ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: JediDresden on December 16, 2011, 05:23:06 PM
-
Here is the set up:
When a wizard casts an evocation attack he decides how much damage he wants the spell 'weapon to be, right? So say he decides to put 7 shifts of power into it - making it an effective weapon:7 attack. He can control that much due to ability and bonuses to specialization and focus items, so he only takes the one stress. He then needs to make a discipline check to control and target with. Let's say he has a +4 on his discipline and rolls +3 on the Fate dice, for a total of +7. The target rolls not so good and only come up with a +3 total to defend against it.
Here is the question:
If I understand the mechanics then the target takes the 7 stress from the weapon/spell and the 4 stress for the difference between attack and defense roll, for a total of 11 shifts of stress/damage the target would take. Is that right? I ask this because there was some debate about it in our last game, and I think I am right, that is the way I have always read the rules. So let me know if I am really off base please.
-
That is correct.
Compare result of Discipline roll to the result of the defense roll (whatever it is).
If Discipline roll is less than defense roll, no stress inflicted.
If Discipline roll is equal to defense roll, only spell damage is inflicted as stress (7 in your case).
If Discipline roll is greater than defense roll, then that difference + spell damage is inflicted as stress (7 + 4 = 11 in your case).
-
Ok, here's a side question (I should probably know the answer to):
If in those 7 shifts, he had spent 2 to make it into a Weapon: 5 zone effect, would everyone in that zone take 5+x stress theoretically (based on their individual defense rolls), or would it be split among those in said zone? Pretty sure it's the former, want to be sure.
-
If in those 7 shifts, he had spent 2 to make it into a Weapon: 5 zone effect, would everyone in that zone take 5+x stress theoretically (based on their individual defense rolls), or would it be split among those in said zone? Pretty sure it's the former, want to be sure.
Normally, everyone in that zone rolls their own defense roll, then each result is compared to the result of the caster's Discipline check to determine damage, as above. You have it right.
Your second option sounds like a Spray Attack. Certain non-magic attacks, such as machine guns, allow the character to make Spray attacks: the attacker rolls their attack skill, and then splits the resulting shifts among the targets to determine success: then those targets roll defense, and if the attack is successful, take Weapon+excess shifts in Stress damage. This technique is the way to selectively attack people in a Zone, if you don't want to inadvertently damage your allies.
Making a Spray attack with a spell works a little differently: not only do you split the results of your Discipline check between all of the intended targets - you also split the shifts of damage among the targets. I believe your total Discipline check still determines the success of the spellcasting.
Note: all of these examples assume the caster's Discipline check was high enough to allow them to successfully cast that 7-shift spell in the first place.
-
Ok, here's a side question (I should probably know the answer to):
If in those 7 shifts, he had spent 2 to make it into a Weapon: 5 zone effect, would everyone in that zone take 5+x stress theoretically (based on their individual defense rolls), or would it be split among those in said zone? Pretty sure it's the former, want to be sure.
It's the former. If the 2 shifts had not been spent to make it zone-wide, the weapon rating and Discipline Roll total would each have to separately be divided among however many targets you want to hit.
Edit: Devonapple beat me to it.
-
OK, that's what I thought and then I started questioning my thinking when confronted with it in our game. Thanks guys.
-
Here is the set up:
When a wizard casts an evocation attack he decides how much damage he wants the spell 'weapon to be, right? So say he decides to put 7 shifts of power into it - making it an effective weapon:7 attack. He can control that much due to ability and bonuses to specialization and focus items, so he only takes the one stress. He then needs to make a discipline check to control and target with. Let's say he has a +4 on his discipline and rolls +3 on the Fate dice, for a total of +7. The target rolls not so good and only come up with a +3 total to defend against it.
I agree with devonapple's answer. Just to throw in a different twist, however, lets say that the spellflinger rolled only +0 on the dice, which means he had a net of +4 against the target's +3. In this case, he still hits the target with one shift to spare, but he has failed to control the spell to the tune of three shifts (he needed to control 7 shifts of power, but only managed 4).
So now he has a choice. He can either accept it as backlash, in which case he (the wizard) takes a 3 stress hit (physical or mental, player's choice), and the spell is considered fully controlled and resolved. In this case, the target would get hit by the 'full' 8 shifts of damage (7 from the weapon rating of the spell, and 1 from the net shifts on the attack roll). The other option is to go with fallout. In this case, the weapon rating of the spell is reduced to the amount actually controlled (weapon 4) and the target gets hit with the resulting 5 shifts (the reduced weapon rating plus the net shifts on the attack roll). The wizard doesn't take any additional stress (maybe), but the GM gets to choose what form the 3 shifts of fallout take. If this was Dresden and the spell was a Fuego! spell, then the building would be on fire.
Not the question you asked, but it is a likely result for a discipline 4 wizard casting a power 7 spell, so I thought it worth mentioning... ;)
-
Thanks, good to remember.
-
Can i make a weapon 0 attack doing only Discipline Shifts of damage?
-
You'll need to assign at least one point of power to the effect - damage in this case.
-
You'll need to assign at least one point of power to the effect - damage in this case.
Or you can do a special effect attack, with at least 1 shift dedicated to the effect, so only Discipline successes do stress.
-
Is there a reason why you would WANT to inflict less stress?
edit: apart from silly houserules that mandate certain effects for high-stress attacks
-
Personally I could see the use in a sort-of "I can only control 8 shifts and I want to hit four zones" situation. It's an interesting question. I figure as long as there actually are shifts in the spell (I.E. shifts devoted to something other than damage) then that could work.
-
Maneuvers are basically 0-shift attacks, from a certain point of view.
-
...They are both contests, but from a mechanical standpoint they do have significant differences, especially in evocation.
-
I am working backwards from the side note with Billy and Harry (in the Combat section) recommending that a 0-shift Fists attack (for the attacker and defender tied, with victory ostensibly going to the attacker, but the attacker is using Fists and no weapon, so the net damage is 0) be retroactively converted into a successful Fists Maneuver.
Do other folks treat Evocation maneuvers (in which the shifts of the spell meet or exceed the target's defending skill) as automatic, assuming a successful Control (Discipline) check?
Does a target resist an Evocation Maneuver by rolling versus the Control Check shifts + Evocation Maneuver shifts?
Or just the Evocation Maneuver shifts?
-
Do other folks treat Evocation maneuvers (in which the shifts of the spell meet or exceed the target's defending skill) as automatic, assuming a successful Control (Discipline) check?
Does a target resist an Evocation Maneuver by rolling versus the Control Check shifts + Evocation Maneuver shifts?
Or just the Evocation Maneuver shifts?
I always thought for maneuvers the defense is against the Control Check shifts. So if Zatanna casts an attempt to Maneuver at 6 Shifts, and rolled +7, the McTarget would defend against +7. If McTarget rolled a +5 or +6 he would get a Sticky Aspect, If he rolled a +7 He would get a transitory Aspect, and +8 or more prevents any Aspect at all.
-
I always thought for maneuvers the defense is against the Control Check shifts. So if Zatanna casts an attempt to Maneuver at 6 Shifts, and rolled +7, the McTarget would defend against +7. If McTarget rolled a +5 or +6 he would get a Sticy Aspect, If he rolled a +7 He would get a transotory Aspect, and +8 or more prevents any Aspect at all.
So the Evocation Maneuver shifts are just setting the bar for the Control Check that the opponent has to resist.
This sounds like how I've been running it.
-
It is my understanding that the initial roll to resist an evocation maneuver is compared to the control roll of the spell, while any later attempts to remove the aspect (via a 'counter-maneuver') is compared to the shifts of non-duration power.
-
Hmm, as I understand it the control roll makes no difference whatsoever (unless it fails to control the spell) the shifts of power required to pull off the maneuver are equal to the shifts of resistance (I.E. the defense roll).
-
A re-reading of the rules forces an adjustment to my interpretation.
An evocation maneuver must have shifts of power at least equal to the target's defense skill (not roll).
The defense against such a maneuver is compared to the control roll.
Removing the maneuver at a later date...I'm no longer sure of.
-
The defense against such a maneuver is compared to the control roll.
I'm wondering where you get that from. Not that I'm challenging your interpretation, but it does seem like the book is light on this part, and if you've found some sort of further explanation I'd love to see it.
-
I'm wondering where you get that from. Not that I'm challenging your interpretation, but it does seem like the book is light on this part, and if you've found some sort of further explanation I'd love to see it.
Extrapolation from YS207's discussion of non-evocation maneuvers, since the evocation section doesn't seem to modify that
-
As near as I can tell, I largely agree with Tedronai: evocation maneuvers don't involve a defense roll as such. They *do* require a number of shifts of power that scales to the resisting skill (and therefore implies a control roll needing to be at least that high, with backlash allowing success and fallout causing failure). So my read is that for evocation maneuvers, the target is in effect treated as resisting with their base skill (+0 on the dice).
I don't think it would be unreasonable to allow a roll to resist, though I'd certainly allow the caster to dedicate more shifts of power to the maneuver (ie, a number of shifts greater than the target's resistance) to make the defense more difficult.
As to trying to counter the evocation maneuver once in play, I agree the rules are ... light on the subject. My take (based on the rules, but not spelled out in the rules) is that it should be handled in much the same way that countering a mundane maneuver is, but with the spell effect resisting the attempt. So if the caster did the maneuver at the baseline strength of 3, then that is what the victim would need to roll to undo the maneuver. This also leaves open the option for the spellcaster to overpower the maneuver, therefore making it harder for the target to remove the effect before it expires.
-
Resisted evocation maneuvers require a minimum of 3 shifts and at least <skill rating> shifts when the defensive skill is rated higher than Good. (YS252) Since a resisted maneuver is also a contest, the spell caster must also beat the victim's defensive roll if it's higher than the flat skill rating. (YS193)
-
Since a resisted maneuver is also a contest, the spell caster must also beat the victim's defensive roll if it's higher than the flat skill rating. (YS193)
This is certainly true for mundane maneuvers, and I thought it was true for magical ones. However, I noticed that the rules for evocation attacks specifically noted that the control roll counted as an attack roll and was resolved using the mundane attack rules. The evocation maneuvers rules, however, made no mention of a resistance roll, and instead provided the threshold equal to the resistance skill (minimum 3).
I'm inclined to use your interpretation as a house rule, if nothing else (as I mentioned in my previous post), but I'm not entirely sure whether or not that was the designers' intention (though it may have been).
-
I'm inclined to use your interpretation as a house rule, if nothing else (as I mentioned in my previous post), but I'm not entirely sure whether or not that was the designers' intention (though it may have been).
If you want more references, look as the rules for opposed thaumaturgy maneuvers (YS264). They require you to beat base skill plus die roll for a "sure thing". (For temporary maneuvers, not talking about the take-out version.)
-
Since a power 1 evocation attack with a control roll of 7 and a power 6 evocation attack with a control roll of 7 both have the same effect, what would be the point/benefit of doing the power 6 spell? Other than the option to take the margin of failure as backlash and having the spell go through anyways?
Also is there any negative result from rolling way higher on your control roll? For some reason I thought there was a situation where rolling too good on a spell came back to bite you in the ass.
-
A power 1 evocation attack is weapon 1, a power 6 evocation attack is weapon 6. They don't have the same effect.
So far as I know, a higher roll is always better.
-
A power 1 evocation attack is weapon 1, a power 6 evocation attack is weapon 6. They don't have the same effect.
Ok, lemme rephrase.
Situation A: spell with power 1 attack, rolls Discipline, gets a Superb (5) roll, target rolls Fair (2) defense, takes a Good (3) stress hit
Situation B: spell with power 4 attack, rolls Discipline, gets a Superb (5) roll, target rolls Fair (2) defense, takes a Good (3) stress hit
Did I miss anything? What is the difference between the two? Or am I wrong?
Would the 1 or 4 power be added on top of the 5 roll, so they'd take 4 or 7 stress, respectively?
-
Power is added to stress inflicted if the attack hits.
So it's 4 or 7 stress.
-
So the Discipline roll pulls double duty in that it needs to meet/exceed the power of the spell, but then is added with the power for over all damage (assuming it hit of course).
Do you check to see if it meet/exceeds the power of the spell before or after comparing/subtracting the target's defense?
What about split attacks and area attacks?
-
Before comparing to defense.
Before splitting for spray attacks.