ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: zenten on August 26, 2011, 07:02:06 PM
-
So, what would the rules be for these?
I get that I should be using the rules for "Special-Effects Attacks" on page 326. I also think they should be affecting a large area (and the roll to hit basically means nothing). But what would the "damage" for them be (as in the roll to overcome)? And would the tear gas be something that you have to keep on rolling against when you succeed, until you leave the area?
-
I would treat them as Blocks vs Alertness, or Weapons: 2-3 Mental Attacks.
Yes, Mental, as they work by screwing with or overloading the senses. That seems like a non-physical attack to me.
-
My take:
- flashbangs apply Blinding Flash to a zone and the GM immediately compels everyone in the zone
- tear gas applies Debilitating Gas to a zone which is also immediately compelled and potentially compelled again on subsequent exchanges if used indoors
- concussion grenades apply Stunning Explosion to a zone and is compelled immediately
Any of them could also be modeled as a block but the compel gives more flexibility on specific results.
-
Yes, Mental, as they work by screwing with or overloading the senses. That seems like a non-physical attack to me.
You should probably go read the section on mental conflict (YS217-219).
How hard do you want them to be to overcome? Seems to me like it's pretty hard for your average person to shrug those off, so I would probably go weapon:3 or 4 (average skill plus very good roll to succeed).
-
You should probably go read the section on mental conflict (YS217-219).
I never saw reason why Mortals couldn't deal mental stress by mundane means. Non-lethal weaponry seems to be an very good way to do this.
Thats just how I would run it, so its an opinion, not a fact.
-
I understand I just suspect that you'll get a better understanding of mental stress if you thoroughly read that section. A lot of people have the same sense of mental stress (that it is equivalent to exhaustion/fatigue) but when you read that section it becomes clear that mental stress actually represents your sense of self, your confidence in who you are and how you work. Read it, you'll see what I mean.
-
I never saw reason why Mortals couldn't deal mental stress by mundane means. Non-lethal weaponry seems to be an very good way to do this.
One could justify the use of similar techniques to supplement a psychological campaign to break someone. Tear gas, flashing lights, noise, and any number of other discomforts can help erode a target's psyche and inflict Mental Stress and Consequences, but that's going to have to be part of a long-term Intimidation/torture conflict, and not a battlefield maneuver.
If we're talking battlefield usage, these things are only doing physical stress or (more appropriately) laying Maneuvers that make it easier to Take Out or force Concessions upon its targets. You're not fundamentally changed by suffering a blast of tear gas. A player can TAKE a Mental Consequence to absorb the Stress in such a conflict, but that is a player choice about how their character is responding to the experience, and not a mandatory result of the tear-gassing/flash-bang/etc.
Ultimately, someone who got tear-gassed isn't going to recover more effectively by seeing a psychologist, which would be the benchmark of a Mental or Social Consequence (which should be used to inform the kinds of things that can cause Mental Stress).
-
Hm, perhaps not mental stress then, but physical stress defended against by Discipline.
Seem more in line with the rules?
-
Hm, perhaps not mental stress then, but physical stress defended against by Discipline.
Seem more in line with the rules?
By the rules it doesn't inflict stress at all. It inflicts an aspect that is difficult to remove in combat time. I'm trying to figure out the difficulty to make that roll.
-
Ah, I misunderstood the question then, (and a few game rules apparently!) My apologies for clogging up the thread with my comments.
-
Out of curiosity would a gas mask provide immunity to the effects or just a taggable aspect?
-
Out of curiosity would a gas mask provide immunity to the effects or just a taggable aspect?
I'm pretty sure it would give immunity to tear gas. You might be able to Declare an aspect on someone who's using a gas mask of like "limited sight range" or "this thing is very hot and sweaty" if it would be relevant though.
-
Gas Mask would be a Resources Declaration which should place an Aspect that can be Removed or Stolen. But while possessed, it would give immunity (basically, invoking for effect).
Now, note that sometimes Gas Mask can be a liability, making it harder to notice things, so I could see a canny (and already immune) supernatural type tagging those Aspects for a bonus, or to justify a sneak attack. This is why I would retain it as an Aspect.
-
Quote "JayTee:
Ah, I misunderstood the question then, (and a few game rules apparently!) My apologies for clogging up the thread with my comments." Quote
Don't worry about it jaytee. There are many rules that have a wide range of interpretations. If someone is soliciting advice here don't feel bad for offering it. The worst that happens is they don't go with your advice or they disagree with something you say. As long as everyone is polite it remains a beneficial discussion. You were still helpful to offer an opinion in the first place. :)
-
There's a specific reference in the book (YS- can't seem to find it right now though) to special attacks, like tasers and the like, that work like a weapon attack, but their weapon rating (and weapon rating only) goes to creating an aspect. Bonus from accuracy still goes to stress (because getting shot in the chest with a taser will knock you out... getting shot in the face with a taser will knock you out AND hurt). Far as I can tell, the rule is more or less an extension of Overflow from YS214.
This might be the most appropriate choice for what you want to do with flash-bangs, since they can still cause lasting injuries if you're close to them when they go off (overpressure popping eardrums, burns from the magnesium flare portion, etc). Make the weapon rating good enough to affect most anyone who's not able to take cover AND look away, then 1 higher to make it sticky/persistent for a single use. Accuracy allows you to land it at someone's feet, which would cause stress as well as the effect.
Concussion grenades, btw, kill within 10 meters, almost as a given... definitely not stun material IRL. Video games got that one wrong. Stun grenades = flash-bangs. Concussion grenades = frag grenades without the shrapnel.
Tear gas... I'd run as pure maneuver. How long a given cloud lasts is so variable (dispersal due to open-ness of area, wind, etc) that letting extra shifts go to persistence seems appropriate.
-
I've just put numbers on flashbangs for my campaign:
It is targeted with weapons, dodged with athletics, as any other attack. If the attack connects, it becomes a block:5 on the target, that reduces by 1 every exchange. That way it becomes more likely for the target to beat the block, but it is not too weak either.
-
Yeah, I'm using the rules for special weapons. I just wasn't sure what to set the "damage" at. Since then I read the bit about grenade damage being at least 4, and I figure that's a good number for them.
-
Weapon 4 seems like a lot.
Are flash-bangs really as effective as fragmentation grenades at taking people out of fights?
-
Why do you need "damage" for any of these? Seems to me there are better ways to model it.
-
4 is the difficulty on the roll to avoid getting an aspect/to shake the aspect off. Getting taken out is not a valid compel of that aspect.
-
Ah, okay.
I think I'm misremembering the rules for special effect attacks. I need to reread them.
-
I'd say 4 is about right... the difference between a frag grenade and a concussion grenade is the shell, not the size of the charge... a frag grenade has a metal casing that sends out shrapnel, a concussion grenade can have a shell thin enough that it goes to powder, or even have a shell made of cardboard (I kid you not).
Flash-bangs have similarly powerful charges, but are encased in such a way as to spend all their energy on light and sound (using magnesium oxide powder for the flash, and shaped vents to produce the bang without fragmenting the shell). The shell can be recharged/reused btw.
I'd go so far as to make it sticky for a couple rounds- first round gets tagged for free, every round after that requires a FP compel against the blindness.
Bizarre as it may sound, flash-bangs are harder to get a hold of and more expensive than a basic frag grenade (due to difficulty of manufacture, and rarity of the item compared to frag grenades... neither are available on the open market, but I could make a homemade frag with the right chemicals, if I were stupid or good enough to try; I couldn't come close to making a homemade flash-bang).
If more than one goes off in the same round (easily possible), then make it a single attack and increase the weapon value of the main attack by 2, and the sticky by 1 for every extra flash-bang.
-
Are flash bangs 1 target or are they 1 zone? Tear gas, I assume, is one zone.
-
Flashbang would be more than one target. I'm not inclined to even restrict them to one zone.
-
The thing with making the Flashbang grenade weapon:4 is if you opt not to use the special maneuver option, it is still dealing 4 stress.
I'd rate a flash-bang as Weapon 1, maybe 2, and a Tear Gas grenade as 2 or 3.
-
I'm not sure, in the case of things like flashbangs, that you'd have a choice to opt out of the maneuver. It's kind of what they're designed for. The extra shifts on the attack are the only damage they do. That's how I'd run it anyways.
-
Some folks may prefer to deal simple stress, and some will be using the Maneuver to set up a target to take Stress damage anyway, but I can see balancing out a higher Weapon rating with the restriction that it is only to be used as a maneuver.
-
The thing with making the Flashbang grenade weapon:4 is if you opt not to use the special maneuver option, it is still dealing 4 stress.
I'd rate a flash-bang as Weapon 1, maybe 2, and a Tear Gas grenade as 2 or 3.
I didn't read that as "optional" in the sense that the person using it can decide if they want it to be stress dealing or manoeuvre creating, but "optional" in the sense that the GM/group can choose whether or not to use this rule, like Spin.
And anyway, since a grenade is a minimum a 4 stress weapon I don't see the big game balance issue.
-
Make it weapon 1 or 2, and anyone in the vicinity with an athletics or endurance of 3 can almost always resist it, no contest. Not, IMO, appropriate.
Also, I'd say zone- anyone outside the zone either has a barrier in between them and the grenade, or enough distance to reduce it's effectiveness by default (of it being a new zone).
As for the meaning of "optional rule"... I'm also in the camp of "This means this rule can be applied instead of direct stress for weapon damage, as appropriate only."
It's inappropriate for an incendiary grenade to do special damage, so it can only do direct stress.
It's inappropriate for a flash-bang to do direct stress, so it does special- with <Dazed> as the aspect, and only overflow going to damage.
It's appropriate for a shotgun to do either, depending on the load (buckshot/slugs vs bean-bag rounds, for example), but the player MUST define which he's doing, and stick with it (I'd require, at minimum, a supplemental action to switch).
If a player wants to do direct damage with a flash-bang, he'd have to come up with a pretty good description of how that works for me to even consider it.
-
I don't mean to derail the OT but I was running a game this weekend and the question came up about what damage a 20lbs sledge hammer would do. I ruled it would be a 2 but this seemed to upset at least one of my players. What do you guys think?
-
It's in the "baseball bat / Sword / baton" range, Weapon 2 seems like a good call.
Richard
-
2-3. It's a two-handed weapon, but one that was not really intended as a weapon.
I'd probably make it weapon 3, but it's a bit of a toss-up.
-
I'd give it Weapon:3 as well, but make Weapons restricted by Might because it's heavy and clumsy and not meant as a weapon. Or you could say it has the Aspect "Sledgehammer" and compel the wielder to miss for the same reasons. You can do it a couple different ways, but I like the restriction method. It allows you to use it as a viable weapon if you actually ARE really strong, which is not exactly a rare situation in DFRPG.
-
What he said. A 20lb sledge is a bit heftier than a baseball bat, and 2-handed as a given (where a baseball bat can be swung one-handed, just not as well)... so I'd go 3.
Having it restricted by Might is a good idea though... unless you're hella beefy or toting some inhuman or better strength... it's gonna be a tough one to swing well.
-
Looking at the weapon's list, it does list 2 handed weapons as W:3 - but while it's 2 handed I don't think a 20lb sledge is designed as weapon. I just have a hard time seeing a 20 lbs sledge being better at hurting people than a sword or being up there with a shotgun.
Giving it some thought, calling the 20 lbs sledge hammer W:2 could reflect how it isn't balanced for use as a weapon - incorporating the improvised nature without adding aspects. Yes, there were warhammers, but they were designed to be used as weapons (with attention paid to balance). A 2 handed warhammer - that I could see as W:3.
Richard
-
Looking at the weapon's list, it does list 2 handed weapons as W:3 - but while it's 2 handed I don't think a 20lb sledge is designed as weapon. I just have a hard time seeing a 20 lbs sledge being better at hurting people than a sword or being up there with a shotgun.
Giving it some thought, calling the 20 lbs sledge hammer W:2 could reflect how it isn't balanced for use as a weapon - incorporating the improvised nature without adding aspects. Yes, there were warhammers, but they were designed to be used as weapons (with attention paid to balance). A 2 handed warhammer - that I could see as W:3.
Richard
And a baseball bat really isn't quite so damaging as a good one-handed sword, but they have the same rating.
The system just isn't so granular as that.
A 20lb sledge, though, is dramatically more damaging than a baseball bat, I assure you, and as such, should have a higher rating.
-
Looking at the weapon's list, it does list 2 handed weapons as W:3 - but while it's 2 handed I don't think a 20lb sledge is designed as weapon. I just have a hard time seeing a 20 lbs sledge being better at hurting people than a sword or being up there with a shotgun.
Giving it some thought, calling the 20 lbs sledge hammer W:2 could reflect how it isn't balanced for use as a weapon - incorporating the improvised nature without adding aspects. Yes, there were warhammers, but they were designed to be used as weapons (with attention paid to balance). A 2 handed warhammer - that I could see as W:3.
Richard
This is pretty much how I felt about it but I must admit I didn't express it as elegantly during the session. Thanks.
-
A 20lb sledge, though, is dramatically more damaging than a baseball bat, I assure you, and as such, should have a higher rating.
But do you feel it should have the same damage rating as a claymore or a maul? I really don't feel it should be that high for the reasons stated above.
-
And a baseball bat really isn't quite so damaging as a good one-handed sword, but they have the same rating.
The system just isn't so granular as that.
A 20lb sledge, though, is dramatically more damaging than a baseball bat, I assure you, and as such, should have a higher rating.
But is it dramatically more damaging than a good sword? I'd say no.
Is it up there with a 2 handed warhammer? I'd say no, because a sledge lacks the balance of a warhammer.
While it has more mass than baseball bat, the bat is easier to swing so you can use it more effectively.
Richard
-
I've just put numbers on flashbangs for my campaign:
It is targeted with weapons, dodged with athletics, as any other attack. If the attack connects, it becomes a block:5 on the target, that reduces by 1 every exchange. That way it becomes more likely for the target to beat the block, but it is not too weak either.
I just wanted to say that although this implementation got buried under the quibbling over maneuvers and special weapons and flashbang stress, it's an elegant solution and if I need tear gas or flashbangs I'm using this idea. Thanks Haru!
-
Is it up there with a 2 handed warhammer? I'd say no, because a sledge lacks the balance of a warhammer.
And a baseball bat lacks the momentum-focusing edge of a sword. They still have the same rating.
But as admiralducksauce pointed out, this is getting rather off topic.
Haru's suggestion seems reasonable, though I might suggest that tear gas would disperse rather more slowly than that so long as the character remains in the vapour cloud.
-
Tear gas is wicked finicky though... I'd let a player make an assessment or declaration, then tag it to make it go away early (because the building's AC is on, or there's a stiff breeze).
-
Sorta related:
Had a friend who had his tear ducts burned prior to tear gas training in boot camp. Said it still sucked bad, but wasn't as dehabilitating.
Characters who had bad accidents in history with an aspect to back it up or proper declaration could work too.
Also I made a spell once similar to a flash bang grenade. It created two sticky aspects blind and deaf...I had to tag them with fate points but they were still there on a room once I cast the spell on those inside. Could work similarly?
-
Sticky aspects still come with one free tag, they just happen to stick around even after that tag is expended.
-
Guess I wasted a few fate points.