ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ryanshowseason2 on March 02, 2011, 04:57:18 PM
-
My players took a look at the stunt creation and came up with a couple stunts that didn't sit right with me but seemed within the confines of existing stunts.
In fists there is a stunt that lets you use fists as defense against anything athletics does, which is basically everything physical. One player wanted to do the opposite and let athletics serve as a fists attack, like a linebacker plowing through people or juggarnaut etc.
It seems to be within the new trapping rules, but it effectively consolidates physical defense and attack into one skill. So he takes no real detriment from putting 5 into it and then he desired to take a shapeshifting power so he could dump refresh into athletics, as well as supernatural speed( I think this might only effect defense though... ).
Also the one for conviction that allows its use as a defensive block. That doesn't reduce damage does it? I said h*** no but I may be wrong.
Opinions? The other ideas were similar in consolidation nature.
-
My players took a look at the stunt creation and came up with a couple stunts that didn't sit right with me but seemed within the confines of existing stunts.
In fists there is a stunt that lets you use fists as defense against anything athletics does, which is basically everything physical. One player wanted to do the opposite and let athletics serve as a fists attack, like a linebacker plowing through people or juggarnaut etc.
It seems to be within the new trapping rules, but it effectively consolidates physical defense and attack into one skill. So he takes no real detriment from putting 5 into it and then he desired to take a shapeshifting power so he could dump refresh into athletics, as well as supernatural speed( I think this might only effect defense though... ).
Also the one for conviction that allows its use as a defensive block. That doesn't reduce damage does it? I said h*** no but I may be wrong.
Opinions? The other ideas were similar in consolidation nature.
His stunt seems to work, but you can always put a limitation on it, like the book suggests. Perhaps he can only perform that attack if he has moves at least one zone first, because he needs room to run or jump or whatever?
The stunt that allows conviction to be used as a block kinda does reduce damage, because that's what Blocks do in combat, but it's not armor, it doesn't negate shifts of stress after the roll. Like any other Block, it is compared with an attack and the difference between them is the stress done.
-
I'd take a page from the SotC playbook and use speed bumps, make the stunts part of a chain.
For the first example I'd say he'd need to first take a stunt that allows him to use Fists to overcome zone borders (like Jackie Chan hopping up a wall), then the second stunt lets him dodge with Fists. It's still an unusually good stunt, but he has to buy a less good one first.
I wouldn't really find the second one that objectionable, unless the character in question has some sort of Might power fists attacks just don't do that much damage. If you have an issue with it you could mandate a previous stunt that allows him to use Athletics for some less-useful Might trapping, or require one of the existing Athletics stunts as a prereq.
-
My players took a look at the stunt creation and came up with a couple stunts that didn't sit right with me but seemed within the confines of existing stunts.
In fists there is a stunt that lets you use fists as defense against anything athletics does, which is basically everything physical. One player wanted to do the opposite and let athletics serve as a fists attack, like a linebacker plowing through people or juggarnaut etc.
I would probably say that for this stunt he could use athletics (+2?) for physical manouvres which is what tackling is really. The fist for dodging stunt comes from the core book so I recon it is correct.
-
Think of it as an Armed Arts, but for Fists to another skill. Also, you can easily say he can't manuever with his Fists, only attack.That would be a limit on his Stunt that fits well.
-
Heh, yeah, I'll second bitterpill. All those stunts are still substantially less effective than an equal investment in powers, and vanilla mortals have it hard enough already.
-
The most important thing, I think, is: the stunt/power has to fit the character concept. The conviction stunt is basically made for the true believer type of character, it wouldn't sit right with me to just have any character take it just to minmax his fighting capability. Think of a character concept first, then look at the stunts and powers that would fit the concept or create your own to get a character that represents this concept.
As others already said: if he wants to use athletics as an attack, he is going to need enough space, so crossing a zone should be necessary to use this stunt. And if he wants a shapeshifting ability, I would not allow him to use that stunt while shapeshifted. Fists is the skill that represents how you use your own body as a weapon, so if he shifts into some beast, he should use fists for any attack. Plus, he gets to shuffle around his skills anyway, when he shifts, so why would he need a stunt then?
The idea behind the fists for dodging stunt is, that you are trained in martial arts and therefore your fighting experience is rooted in your fists skill. You do not dodge a bullet whit athletics, and you don't dodge a bullet with this stunt, it just represents, how well you can position yourself, how good you can keep track of everyone involved, note if someone is trying to attack you and react in time, that sort of thing.
If you want a speed/athletics kind of character with shapeshifting, you could try a werepanther concept or something like that. Basically you take the Werewolf template and change it a little. Remove Pack instincts and replace it with cloak of shadows to represent the stealth capability of the panther. Again, you can shuffle around the skills, so there should be no need to take a stunt to attack in shifted form. Echoes of the Beast might provide stealth and/or athletics bonus for running, so if he really wants to the shifted form would create a benefit to the athletics for attacks stunt.
-
You can't dodge bullets with athletics?, I thought Atheletics was the only thing you could use to defend against bullets. I suppose I am going to have to start parrying bullets with my unbreakable sword.
-
You can't dodge bullets with athletics?, I thought Atheletics was the only thing you could use to defend against bullets.
Without stunts it is.
-
One thing i tell my GM and have always said wether i am running the game or not.
It is ok to say NO to your players.
whether it be a simple no, or a "No but", dont be afraid to tweak their idea or simply limit it.
Prime example i am playing a character that is offensive but not a dmg dealer, i'm a tagger, so i needed to figure out a way to more throu zones fast and easy.
So we worked together a stunt call "hong kong physics" it allows me to more thru zones with no penalties, i still make the rolls just never suffer minus to them. The stipulation is i have to be able to do it "Hong Kong movie" style. there has to be debris or objects around for me to flip/jump/roll off or around and i myself have to describe it fully. So if we are fighting in a open flat field, unless i get very very creative i cant use the stunt
-
You can't dodge bullets with athletics?, I thought Atheletics was the only thing you could use to defend against bullets. I suppose I am going to have to start parrying bullets with my unbreakable sword.
What I meant was: the athletics roll does not mean "Oh shit, there is a bullet coming my way, I better dodge before I get hit". It is meant to represent how much you move in a fight, how good you are at making yourself hard to hit, that sort of thing. Yes, in the end you dodge using athletics, but the actual matrix-style dodge is not what that roll represents.
-
What I meant was: the athletics roll does not mean "Oh shit, there is a bullet coming my way, I better dodge before I get hit". It is meant to represent how much you move in a fight, how good you are at making yourself hard to hit, that sort of thing. Yes, in the end you dodge using athletics, but the actual matrix-style dodge is not what that roll represents.
It can do with supernatural speed and above.
-
In fists there is a stunt that lets you use fists as defense against anything athletics does, which is basically everything physical. One player wanted to do the opposite and let athletics serve as a fists attack, like a linebacker plowing through people or juggarnaut etc.
It seems to be within the new trapping rules, but it effectively consolidates physical defense and attack into one skill. So he takes no real detriment from putting 5 into it and then he desired to take a shapeshifting power so he could dump refresh into athletics, as well as supernatural speed( I think this might only effect defense though... ).
Using Athletics for attack and stacking with Speed powers is definitely over-powered. The stunts section specifically calls out that no stunt should give a blanket +1 to an attacking skill. Additionally, Inhuman/Supernatural/Mythic Speed all appear balanced around the idea that Athletics is for movement and defense, NOT offense.
If the guy wants to be a linebacker and deal damage by being huge and plowing through things, that's a *Might* stunt anyway, not Athletics. Athletics is all about mobility, whereas Might is the big-and-strong skill.
-
Wouldn't athletics work for a kungfu attack? No running involved with that sort of thing.
-
The problem with the stunt, imho, is that Athletics is a very general skill. It has a lot of useful trappings besides dodging. Fists is a fairly narrow skill, and besides hitting things its trappings don't come up much. Giving fists ONE trapping of Athletics for a stunt makes a let of sense; there's still a ton of athletics stuff you can't do. Giving Athletics the major trapping of Fists for one stunt doesn't make a lot of sense, since there's hardly anything else from fists you'd want to do. And not allowing maneuvers is silly, since athletics can be used for a ton of maneuvers by itself (and that's like saying someone can hit someone else using athletics, but can't aim the hit...which is insane, but again it isn't much of a restriction in any case).
-
I'd allow the attack-with-Athletics stunt, but I wouldn't let the player use his speed bonus to Athletics for it.
If you still feel that it's too powerful, remember that Athletics attacks will always be weapon 0 while a Fists user can pick up brass knuckles or spiked gauntlets.
-
I'd allow the attack-with-Athletics stunt, but I wouldn't let the player use his speed bonus to Athletics for it.
If you still feel that it's too powerful, remember that Athletics attacks will always be weapon 0 while a Fists user can pick up brass knuckles or spiked gauntlets.
Eh, how are you going to force someone using athletics to attack to not be able to fashion a weapon to help out with that attack?
-
Eh, how are you going to force someone using athletics to attack to not be able to fashion a weapon to help out with that attack?
That reminds me of the black adder sketch where the kings hired killer uses a spiked hat and rushing to obesants as a fatal weapon.
-
I strongly suspect that all attempts to fashion tackling weapons will be just as silly as the spiked hat. And if it's ridiculous, you don't have to allow it.
-
That reminds me of the black adder sketch where the kings hired killer uses a spiked hat and rushing to obesants as a fatal weapon.
I was killed by Macbeth's spiked helmet in our high school production of that play. Saved a lot of choreography.
-
Wouldn't athletics work for a kungfu attack? No running involved with that sort of thing.
Well no, in my opinion. That would be a perfect example for the use of fists-as-athletics stunt.
-
The only better way I can think of using athletics as attack would be something akin to gymnastics like attacks. With cleats and cat woman like gloves as weapon 1 items. They could be honed as an enchanted item or other such honing of them.
Or perhaps parkour attacks, nothing like jumping onto someone from 40 feet above for a boot to the face.
-
The only better way I can think of using athletics as attack would be something akin to gymnastics like attacks. With cleats and cat woman like gloves as weapon 1 items. They could be honed as an enchanted item or other such honing of them.
Or perhaps parkour attacks, nothing like jumping onto someone from 40 feet above for a boot to the face.
Beware! Lest we inadvertently bring Gymkata into the Dresdenverse.
-
Beware! Lest we inadvertently bring Gymkata into the Dresdenverse.
New Stunt: Gymkata (Athletics): You may use Athletics to make declarations about the environment of the scene, you gain a +1 to the roll if these declarations place Pommel Horse like objects in the scene.
-
New Stunt: Gymkata (Athletics): You may use Athletics to make declarations about the environment of the scene, you gain a +1 to the roll if these declarations place Pommel Horse like objects in the scene.
Auuugh! I brought this on myself! :'( ;)
-
Beware! Lest we inadvertently bring Gymkata into the Dresdenverse.
Pshh I can do worse than that picture this:
enchanted item laser ice skates used to skate around on even concrete/asphalt, using triple axels to attack foes.
I can't decide if the stunt should make athletics into fists or if it should be performance.
Also see Breakdance fighting performance -> fists stunt.
Best idea so far from my group, a chronomancer enchanted axe or shield that sends matter it strikes into the immediate future. so 5 minutes from now whatever hit it winks into existence without warning. We thought about making it send stuff to the past but there'd be no way for me to gm that correctly.
-
I strongly suspect that all attempts to fashion tackling weapons will be just as silly as the spiked hat. And if it's ridiculous, you don't have to allow it.
Spiked shoulder pads aren't that silly if you are crashing into someone. Heck, a spiked shield even works there too.
-
Best idea so far from my group, a chronomancer enchanted axe or shield that sends matter it strikes into the immediate future. so 5 minutes from now whatever hit it winks into existence without warning. We thought about making it send stuff to the past but there'd be no way for me to gm that correctly.
That, and the Lawbreaking that would ensue by sending things back in time...
-
That, and the Lawbreaking that would ensue by sending things back in time...
Doesn't it break the 6th by sending things forward in time as well? But pah one of my players is abrigands and highwayman, no literally time travel dude. Is everyone here uptight about law breaking or something? It is a game.
-
Doesn't it break the 6th by sending things forward in time as well? But pah one of my players is abrigands and highwayman, no literally time travel dude. Is everyone here uptight about law breaking or something? It is a game.
Actually, sending things forward should be perfectly fine, seeing as that is not swimming against the currents of time...
Which brings to mind a character I'd like to write up; a German army scout working on a time travel project... who jumped ahead some sixty years from Dresden, February 13th 1945... Looking up history books when he arrived, he found a lot of good reasons not to go back... and integrated himself with some degree of success into modern society, with no particular interest in pursuing his original mission.
-
Wow good point. Didn't think of that.
So what if I send a car into the future and it lands on some unsuspecting victim? First law broken?
-
The law says against the flow of time, which implies that going with it, only faster or instantaneously, wouldn't be a problem. I'd have to re-read the section to be sure though.
-
He asked about the FIRST Law, Tallyrand.
And yes, it would break the first law
-
He asked about the FIRST Law, Tallyrand.
And yes, it would break the first law
D'oh, that's what I get for posting in a hurry. Agreed, dropping a car on someone by way of magic would likely break the first law.
-
I was thinking of trying to create a stunt to show the effects of slaughter on an enemies phyche this is what I can up with
Scary Slaughtering style
Get a +3 to an intimidate roll if an enemy has seen you kill one of their companions/colleges in the current scene.
Is this too powerful? Considering it requires you to brutally kill someone to gain the benefit.
-
I was thinking of trying to create a stunt to show the effects of slaughter on an enemies phyche this is what I can up with
Scary Slaughtering style
Get a +3 to an intimidate roll if an enemy has seen you kill one of their companions/colleges in the current scene.
Is this too powerful? Considering it requires you to brutally kill someone to gain the benefit.
I can't remember if specific situations was +2 or +3 in the book, but this sounds about right actually especially since the specific situation is dependant on a series of actions to kill someone. You might change kill to "take out" though.
Also my player relented a bit and came up with this instead as a stunt:
Finesse: Whenever appropriately described and legitimately possible your character may modify skills with athletics performing actions with grace and style.
-
I can't remember if specific situations was +2 or +3 in the book, but this sounds about right actually especially since the specific situation is dependant on a series of actions to kill someone. You might change kill to "take out" though.
Also my player relented a bit and came up with this instead as a stunt:
Finesse: Whenever appropriately described and legitimately possible your character may modify skills with athletics performing actions with grace and style.
I think it was +2 for specific situations, +3 if you have to pay a Fate point for it... But then the +3 stacks with any OTHER stunts that enhance the same bonus.
-
The rules are a +2 for a specific situation but really I thought the act of killing an opponent was one of the rare situations that warranted more than a plus 2.
-
I'd say that a +3 is justified provided that the killing was somehow noteworthy or spectacular. Just shooting a mook dead in a firefight would not cut it IMO. Now, if you shot a man who was on his knees, begging for his life at an angle that causes warm brains to splash onto the target of your Intimidation roll, yes.
Think of it as a sort of declaration. If the character does something gruesome or terrifying enough that it could be considered a declaration of a new scene aspect he then gets a +1 bonus on top of the free tag when he invokes it for a specific reason.
Also, once a fight starts (the most likely scenario for killing an NPC) social combat and skills become rather less effective, so using Intimidate after scoring a kill wouldn't be a frequent occurance.
-
I like that, best area aspect ever 'dismembered body' or 'human debris'.
-
One thing i tell my GM and have always said wether i am running the game or not.
It is ok to say NO to your players.
I prefer "Well you can try.." it allows them to dig deeper holes.
I was under the impression that FATE system was a stunt gave you either;
- +2 for a specific circumstance.
- Allowed you to use one skill in place of another in a relevant situation.
- some special item relevant to the skill (like your mages library under Lore, or the amoury under weapons or a special car nude drive)
- or a special effect (such as read the surface stunt allowing you to make judgemens quicker than most)
-
No, higher bonuses are already an option. Check Listening (YS 153). +4 to Investigation rolls for hearing, but alertness drops to Terrible while doing so. It doesn't require the expenditure of a FP either.
Now, Listening comes with a built in drawback for using it, and has a relatively niche application. Whether or not the Intimidation stunt above is sufficiently specific and limited enough to qualify for a +3 bonus without expending FP is up for debate.
Now, if the stunt under discussion is only applicable to the Threats trapping of Intimidate I would say it is definitely limited enough to qualify for a higher bonus, since it requires a fairly specific and non-inconsequential opening condition to come into play.
On the other hand, if it can apply to any trapping of Intimidate once the activation criteria are met, I'd say that a +2 bonus would be more reasonable. Admittedly, if you brutally murder someone Social Combat is probably off the table, but I can definitely see the application to Interrogation and Provocation, and maybe the Brush-Off.