an opening" for tagging on there turn. Imagine a conflict of two combatants going for the jugular each time. It would be rather dramatic.
I know it circumvents the combat system to some degree but I'm still working out the kinks a little. Plus in my campaign I don't want to have long drawn out physical conflict be the center of attention. I can also see this being used to some degree or another in other forms of conflict, not just physical. I think it could get interesting, but might need some sort of limitation though. Haven't settled on one yet.
-
You could set it up as a consequential contest. YS p.193
You don't need to have a power to inflict direct consequences, just good reason to do so.
-
I think the most important element that keeps this simple and flexible is the previously mentioned concept that mooks don't take consequences. The solid mechanics that do exist for stacking up tags and Ambushing allow for taking out even tougher opponents, and IMO that's all that's really necessary.
Just this last weekend my PC was Ambushed by a fellow PC because we were being manipulated by a spirit (but anyway...) The attacker Set an Ambush aspect on the scene, I waltzed into it, and failed my Alertness check. He has Weapons 3, a Weapon:1 knife, tagged the aspect, and rolled a +0 for 6 shifts of damage.
Player Character/Hero Awesomeness:
I took a Mild Consequence and marked off the 4th P box. My PC just managed to twist aside at the last second and took a Bad Cut to the lower back.
Mook NPC Not Worth Devoting Alot of Worry About:
Taken Out...gurgle
Yes, NPCs are people too, but he should have called in sick today...
-
But how you deal with a diminutive fairy with a weapon 1? Or an eight year old? The diminutive power IIRC says something about not getting more then one shift for damage, then adding weapons, or did I read that wrong? A swipe for the jugular with a box cutter if sufficient should be a killing blow even with an eighteen inch character. How would you represent that? According to the rules with diminutive, it could not happen unless you do it several times. Even with only two boxes you would have to do that attack, and hit, five times to make it work. Am I missing something? I'll look up the consequential contests when I get the chance.
What page does it say mooks don't take consequence. I missed that. Even so you have to do it twice with a diminutive character. I'm trying to figure out a one shot thing here for that type of character specifically. The player is playing character that is toot-toot like.
-
Even with only two boxes you would have to do that attack, and hit, five times to make it work. Am I missing something?
Well, hitting five times is an abstract concept that doesn't necessarily mean making five sword strokes. Theoretically the pixie could rack up several Maneuvers reflecting maneuvers that mislead, confuse, and manipulate the larger foe into being a ripe target for the killing blow.
-
Of note the diminutive size power says "When size is a factor in combat, you can only inflict 1 physical stress per attack." I would state that if you're just trying to open someone's jugular, or hit a small sensitive spot (the eye or similar) that size is not a factor. In fact the "Small is Big" trapping of that same power might imply that it would be easier for them to hit a small vulnerable spot.
-
i have a player who wants to play a character similar to garrett from the thief computer game series, and if she wants to take out nameless_guard_01_who_is_not_really_important_to_the_story i allow it to be done via consequences.
i know that's some heavy tweaking, but who wants a needless fight that doesn't furthen the plot?
-
The easier way to do it is from lack of consequences, but if it's working for you then keep doing it.
Of note Wyrdrune I just got through the wizard of sunset strip. It was decent.
-
Of note the diminutive size power says "When size is a factor in combat, you can only inflict 1 physical stress per attack." I would state that if you're just trying to open someone's jugular, or hit a small sensitive spot (the eye or similar) that size is not a factor. In fact the "Small is Big" trapping of that same power might imply that it would be easier for them to hit a small vulnerable spot.
I actually didn't think about that. you bring up a good point there. I might have to try that first. I'm new to the system so I'm bound to make more of such mistakes.
-
Of note the diminutive size power says "When size is a factor in combat, you can only inflict 1 physical stress per attack." I would state that if you're just trying to open someone's jugular, or hit a small sensitive spot (the eye or similar) that size is not a factor. In fact the "Small is Big" trapping of that same power might imply that it would be easier for them to hit a small vulnerable spot.
Along the same lines, you could perform a maneuver/declaration to gain the "Aiming For The Jugular" Aspect and then Invoke that Aspect for the effect "Size is not a factor for this attack". Otherwise, a player could always say they were attacking so that size wasn't a factor, which would negate one of the limitations of being small.
-
Along the same lines, you could perform a maneuver/declaration to gain the "Aiming For The Jugular" Aspect and then Invoke that Aspect for the effect "Size is not a factor for this attack". Otherwise, a player could always say they were attacking so that size wasn't a factor, which would negate one of the limitations of being small.
This is good thinking too. I didn't consider that. I might incorporate that a bit too, maybe situation dependent.
-
What page does it say mooks don't take consequence. I missed that. Even so you have to do it twice with a diminutive character. I'm trying to figure out a one shot thing here for that type of character specifically. The player is playing character that is toot-toot like.
I'll dig through YS Running The Game etc. and get back to you, but it's definite that a GM can de facto decide how many, if any, consequences NPCs will take in the interest of moving things along (story over mechanics). This works both ways though...if the GM feels like a PC has gotten too comfortable doing a certain thing a certain way in ANY system, said PC is going to get a surprise.
-
Honestly, for your average mortal, I just have the assassin roll an opposed stealth roll, and call the mortal dead.
For a goon that might actually take a consequence (meaning 3-4 stress, and a -2 consequence, so 5-6 stress to take out), now we'll do two rolls: sneak (as a maneuver) and an actual attack roll. With a 4-5 skill and one maneuver (so 6-7 plus roll) versus someone starting at 0, the enemy is usually taken out in a hit, but a careful person probably wants one more maneuver there (aiming or such).
For anything that's going to take more than one consequence, now the player needs to get really creative with taking them out. We had a sniper hit for 28 stress before without magic, but it was a series of steps done to hunt a specific target plus a 5 fate point dump... so, still, he pulled off 18 stress without fate points. That would take out probably anything but a major NPC or a PC.
The thing to remember is that as a GM, the game goes faster if you actually DO tell your players what it will take to kill the guy (as in, this dude's just an accountant, you can kill him with a successful stealth roll), vs "letting them figure it out". As the "mystery" will make sure that they always try for 20 some hit stress on every random accountant.
-
I'll dig through YS Running The Game etc. and get back to you, but it's definite that a GM can de facto decide how many, if any, consequences NPCs will take in the interest of moving things along (story over mechanics). This works both ways though...if the GM feels like a PC has gotten too comfortable doing a certain thing a certain way in ANY system, said PC is going to get a surprise.
It's page 327 under Nameless PCs, last paragraph..."In general, nameless NPCs should never accept consequences"
Otherwise you get oddities where it is far easier to knock someone out than kill them. Average Joe is going to do a concession where he's knocked out rather than get put in traction.
-
Cool. Thanks for all the help here. It will definitely come in handy when we finally get to.