ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: AstralBlade on November 16, 2011, 04:38:26 AM
-
Lets say some attacks me with a Large Cleaver(weapon rating 2) and i defend with a Katana(weapon rating 2), We both get the same roll. Do i take any stress?
It's my understanding that i don't because the weapon ratings negate each other, kinda like how in a Fist fight a tie results in no damage? I believe at most an aspect should be placed on my character.
Any thoughts or some examples of rulings?
By the way, i saying this only applies in negating damage not as a way to do reverse damage(unless you want to because of a strong shift in defense's favor).
Thanks in advance.
-
Pretty sure that you take 2 stress.
-
Can you explain a bit? Reading "Melee Defense" on YS pg 144 makes me think otherwise. "As a combat skill, Weapons INHERENTLY carries the ability to defend yourself in a fight OTHER Weapons and Fists attacks, so long as you have a weapon in hand."
Sounds like Weapons of equal value negate each other. Otherwise, why would it be stated that way? Why not just say, "Weapons can be used for defense"?
-
If the attack and defense roll plus skill results are equal, you'll take the weapon damage as Santaphrax states.
Your weapon's value doesn't subtract from an opponent's attacks (you need armor for that) it simply adds to your attack's end result.
Edit: It's attacker's skill + roll vs defender's skill + roll to hit. A tie goes to the attacker. Once the hit has been decided, it's attacker's extra shifts + attacker's weapon value* - defender's armor* = stress caused.
*Powers and stunts such as Toughness or Strength may also apply.
-
It makes sense, thinking about it. You use your Weapons as a parry, effectively, which means basically the same as a dodge. If you meet, that means the weapon strikes, but just barely. So the same rules as dodging should still apply.
-
I could, however, see an Expert Parry stunt that lets you add weapon rating to your defensive roll... or maybe add half your weapon rating as armor against attacks you'd use Weaponry to defend against.
-
Why not just say, "Weapons can be used for defense"?
Because Your Story rarely uses one word where two will do.
It's a bit overwritten. I like it that way, though.
Anyway...the quoted passage doesn't sound like it says that weapon ratings cancel one another out to me. I remain fairly certain that my interpretation is accurate.
EDIT: If you aren't convinced, I'll try and find an example to the contrary tomorrow when I have my books on hand.
PS: @ARedThorn: I would worry about the balance of an Expert Parry stunt like that. +3 to all Weapons defence is too much, and so is armour 2 against all attacks which one defends against with Weapons.
-
mmm... I'm sure it could be worked out though. Given the two benchmarks of "Gain a +2 to a specific application of a non-attack or defense trapping (more or less depending on how broad an application)" or "persistant 1 shift effect (Armor:1 vs certain types of things)"... it doesn't seem too unreasonable.
Armor:1 vs Melee Attacks (specifically Fists/Weaponry attack ONLY) fits right in already... it's comparable at least to Tough Stuff. Make it narrower: "Only when wielding a weapon/using Weaponry to defend" and Armor:2 seems fair to me. Won't help you if you don't have a weapon ready or are disarmed. Won't help against magic, bullets, bows/etc. Won't really help even against sneak attacks (the GM may rule that these are un-parry-able, as you're unprepared for them).
Expert Parry: Grants half your Weapon:Rating to armor (up to Armor:2) vs Melee attacks when using Weaponry to defend.
Or... how about the idea of a more active defense scenario? One that costs you a supplemental action to gain Armor:2?
-
Ties go to the attacker, so on 0 shifts, you take the Stress value of the weapon you're being attacked with. Obviously if you're using a weapon that adds no Stress (like a fist or something improvised that isn't very big/heavy/sharp) then you don't suffer any.
That's in contrast with SotC, where ties went to the defender since 0 Shifts=0 Stress.
-
Everyone else has given you rules reasons, so I figured I'd go thematic.
Think about it this way. The weapon rating represents how deadly something is. I have a length of pipe, say about the length and weight of a sword. It is weapon rating:1. You have a sword. It's weapon rating:2. Why would yours be better defensively?
Now I have a sharper sword than you (same sword, mine's just more damaging). It's weapon rating:3. Why would it be better as a defensive weapon?
Taking this a little further (and to a bit of a ridiculous extreme that doesn't work) I now have a grenade, which is wielded with weapons. It is weapon rating:4. How does that make any sense defensively?
-
If you want a weapon that also protects you from damage through the mechanic of armour, why not use a shield? There's a reason that a lot of pre-modern armies used the things: They're good protection and a quite passable weapon at the same time.
-
Thank you for input everyone. Guess I'll be making a stunt then lol.
Something along the lines of "My Sword is My Shield"
brainstorm time!!!
-
Fair points, sinker... I still like the idea of a stunt that lets your weapon affect defensive acts... certainly a quarterstaff or spear is more effective defensively than a sword... but there would need to be limits or at least structure I haven't thought of, and that may not be worth it.
May simply be better to have a stunt that provides armor when wielding a melee weapon (which, fyi, I would say a grenade isn't... it's a thrown weapon. If you want to use it in melee... go ahead. Have fun with that. *shudders*)
-
Thank you for input everyone. Guess I'll be making a stunt then lol.
Something along the lines of "My Sword is My Shield"
brainstorm time!!!
I'd be leery of a Stunt that gave you armour dependent on the rating of your weapon.
First, there's no real connection between the ability of something to output damage and the ability to stop damage. Chain saws, for example, do really nauseating damage to people, but they're really unwieldy and would be awful to use to defend yourself.
Then there's the issue of Strength powers. Does being super strong and having weapon:6 fists really make you better protected? Not really.
If you want armour, wear armour or invest in Toughness. "I have a huge weapon:3 sword, so I've got armour:3," is beyond the scope of what Stunts should be doing.
-
I like the idea of a stunt which provides +1 to your defense roll (possibly Armor 1) when wielding a SPECIFIC type of weapon.
I think a shield is a weapon which provides armor as well, IMO. Weapon rating 2 (about a baseball bat, I suppose), Armor 2 (can stop a one-handed sword cold, two handed sword would hurt your arm a bit).
-
Something providing an Armour value is a lot less powerful than something simply adding to your defense rolls.
That said, if it's a mortal stunt, providing Armour:1 with a particular (broad) class of weapons is more than enough. You could argue for +1 Weapon Defense with a narrower class of weapons as an alternative.
-
1. Would avoid connecting stunt bonuses to weapon ratings. If it's good for Alice with her weapon 1 knife it's overpowered for Bob with his weapon 3 broadsword and broken for Charlie with his weapon 5 IoP.
2. Utterly bizarre fact: the RAW say that a stunt can give +2 to defense rolls but only 1 armour. Armour stunts kinda suck compared to defense stunts.
3. The stunts Shield Carrier and Weapon Mastery from the Master List might be similar to what you're after.
-
Yeah- I've given up on the idea of connecting it to the weapon rating- the flaws in that have become clear- it's less about the weapon, and more about your skill with it... so a general weaponry stunt that improves defense or armor against melee only while wielding a weapon (by a flat amount!) is more what I'm leaning towards.... a better than standard version maybe if it only works using a specific weapon (as opposed to any weapons).
The limitation that it only works against melee (fists/weaponry strikes in close combat, no thrown) is limit enough to make it balanced vs similar stunts.
-
For those interested, the Quick References pages at the end of YS (page 411) under the heading Stress and Consequences shows the following:
Stress = Shifts + Weapons Rating - Armor Rating
What this confirms is that the # of shifts is determined as normal by opposed Skill rolls, and then if the attack is a success (even 0 Shifts is a success) any Weapons or Armor Ratings come into play.
As others have already pointed out, the Weapons Rating of a weapon used to defend against an attack shouldn't be added into the total roll to defend, even using a Stunt. Apart from being potentially unbalancing since it could allow potentially huge bonuses to defense rolls (think the Weapon: 6 available with a Warden Sword) it also doesn't make sense in real life. A claymore sword is enormous, and something hit with it is going to have problems, but given it's sheer size and weight, if someone can get close enough to the claymore wielder to attack with a dagger, then the one with the claymore is going to be hard pressed to move the claymore fast enough to parry the attack.
-Cheers
-
2. Utterly bizarre fact: the RAW say that a stunt can give +2 to defense rolls but only 1 armour. Armour stunts kinda suck compared to defense stunts.
Not strictly true, for the record.
To get a +2 defense with a stunt, it has to be a specific skill and a specific type of attack. Examples of this in the RAW include one that grants +2 to Discipline defenses against emotional attacks and a +2 to resist lies from someone you've previously proven to be a lier. Most stunts grant only +1, and even those are somewhat limited (eg, only for Athletics against thrown weapons and guns and with a colorful description)
Armor stunts, on the other hand, tend to be much broader in application. For example, Tower of Faith that grants armor 1 against all mental and social stress after praying (regardless of skill used to defend). Tough Stuff gives 1 armor against damage from blunt sources (and is always active, so can be used even when surprised, unlike a defense stunt). And there are 'ablative' armor stunts that grant larger bonuses. For example, 'No Pain, No Gain' grants a minor physical consequence, which is in effect an armor 2 against any one source of physical stress of your choice no more than once every other scene (or more frequently when combined with Recovery). Resilient Self Image gives double that bonus (armor 2 twice or armor 4 once), but only against torture-based mental stress.
-
That is not the impression I have received at all.
But it might be nice if it was true...so maybe I'll pretend it is.
-
That is not the impression I have received at all.
But it might be nice if it was true...so maybe I'll pretend it is.
It actually sort of follows if you read through the examples.
-
I agree notgetting hit in the first place is better than armor....but...
even when creating a block with magic 2 shifts of block can be translated to 1 shift worth of armor.
The system certainly thinks armor is stronger.
-
Hey, the examples are right there in the book. :) As are the guideline used for creating them:
"Give a +2 to a specific application of a nonattack trapping (note that a maneuver, page 207, is not an attack, as it doesn’t inflict stress). This may be reduced to +1 for a broader application, or increased to +3 or even +4 for very, very narrowly defined situations."
So, for example, +1 to the dodge trapping of Athletics when using full defense counts as a 'broader application', while +2 to the social defense trapping of Empathy when trying to sort out the lies of someone who you've previously caught lying counts as a normal-breadth 'specific application'. I imagine planetary alignments play a rol in stunts that grant a +4...
"Give one or two expendable 2-shift effects (e.g., additional mild consequences) or a persistent 1-shift effect (e.g., Armor:1 against certain types of things). Lean towards one expendable effect if the application is broad (e.g., vs. all mental stress), two expendable effects if it’s narrow."
Blunt trauma (but not cuts, punctures, and burns) count as 'certain types of' stress sources. Any physical stress counts as 'broad' for the expendable armor (ie, consequence), and mental stress from torture counts as 'narrow'.
Also, @Silverblaze: Keep in mind that a magical block is 'expendable', being lost the first time it's overcome. Magical armor is 'persistent' through the duration of the spell. So that factors into that 2:1 ratio, too.
-
I agree notgetting hit in the first place is better than armor....but...
even when creating a block with magic 2 shifts of block can be translated to 1 shift worth of armor.
The system certainly thinks armor is stronger.
Armour from spells stacks with defense from skills.
Blocks from spells overlap with defense from skills (the recipient benefits from only the best of the defense roll or the block), and are lost after the first time that they are overcome.
-
Maybe we don't actually disagree as much as I thought.
My view:
Defense trappings are exceptionally broad, so stunts boosting them require an additional restriction in addition to being limited to one trapping. Said limitation should disable the bonus roughly half the time. But defense stunts do provide a full +2 once they get that limitation.
Armour can be used with any skill, and pays a price for that mostly useless versatility. It requires a limitation that disables the bonus roughly half the time and gives only 1 point of armour. However, it gets to stack freely with everything as compensation.
I honestly think that the book backs this interpretation.
Acrobat and Too Fast To Hit both provide +2, by my reading. Though I'm not sure that the supplemental action penalty applies to full defense, I'm pretty sure that the stunt writer thought it did.
"Against ranged attacks with a colourful description" and "against blunt force" sound roughly equivalent to me.
-
I read acrobat as being an example of a single stunt granting two half-strength bonuses. Remember, it also helps against falling.
Too fast to hit is definitely a +2, though, once you note that you'd normally be at -1 for supplemental movement.
-
Acrobat is definitely a dual half-strength stunt. Too Fast To Hit is not, in my opinion. I see the last bit as a clarification rather than an additional bonus: defending is not a 'main action' and does not suffer from the supplemental action penalty, even if you've chosen full defense as your 'main action'.
I can see your argument that the stunt author may have inteded that it was a second half-strength bonus, though.