ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ways and means on May 02, 2012, 11:36:36 PM
-
If you follow the templates then by far the strongest class is Wizards who can get accuracy ratings up to the low teens by Submerged, compared to Changelings, Shape shifters, minor practitioners and the bulk of the other classes that can get a max accuracy of 6* (sans any IoP bonus). This means that Wizard/sorcery/fp can do twice as much damage per turn (much more than twice with area effects which only they have) and are twice as likely to hit. In addition to this a wizard also can do a wide variety of things other classes can't and if they focus in spirit they can also be better than stealth than a stealth focused non-caster and can attack enemies mental stress track. So if you strictly follow the templates how do you stop your wizards completely dominating the game?
*You can technically get seven if your willing to take a minus two to your defense with swing for the fences or use infuriate with incite anger.
-
Two ways; Firstly ask each wizard to take one or more aspects defining their wizardly style. This keeps them from using magic to solve every problem. Secondly throw more problems at the group that a big magic cannon can't solve.
-
Make sure the non-wizards do something to contribute?
In one game, I'm playing a wizard-level spellcaster (the tenebromancer, if anyone remembers/cares), alongside a (formerly Virgin) WCV, a (new to the group) Werewolf and two Pure Mortals. Until the Werewolf joined the group, my PC was the only one who ever took Consequences. Granted some of them were from his own spellcasting, but I felt like I bore the most weight in any given conflict. All that extra power made him a bigger target, and the option to use that power - coupled with the chaos of dice rolls - meant he often pushed himself to almost Dresden-level self-abuse. He still hasn't taken an Extreme, but he often has that 6-point Consequence slot filled with something (usually a temporary insanity or infirmity).
-
To get an accuracy into the low teens, you basically turn your character into a glass cannon with a narrow focus. So I would imagine that the best way to deal with this (without house rules) is to emphasize the "glass" and "narrow" parts of that. Find ways to highlight the weak spots of the single element chosen, whereas other elements might have provided better results. Demonstrate how few attacks it takes to down a character with no meaningful defenses.
Also, keep in mind that a guy with physical powers and a sword can keep swinging that sword at foes no matter how long the fight lasts. A wizard only has so many mental stress boxes (and possibly a few consequences) to use as "ammo" for spells. This can be highlighted by having long fights, or by stringing several smaller fights together without down time in between. Having opponents that inflict mental stress can interfere with spellcasting by "destroying" the wizard's "ammo" before it can be used.
Obviously, you don't want to do any of the above to excess, lest you make the wizard's player feel hounded on. But doing so once in a while might let other non-wizards have a chance in the spotlight.
That said, I think that the rules beg for some very simple house rules that address this issue. A couple that might help this issue are:
1) Focus items improve the control roll only for purposes of establishing control over the shifts of power, not for determining the attack's results.
2) The wizard's focus items have to be fit into a pyramid of their own, just like skills and specializations.
-
To get an accuracy into the low teens, you basically turn your character into a glass cannon with a narrow focus. So I would imagine that the best way to deal with this (without house rules) is to emphasize the "glass" and "narrow" parts of that. Find ways to highlight the weak spots of the single element chosen, whereas other elements might have provided better results. Demonstrate how few attacks it takes to down a character with no meaningful defenses.
Also, keep in mind that a guy with physical powers and a sword can keep swinging that sword at foes no matter how long the fight lasts. A wizard only has so many mental stress boxes (and possibly a few consequences) to use as "ammo" for spells. This can be highlighted by having long fights, or by stringing several smaller fights together without down time in between. Having opponents that inflict mental stress can interfere with spellcasting by "destroying" the wizard's "ammo" before it can be used.
Obviously, you don't want to do any of the above to excess, lest you make the wizard's player feel hounded on. But doing so once in a while might let other non-wizards have a chance in the spotlight.
That said, I think that the rules beg for some very simple house rules that address this issue. A couple that might help this issue are:
1) Focus items improve the control roll only for purposes of establishing control over the shifts of power, not for determining the attack's results.
2) The wizard's focus items have to be fit into a pyramid of their own, just like skills and specializations.
A Narrow Focus in spirit is still a tonne wider than a narrow focus in melee, fist, guns etc, someone who focuses in spirit get a reasonable number of defense, stealth, maneuvering and attacking options including the extremely powerful mental stress option. Also there is one template that just about matches a pure wizard for damage but that is only if you follow the letter rather than the spirit of the Raw on how emotion vampire and potent emotion react and thats the WCV with its two mental attack per turn still weaker than a focused caster but not by much.
-
Wear them down. This game is geared towards wizards so it stands to reason they're the ones with the most options and at times the biggest gun. However, unless you've made the mistake of letting them have more than 4 mental stress boxes the most their going to be able to cast is 4 times before they start hurting themselves. Badly, if magic is the only thing they have and in less time if they focused on control over power for specializations and focus.
It's not particularly hard. Force them to use their spells for specific targets, or protecting themselves first. Think Marcone's Fomor fight from Even Hand.
If they're using focus items for most of their bang, have a grappler take it away.
At the very least you could always throw goons at them first, forcing them to spend their stress on nothing and then have the big bad show up.
Other than that it really depends on the type of caster you're dealing with. If they're the WC Laws of Magic are higher than God's type, give them situations where they have to take on normal people. Or things that blur the line between human and non-human. Make them have to think twice before blasting someone to ashes and getting a lawbreaker dropped on them. If they're the other kind, where rules are meant to be broken and they're already sitting with several lawbreakers put them up against other wizards or beings with magic. Aside from just counter spells, there are several powers in Sanctaphrax's custom power list that drains or redirects spells.
Wizards are mean, but the system does a good job of balancing that with drawbacks. Use the system and if necessary focus the combat so that the wizard doesn't have a chance to always steal the show.
-
To get an accuracy into the low teens, you basically turn your character into a glass cannon with a narrow focus. So I would imagine that the best way to deal with this (without house rules) is to emphasize the "glass" and "narrow" parts of that. Find ways to highlight the weak spots of the single element chosen, whereas other elements might have provided better results. Demonstrate how few attacks it takes to down a character with no meaningful defenses.
What?! No. You are neither a glass cannon, nor are you narrowly focused. You're a three-element caster and just one of your elements has the same breadth of utility and potential as many other character concepts entire. And the problem with finding ways to highlight weak spots is clever players will highlight ways to work around that. Elements are insanely broad.
Also, keep in mind that a guy with physical powers and a sword can keep swinging that sword at foes no matter how long the fight lasts. A wizard only has so many mental stress boxes (and possibly a few consequences) to use as "ammo" for spells. This can be highlighted by having long fights, or by stringing several smaller fights together without down time in between. Having opponents that inflict mental stress can interfere with spellcasting by "destroying" the wizard's "ammo" before it can be used.
The guy swinging his sword can't two-shot an entity with Mythic Toughness. Attacks that deal mental stress go up against Discipline, which casters max.
Obviously, you don't want to do any of the above to excess, lest you make the wizard's player feel hounded on. But doing so once in a while might let other non-wizards have a chance in the spotlight.
The problem with this is the same problem it has in other systems: beating up on the epic character to make the lame characters feel better just keeps the whole party feel better. The wizard is too strong; either other party members need to be stronger, or casting itself needs to be rebuilt.
That said, I think that the rules beg for some very simple house rules that address this issue. A couple that might help this issue are:
1) Focus items improve the control roll only for purposes of establishing control over the shifts of power, not for determining the attack's results.
2) The wizard's focus items have to be fit into a pyramid of their own, just like skills and specializations.
This is a good start.
-
A Narrow Focus in spirit is still a tonne wider than a narrow focus in melee, fist, guns etc, someone who focuses in spirit get a reasonable number of defense, stealth, maneuvering and attacking options including the extremely powerful mental stress option. Also there is one template that just about matches a pure wizard for damage but that is only if you follow the letter rather than the spirit of the Raw on how emotion vampire and potent emotion react and thats the WCV with its two mental attack per turn still weaker than a focused caster but not by much.
Some of that is a matter of interpretation. For example:
- I disagree that a pure wizard can inflict mental stress ... without breaking the Law. This has been discussed extensively, and I understand that opinions differ, but I see the RAW as being ... well, at least moderately clear.
- I disagree that Incite Emotion generates two attacks per turn. This has also been discussed and I understand that opinions differ.
There are other issues that I think were oversights by the game design staff. For example, I don't think they properly considered the possibility of a starting character taking a +5 offensive focus and stacking a specialization bonus on top of that. I think they expected a more balanced approach, which can be seen in the many sample characters. So they left an unexpected loophole, which is not too hard to eliminate with a simple house rule or two.
-
What?! No. You are neither a glass cannon, nor are you narrowly focused. You're a three-element caster and just one of your elements has the same breadth of utility and potential as many other character concepts entire. And the problem with finding ways to highlight weak spots is clever players will highlight ways to work around that. Elements are insanely broad.
This depends a lot on play style. For example, Dresden relied on Spirit to provide a largely impenetrable shield. Until Butcher had an NPC pull out a flamethrower and made a declaration about how little protection force spells provided against heat...
The guy swinging his sword can't two-shot an entity with Mythic Toughness. Attacks that deal mental stress go up against Discipline, which casters max.
Just as a single (contrived) example, consider a combat-focussed pure mortal attacking a Fae with Mythic Toughness. Now, obviously the mortal will have brought his iron greatsword along, so instead of -3 stress we shift to +3 stress per attack. For the sake of argument, let's grant that both characters have 5s in attack and defense skills. So the mortal swings, then spends 5+ Fate for a +10 on the attack (tagging three combat-related aspects, a scene aspect, and the Fae's high concept due to the iron). Assuming average rolls, that's 13 stress, so probably a moderate and severe consequence, right? So his next attack will spend his remaining 5 Fate, plus tag those two consequences, netting 17 stress. Goodbye, Fae. Contrived example? Yes. But if you want to two-shot stuff, there's a path to doing it. Swords of the Cross, Strength powers, and the like could also help (in a non-pure mortal scenario).
As to the mental stress comment, my point was that a spellcaster can only cast one spell per box of mental stress (plus a few if he burns consequences). For each stress box or consequence a WCV (or other mental combatant) inflicts on the wizard, he's just lost the potential for a spell -- and a consequence plus a box means two fewer spells with a single attack.
Look, I'm not going to argue that wizards don't have the potential to be munchkined into a broken mess. They do. For tables who don't like this fact, potentially easy answers include creating house rules to mitigate, having the NPCs come up with ways to deal with their wizardly opponent, and/or insisting that optimized wizards not be played.
-
Don't forget one of the most basic balancing points of the whole game design - Refresh and Fate Points.
A Wizard who takes Refinement likely has no more than 2 Fate Points (and often only 1) at the start of each story. The GM can and should be hitting all the players with compels, but the Wizard is forced to accept more of them than other players if he wants to have a good stash of fate points for when things get tough. Thus, if compels are getting your players into as much danger and trouble as they should (think all the various nasty situations Harry gets tricked or lured into, or all the times he thought he had things under control until it all went wrong), you've got a natural balancing point.
This game wasn't designed to be balanced around numbers, in my opinion. Story and mechanics are tied too closely together to ignore one or the other in a debate like this.
-
Wizards aren't all that hot. Even optimized, they can be competed with by optimized Scions, Shapeshifters, Changelings, Emissaries, mortals, and Focused Practitioners.
Unless you decide that spirit can hit the mental stress track. Which is, I'd like to point out, not actually part of the rules. It's just implied by an element description and some setting material. Ignore those implications, they make spellcasting uber-powerful instead of merely super-powerful.
The Laws have nothing to do with this, by the way. The biggest victims of mental stress with Evocation are monsters like Sue. Then again, Sue and company do suffer from the existence of Incite Emotion already.
The problem with Template balance, in my opinion, is that it's basically impossible to optimize some other Templates because suboptimal choices are locked in.
Don't forget one of the most basic balancing points of the whole game design - Refresh and Fate Points.
A Wizard who takes Refinement likely has no more than 2 Fate Points (and often only 1) at the start of each story. The GM can and should be hitting all the players with compels, but the Wizard is forced to accept more of them than other players if he wants to have a good stash of fate points for when things get tough. Thus, if compels are getting your players into as much danger and trouble as they should (think all the various nasty situations Harry gets tricked or lured into, or all the times he thought he had things under control until it all went wrong), you've got a natural balancing point.
This game wasn't designed to be balanced around numbers, in my opinion. Story and mechanics are tied too closely together to ignore one or the other in a debate like this.
None of that is story, all of that is numbers.
Which is good, because numbers are the only thing you can really balance around.
This game is geared towards wizards...
Where does this idea come from? I don't really understand it.
Oh, and I object to the idea that the GM should have to work to prevent one character type from stealing the show. That indicates poor balance. But for what it's worth, I don't think that wizards really demand so much work.
Not sure how feasible those wearing-down ideas are. Could you provide an example of how they're supposed to work?
-
@ Sanctaphrax: "Not sure how feasible those wearing-down ideas are. Could you provide an example of how they're supposed to work?"
This is an example:
Let's say people did not know how scary Marcone is. Those people are the PC's. The PC's have a few problems. Marcone has mortals with guns. Killing mortals breaks a law of magic (assuming the wizards fry them with magic,...which is the issue at hand, so please lets assume they weree going to do that). Now the wizard/s have to decide "do I risk lawbreaker stunts". They have to get creative. Which is good. Lets assume in taking down some mooks that they each use a stress, maybe two per wizard.
That leaves less stress to use when Hendricks comes down the stairs and Gard attacks from the flank. One looks superhuman, so maybe they'll try frying Hendricks maybe they'll "waste" more stress on blocks or maneuvers so they don't kill with magic. One is obviously superhuman. They'll definetly try dropping Gard. By the end of that fight I would hope they each spent at least one or two more stress.
This means Marcone (plus any other security measures) has that many less spells to worry about when you finally drag yourself to where he is for the showdown.
Wear down the amount of spells they have for the tough encounters, by making them use stresses on mooks or guards etc.
The example can't get much more clear.
As for the game being created for wizards: I have tried time and again to explain this. Dresden Files is a series based on a Wizard. It is largely about choice, morality, laws of Magic, the WC etc. Therefore, if you actually use the setting the game is based in (the Dresdenverse) Wizards are sort of a big deal. They are the center of the universe.
The obvious analogue: Star Wars - The Force exists in all things. Those who control it and use it benefit from it. Therefore, Sith and Jedi and better trained force users are more powerful than those who do not. The game systems use that setting information. The Force users are more powerful (at least in teh long run) than no Fore users.
This game (assuming you use the default setting) is very little different. magic = force powers. Better trained Wizards (Jedi) are more powerful. At the very least they will be in the long run.
If you do not use the default setting, then yes...this arguement is foreign to you.
However, there are many other systems to play urban fantasy. I will play those if I don't/can't except that Wizards are important and likely more powerful here. I chose to play this setting, I know what I am getting into.
Lets take Star Wars as the other example. There are many systems for space opera's. If I want to interact with jedi and the world of Star Wars. I accept the Force is a powerful ally. I deal with the fact the game is sort of based around that concept. If I reject this, I can play other systems.
This is the core problem where people are arguing for the narrative (they chose this setting because they liked it). To some extent, they may not understand why you chose this setting if you do not like it. Therefore it makes perfect sense that Wizards are powerful.
Sometimes instead of changing an enitre system to fit you...you should take your ball and go home (try a new system).
I am not saying Wizards are balanced. I am saying the GM can dissuade them from stealign the show. I am also saying that this system (as intended) puts spellcasters at the top of the food chain. Those who simply 100% reject that idea, may be better off with another system. (Though it is worth pointing out - that most systems with magic in them [ aside from D&D 4th ed.] make magic a little unbalanced).
As an aside: I can and have seen plenty of ways to make wizards feel less nasty. I've played in a long running Dresden game. I've smoked quite a few wizards. Not all of them allowed me to walk away without a severe consequence. I do know taht despite being able to be one trick ponies, those are the easy ones to beat. Besides... sneak attacks do wonders.....
-
You can't with the default mechanics accidentally kill someone with magic as you get to choose what happens to those you take out so if you are fighting loads of mortals you simply say you don't kill them as long as you flavor your attack on a non-lethal manner (so no I turn a room into an raging inferno but don't kill anyone.)
-
You can't with the default mechanics accidentally kill someone with magic as you get to choose what happens to those you take out so if you are fighting loads of mortals you simply say you don't kill them as long as you flavor your attack on a non-lethal manner (so no I turn a room into an raging inferno but don't kill anyone.)
I don't argue that.
Not at all.
I could see a villain familiar with the Laws of Magic issueing a neat trick though. Know you have a fire mage coming? Make sure hios environment is ..."flammable" or "gassy" or you know..."full of rotten egg smell". Then he could accidently kill people, maybe he wouldn't get a law breaker stunt. I bet the Wardens would still come sniffing around. He could also self flmbe himself and crew.
-
I am not saying Wizards are balanced. I am saying the GM can dissuade them from stealign the show. I am also saying that this system (as intended) puts spellcasters at the top of the food chain. Those who simply 100% reject that idea, may be better off with another system. (Though it is worth pointing out - that most systems with magic in them [ aside from D&D 4th ed.] make magic a little unbalanced).
This, this, a thousand times, this. The game isn't made to have everything perfectly balanced so that every template stands an equal chance to be viable in every situation. It's made to reflect the setting of The Dresden Files, where Pure Mortals can get by against your average supernatural (but get stomped by things with significant power), where White Court and Werewolves can hold their own if they're good or lucky, and where the Wizards who sling around the power of the elements with a wave of their staffs can stomp the shit out of things that would eat (literally) the mortals and the werewolves.
As for keeping Wizards from being all powerful, there's a lot you can do a lot to keep them in line. Compel them to say that spells above a certain weapon rating will kill for that scene. Throw things at them that they'll need to use magic just to defend against. Give them enemies that know how to neutralize magic in some fashion.
They're extremely powerful, especially if you give them time to prepare, but a Wizard is as squishy as the pure mortal standing next to them--they've got plenty of weaknesses too.
-
This, this, a thousand times, this. The game isn't made to have everything perfectly balanced so that every template stands an equal chance to be viable in every situation. It's made to reflect the setting of The Dresden Files, where Pure Mortals can get by against your average supernatural (but get stomped by things with significant power), where White Court and Werewolves can hold their own if they're good or lucky, and where the Wizards who sling around the power of the elements with a wave of their staffs can stomp the shit out of things that would eat (literally) the mortals and the werewolves.
Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.
As for keeping Wizards from being all powerful, there's a lot you can do a lot to keep them in line. Compel them to say that spells above a certain weapon rating will kill for that scene. Throw things at them that they'll need to use magic just to defend against. Give them enemies that know how to neutralize magic in some fashion.
There's very little that can be done to keep them in line. For example, you can't compel a wizard with 1 refresh to use magic to kill if he doesn't already have Lawbreaker - you'd be violating the social contract governing compels, it's exactly the same as if you tried to compel him to have an instantly-fatal aneurysm. You're being a bad GM and they have every right to call you out on it.
Powers which can threaten a wizard's persistent defense rotes can roflstomp the rest of the party, so that's also a bad option. You're creating a new tier of play to challenge one character that other characters can't get in on.
They're extremely powerful, especially if you give them time to prepare, but a Wizard is as squishy as the pure mortal standing next to them--they've got plenty of weaknesses too.
A wizard is far tankier then the pure mortal standing next to them, because they can do things like create a 9-shift block that lasts four rounds.
-
Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.
Maybe bad game design for a generic urban fantasy RPG, but it fits the setting.
-
Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.
But all characters are not created equal.When i creat a 9 refresh mortal character he has way more influence over the story then the wizard. The wizard has not even control over himself because he constantly has to take compels why the other players declares stuff left and right.
A wizard is STRONG and SCARY in combat (if build this way) but not every situation dissolves to combat.
Fate is story first and balance second,
-
I'm going to assume, for the sake of a standard, that we're discussing Submerged-level games.
Which is bad game design, and creates false dichotomies during character creation. One character type should not be able to edge out the rest. It's fine to have specialties, but wizards don't have specialties - they're amazing at everything between thaumaturgy and evocation.
Untrue. Wizards have specialties within and between those. It'd be rare to find someone who's "amazing" at both Evocation and Thaumaturgy at your basic Submerged game, and at that level, you don't get "amazing" in all sets of Evocation--not without neglecting something, such as enchanted items or defense.
There's very little that can be done to keep them in line. For example, you can't compel a wizard with 1 refresh to use magic to kill if he doesn't already have Lawbreaker - you'd be violating the social contract governing compels, it's exactly the same as if you tried to compel him to have an instantly-fatal aneurysm. You're being a bad GM and they have every right to call you out on it.
You misunderstand me. I'm not saying, after the fact, compelling a wizard to say, "Well, you hit that mook with a Weapon:4 fireblast, he's dead." I'm saying you compel, at the start of the scene, to say, "These are human mooks. If you hit them with anything Weapon:4 or higher, they're going to die from it." Then it's still entirely the player's choice as to whether or not he kills--but at the same time, it stops him from flattening a room with a zone-wide Weapon:6 attack.
Powers which can threaten a wizard's persistent defense rotes can roflstomp the rest of the party, so that's also a bad option. You're creating a new tier of play to challenge one character that other characters can't get in on.
Not necessarily. A couple maneuvers and an already-decent attack roll is good enough to get through most blocks.
A wizard is far tankier then the pure mortal standing next to them, because they can do things like create a 9-shift block that lasts four rounds.
Unless the wizard is purely Defensively minded, they're not going to be able to pull that block out without taking a solid consequence or spending several fate points. Which means they're going to be flagging behind on offense.
A wizard who can throw out a 12-shift spell on Defense without getting a consequence for it is going to need Focus items for it--which means they can't do the same for offense. And it means barring a good dice roll, they're going to be taking consequences just for casting in the first place. And it means if they're throwing all their specializations, focus items, and skills into Evocation, they're going to be far from "amazing" at Thaumaturgy, and they won't have much room for Enchanted items if their shield fails.
Yes, a Wizard can throw out a lot of power at once but A. they have to control it, too, and B. they're not going to be able to do everything on the same level.
-
There are so many things a Wizard *can* do, but the cost of doing them is really high. 4-, 6- and 8-stress Consequences are sticking around for awhile, and each one means the Wizard is more likely to have to Concede a later conflict.
When a Wizard has the green light to lay down some serious firepower (no humans in the firing zone - just inhuman opponents), yes, it can be brutal and decisive. But those situations are usually uncommon, if a GM is setting up conflicts properly. And taking a 4-, 6- and 8-stress Consequence to fuel a Block spell is... well, it would have to be a pretty good reason.
-
Just to do some math here, again, assuming a Submerged level game.
Conviction and Discipline at 5.
Base specialization in Evocation, +1 to Spirit power.
4 Focus Item slots
4 Specializations from 2 Refinements.
You need effective Conviction at 9 and Discipline at 8 to cast a 12-shift spell without a consequence, assuming a full Physical stress track.
Spirit Power can be brought up to 2, because you need at least 6 specializations to have one +3. That means one Specialization can go into Spirit Control. That puts us at C:7/D:6, with four focus item slots left. To create that 12-shift spell without any consequences, therefore, you have to put two of the focus item slots into Discipline, two into Conviction, and you would probably make it a Rote to be safe. This lets you just barely cast the spell with a 4-shift hit to the Mental and Physical stress tracks.
Alternatively, you could make the focus item into something that only works with this rote, which would allow you to boost either Conviction or Discipline by another +1, so it'd be a 3 and 4 shift hit--but that may not be advisable since it means you can't use the focus item for other stuff.
So now you've got a wizard who can cast--once--an almost unbeatable shield (which is still beatable by anyone who rolls really well from 5) for four rounds. He has no armor (no enchanted item slots left), so if that shield fails, he's in trouble. He can cast some fairly impressive Spirit evocations--especially on Defense--but his other elements are lagging behind. Thaumaturgy is left out entirely. He has one focus item that is only useful on defense--and if his shield rote fails, he can't cast it again without at least one Mild consequence.
A more balanced character, who spreads his focus items and specializations around to account for defense and offense in equal measure, or devotes some of his resources to Thaumaturgy, isn't going to be able to cast 12-shifts of anything in Evocation without taking serious consequences.
-
Compel them to say that spells above a certain weapon rating will kill for that scene.
I'm just going to say this quickly because I know it's off topic, but it's one of my pet peeves.
Weapon rating is not a representation of the lethality of a spell. It is a representation of the effectiveness of a spell. If I throw out a weapon:15 sleep gas spell, or similar it is not more lethal than a weapon:4 fireball. It is simply better at taking things out.
Additionally if I throw a weapon:15 fireball at someone and I take them out, it is entirely possible that I never hit them. Just because I rolled over their defense does not mean that the attack physically hit them. It just means that I dealt that much stress. It is the events afterwards (the taking of consequences or concession/taken out result) that determine if I actually struck them.
-
I know all that--that's why I'm framing it as a compel instead of as a rule. The player either gets a fate point for some added difficulty to the scene, or they spend a fate point to buy out, and can feel free to blast away without consequence.
-
I just feel it's a compel that is weakened by it's own... Vagueness? Lack of proper definitive guidelines?
It's ill defined.
-
How do you think it might be improved, then? For reference, when I did this and similar compels, maneuvers and blocks and stuff were still fair game.
-
Well, the first obvious improvement that springs to my mind would be to alter the wording in such a way as to exclude effects that would not plausibly result in death. Weaponized sleep spells are the obvious go-to, here.
The next improvement I would make would be to divorce the effect from weapon value at all.
The end result would be something along the lines of:
'any attacks resulting in a taken-out result that would likely cause the death of their targets if those targets suffered the full effect of that attack, will, for the duration of this scene, include the death of that target in the taken-out result'
It's still clumsily worded, but it's more consistent.
It excludes things like sleep spells while affecting both blasts of flame as well as stabbings, gunshots etc.
It forces characters not simply to use less power in their attacks, but to use it more carefully, through the use of declarations, maneuvers, and creative descriptions.
-
Firstly the aspect being compelled is very important. Normally I'm very liberal with how compels work (I've even compelled without an aspect, but I guess that was just me skipping some formalities), but in this case I would need a clearly defined aspect that directly creates a lack of control. Something like "Flammable gases" would be a good external aspect, or a consequence of "Enraged", or a personal aspect like "Fire is a fickle master".
Secondly I would probably limit their attack options entirely. "If you attack with fire, there's a good chance someone will get seriously hurt." It creates a clearly defined narrative trigger without using a conceptually vague meta-trigger like "How much stress you deal."
Lastly I would never do this compel unless the wizard had the Fate points to buy it off (or I would offer them debt to buy it off). This kind of thing if done well can lead to great drama (drama that many players would embrace and enjoy), but if done poorly it's just you picking on the wizard because you feel he's too powerful (which is actually what most people seem to be doing here, and it's a bit of a jerk move).
-
Well, the first obvious improvement that springs to my mind would be to alter the wording in such a way as to exclude effects that would not plausibly result in death. Weaponized sleep spells are the obvious go-to, here.
The next improvement I would make would be to divorce the effect from weapon value at all.
The end result would be something along the lines of:
'any attacks resulting in a taken-out result that would likely cause the death of their targets if those targets suffered the full effect of that attack, will, for the duration of this scene, include the death of that target in the taken-out result'
It's still clumsily worded, but it's more consistent.
It excludes things like sleep spells while affecting both blasts of flame as well as stabbings, gunshots etc.
It forces characters not simply to use less power in their attacks, but to use it more carefully, through the use of declarations, maneuvers, and creative descriptions.
So, maybe something like, "Physical attack spells"? That handily excludes sleep spells (which I admittedly overlooked because my players tend to--if they use attack evocations, it's almost always fireballs and lightning bolts), and is a bit less clumsy.
I still kinda want to use the weapon rating, though, because it's an easy, cut and dry way to delineate what's kosher and what's not, and is representative of a wizard holding back by using less power. Plus it plays into that fine line a wizard is treading when using magic against mortals--hit them too hard, you could break the first law, don't hit them hard enough and they'll get at least one more chance to beat your face in. And thirdly, if the way to get around the limits of a compel is as easy as "Okay, it's a blunt blast of air, not a spear," while keeping everything else equal, the compel really isn't changing anything about how the fight would go.
Firstly the aspect being compelled is very important. Normally I'm very liberal with how compels work (I've even compelled without an aspect, but I guess that was just me skipping some formalities), but in this case I would need a clearly defined aspect that directly creates a lack of control. Something like "Flammable gases" would be a good external aspect, or a consequence of "Enraged", or a personal aspect like "Fire is a fickle master".
Secondly I would probably limit their attack options entirely. "If you attack with fire, there's a good chance someone will get seriously hurt." It creates a clearly defined narrative trigger without using a conceptually vague meta-trigger like "How much stress you deal."
Lastly I would never do this compel unless the wizard had the Fate points to buy it off (or I would offer them debt to buy it off). This kind of thing if done well can lead to great drama (drama that many players would embrace and enjoy), but if done poorly it's just you picking on the wizard because you feel he's too powerful (which is actually what most people seem to be doing here, and it's a bit of a jerk move).
Good points. The time I used something like this and it worked out the best was along those lines--compelled a personal aspect (the character was an apprentice and only had Lightning at her disposal) to make her not directly attack, and the player got creative with blocks and maneuvers to win the fight instead.
-
So, maybe something like, "Physical attack spells"? That handily excludes sleep spells (which I admittedly overlooked because my players tend to--if they use attack evocations, it's almost always fireballs and lightning bolts), and is a bit less clumsy.
I still kinda want to use the weapon rating, though, because it's an easy, cut and dry way to delineate what's kosher and what's not, and is representative of a wizard holding back by using less power. Plus it plays into that fine line a wizard is treading when using magic against mortals--hit them too hard, you could break the first law, don't hit them hard enough and they'll get at least one more chance to beat your face in. And thirdly, if the way to get around the limits of a compel is as easy as "Okay, it's a blunt blast of air, not a spear," while keeping everything else equal, the compel really isn't changing anything about how the fight would go.
Good points. The time I used something like this and it worked out the best was along those lines--compelled a personal aspect (the character was an apprentice and only had Lightning at her disposal) to make her not directly attack, and the player got creative with blocks and maneuvers to win the fight instead.
The problem with focusing on weapon's rating is that it hits conviction based mages (like Harry) far more than discipline based ones (discipline already add's to damage nearly twice as effectively than conviction and also adds to hit) so you are increasing the games natural bias towards control type wizards who are already much more effective than power type.
-
The problem with focusing on weapon's rating is that it hits conviction based mages (like Harry) far more than discipline based ones (discipline already add's to damage nearly twice as effectively than conviction and also adds to hit) so you are increasing the games natural bias towards control type wizards who are already much more effective than power type.
That makes sense, though. Someone with a lot of power and little control is naturally going to have more difficulty in a situation where they have to hold back than someone with less power and a lot of control.
-
Why would "weaponized sleep spells" have any less potential for lethality than other attack spells? I mean, if you shove three bottles of sleeping pills down someone's throat, what do you think is likely to happen? Treating this sort of thing by use of compels seems a very elegant way to handle it. You're not saying "This spell is going to kill the target; deal with it". Instead, you're saying "This spell is risky. Would you like to accept that risk, or would you rather make sure you play it safe?" The player (not the character) then has a chance at controlling the narrative: he can either accept the complication (and the Fate point), buy off the complication (hey, looks like he threw up most of the sleeping pills!), or rethink the action.
This is very much inline with the DF novels; Dresden never blast human with 'non-lethal' fire, and is fairly reluctant to even use force spells against mortals. I can almost see his player throwing a Fate point at Jim to make sure the target doesn't croak...
The problem with focusing on weapon's rating is that it hits conviction based mages (like Harry) far more than discipline based ones (discipline already add's to damage nearly twice as effectively than conviction and also adds to hit) so you are increasing the games natural bias towards control type wizards who are already much more effective than power type.
Why is this bad, necessarily? Harry realizes he has brute power coupled with inferior control; this comes up throughout the series (though less so as the series progresses and Harry's control improves).
Compare a tank gun coupled with little skill to a light pistol coupled with extreme proficiency. Both combinations have good odds of taking out a target (ie, similar total stress). But which combination has a greater likelihood of being able to take out a target without killing outright, if that's the attacker's desire?
-
That makes sense, though. Someone with a lot of power and little control is naturally going to have more difficulty in a situation where they have to hold back than someone with less power and a lot of control.
Sorry I meant as a balance tool it was weak as the strongest wizards are discipline focused (ten + control) and this doesn't effect their discipline at all.
-
Sorry I meant as a balance tool it was weak as the strongest wizards are discipline focused (ten + control) and this doesn't effect their discipline at all.
The "strongest wizards" are also listed as having refresh ratings of -15 or higher. Once you're that level, then taking out a bunch of mortal goons in a straight fight really shouldn't be an issue anyway.
-
The "strongest wizards" are also listed as having refresh ratings of -15 or higher. Once you're that level, then taking out a bunch of mortal goons in a straight fight really shouldn't be an issue anyway.
You can get control ten, power 8 at 8 refresh with the right focused practitioner build your method isn't even going to balance a well built waist deeper caster.
-
Why would "weaponized sleep spells" have any less potential for lethality than other attack spells? I mean, if you shove three bottles of sleeping pills down someone's throat, what do you think is likely to happen? Treating this sort of thing by use of compels seems a very elegant way to handle it. You're not saying "This spell is going to kill the target; deal with it". Instead, you're saying "This spell is risky. Would you like to accept that risk, or would you rather make sure you play it safe?" The player (not the character) then has a chance at controlling the narrative: he can either accept the complication (and the Fate point), buy off the complication (hey, looks like he threw up most of the sleeping pills!), or rethink the action.
If the table held that perspective, then the wording I provided would be interpreted to include those spells.
This is very much inline with the DF novels; Dresden never blast human with 'non-lethal' fire, and is fairly reluctant to even use force spells against mortals. I can almost see his player throwing a Fate point at Jim to make sure the target doesn't croak...
Why is this bad, necessarily? Harry realizes he has brute power coupled with inferior control; this comes up throughout the series (though less so as the series progresses and Harry's control improves).
And he also has an aspect that could be routinely and reasonably compelled to that effect. On the other hand, there's also no way to determine from the novels whether he in fact refused that compel, saying that, while his attacks are eminently lethal in capacity, it's just not going to substantially hamper his character that scene.
Compare a tank gun coupled with little skill to a light pistol coupled with extreme proficiency. Both combinations have good odds of taking out a target (ie, similar total stress). But which combination has a greater likelihood of being able to take out a target without killing outright, if that's the attacker's desire?
The wording I provided also includes this disparity in that I think you'd be hard pressed to come up with a justification as to how you were going to use a tank's main gun in such a way that it would not be likely to cause the death of its target, while that act of creativity would be much more easily accomplished for the light pistol.
-
This, this, a thousand times, this. The game isn't made to have everything perfectly balanced so that every template stands an equal chance to be viable in every situation. It's made to reflect the setting of The Dresden Files, where Pure Mortals can get by against your average supernatural (but get stomped by things with significant power), where White Court and Werewolves can hold their own if they're good or lucky, and where the Wizards who sling around the power of the elements with a wave of their staffs can stomp the shit out of things that would eat (literally) the mortals and the werewolves.
A lot of this is wrong.
The whole point of the power levels in the game is to put characters on a level in terms of power. A Chest Deep mortal is not supposed to be weaker than a Chest Deep Wizard. But your average mortal is well below Feet In The Water while your average wizard is probably Submerged.
Also WCVs and werewolves will get killed if they try to fight optimized mortal combatants of the same power level.
Seriously, mortals are pretty kickass. And WCVs and werewolves are distinctly suboptimal. If you were right about the intentions of the game designers (and I'm pretty sure you're not) then they failed really hard.
PS: Why does Harry's identity as a wizard make the game Wizard-centric? He's also really tall, but nobody claims that the game is about tall people.
PPS: Even at 30 Refresh, you might well lack basic combat competence. There are other things to invest in. And Wizards, for all their power, tend to be pretty fragile. So having mooks kill the Merlin would be quite reasonable if not for the Merlin being smart enough to avoid those situations.
PPPS: Using the Laws to balance Evocation is a bad idea. Given how nobody agrees on how the Laws even work, and given that the Laws only apply to a fraction of the game's characters, and given that breaking them is more or less instantly fatal, they make a crappy balancing factor even if you deny the badness of narrative balance.
PPPPS: Wizards aren't actually as supremely badass as people here seem to think. They have a lot of firepower, but not the most. Their out-of-combat abilities are strong, but very narrow. And their basic abilities cost so much that they tend to lack other abilities. Like basic not-getting-killed skills.
-
A lot of this is wrong.
The whole point of the power levels in the game is to put characters on a level in terms of power. A Chest Deep mortal is not supposed to be weaker than a Chest Deep Wizard. But your average mortal is well below Feet In The Water while your average wizard is probably Submerged.
Even at the same refresh level, wizards are, one on one, more powerful and dangerous than a pure mortal when optimized for combat. The wizard is going to be tossing out Weapon:5 spells at rolls of 5--without taking into account specializations and focus items--and will more likely than not have enchanted armor of significant strength. The Pure Mortal, unless he's carrying a bazooka, isn't going to be doing more than Weapon:3 damage, and his armor, if he has any, is going to be limited in scope of what it can block. Kevlar isn't going to stop a fireball.
Also WCVs and werewolves will get killed if they try to fight optimized mortal combatants of the same power level.
Seriously, mortals are pretty kickass. And WCVs and werewolves are distinctly suboptimal. If you were right about the intentions of the game designers (and I'm pretty sure you're not) then they failed really hard.
All other stats being equal, WCVs and Werewolves who have speed and strength powers are going to beat a mortal combatant, stat for stat.
PS: Why does Harry's identity as a wizard make the game Wizard-centric? He's also really tall, but nobody claims that the game is about tall people.
I would say that the books having several sections dealing exclusively with spellcasting, how to build a spellcaster, and the consequences of spellcasting (the section on the Laws) would make a good argument that the game is kind of centered around wizards. As the game itself notes, "It's not called The Borden Files."
PPS: Even at 30 Refresh, you might well lack basic combat competence. There are other things to invest in. And Wizards, for all their power, tend to be pretty fragile. So having mooks kill the Merlin would be quite reasonable if not for the Merlin being smart enough to avoid those situations.
You could, but, uh, that'd be kind of a screwy way to play. Though I'd say if you're a wizard with most of 30 refresh spent, a lot of that would've likely gone to Refinement, which means your martial abilities are at least decent unless you focused them all on Thaumaturgy, which, again, would be kind of an odd way to play a PC.
And I totally agree, having mooks kill a powerful wizard is possible and reasonable--they just have to catch him unprepared. A wizard can certainly toss up a 9-shift shield to keep goons out--but he has to have a turn first.
PPPS: Using the Laws to balance Evocation is a bad idea.
But...they are a balance against magic. That's exactly what they are. The Laws of Magic are explicitly there to protect pure mortals against wizards. How many times in the books has Harry faced some mortal goons and either gotten his ass kicked, had to run away, or had to brawl it out, because they're mortal and he can't risk killing them with an errant spell? In Storm Front, a mortal goon nicks some of his hair--Harry immediately realizes this is a life and death scenario, and if the goon gets away, some wizard is going to kill him. So Harry...tackles him. Because he can't risk hitting him with a spell and killing him. When Harry's attacked by three goons in Heorot, he has to fight them hand to hand instead of just laying them out with a spell for the same reasons.
Harry makes a deliberate effort over several books to better defend himself hand-to-hand because he can't just toss magic at the human goons he keeps going up against. In game terms, that's a wizard focusing on boosting his Fists and Athletics scores instead of his Conviction and Discipline specifically because of the laws of magic.
In short, if a magical practitioner isn't worried, concerned, or thinking about the Laws of Magic in some way when he casts a spell to attack a mortal, there's something wrong. That makes them a balancing factor meant to limit the number of situations in which "hit it with a Weapon:8 spell" is useful.
Given how nobody agrees on how the Laws even work, and given that the Laws only apply to a fraction of the game's characters, and given that breaking them is more or less instantly fatal, they make a crappy balancing factor even if you deny the badness of narrative balance.
Molly and Harry seem to have broken laws without it being "instantly fatal." And it's not meant to be a full balance to bring Wizards down against everything. As I said before, I believe this is a setting where Wizards are supposed to be badass when they can let loose. Going against mortals is supposed to be one of the times Wizards simply cannot afford to let loose. Letting a wizard blast--without concern or consequence--a room full of mortal goons into submission goes against the spirit and rules of the setting.
PPPPS: Wizards aren't actually as supremely badass as people here seem to think. They have a lot of firepower, but not the most. Their out-of-combat abilities are strong, but very narrow. And their basic abilities cost so much that they tend to lack other abilities. Like basic not-getting-killed skills.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my math example. Wizards can be really damn badass, but generally only in one, maybe two areas until they get to the really high power levels. The problem I keep seeing is people seem to assume if a wizard can toss out a 12-shift shield spell, they can cast other spells of similar power too.
-
Even at the same refresh level, wizards are, one on one, more powerful and dangerous than a pure mortal when optimized for combat. The wizard is going to be tossing out Weapon:5 spells at rolls of 5--without taking into account specializations and focus items--and will more likely than not have enchanted armor of significant strength. The Pure Mortal, unless he's carrying a bazooka, isn't going to be doing more than Weapon:3 damage, and his armor, if he has any, is going to be limited in scope of what it can block. Kevlar isn't going to stop a fireball.
Now this I do contest. The Wizard can I-Win with Thaumaturgy, but let's put that aside because that's really a bigger issue. An evocator against a combat-focused Pure Mortal of equivalent refresh in a white room brawl has only even odds.
At 8 Refresh, I take nine stunts: two to improve my defense, two for toughness, three for +1s to attack, two for +2 stress per hit. Now my assault rifle functions as Weapon:7 and I roll +8 with it. My defense is +9 and I can soak several hits even if they get through. All of these bonuses are situational, but not terribly so, and I can overlap situations between stunts that do different things. For instance, "when wielding an assault rifle" and a little relevant flavor could apply to all four categories. I'm good at firing it, I aim for maximum damage, I know how to dissuade attacks by blind-firing, and just holding it lends me resolve and tenacity.
The problem is that's all I can do, butcher people with an assault rifle. I can't fly or summon demons or solve any problems, really, that an assault rifle is not designed to solve. The elements of earth (stone, dirt, metal, lightning) spirit (telekinesis, light, illusion) and fire (flame, ice, purification) are much better at creative problem solving, and if you optimize that to the point where you can hit like a runaway freight train full of pressure-sensitive nuclear warheads, you get way more then just the combat package.
-
Now this I do contest. The Wizard can I-Win with Thaumaturgy, but let's put that aside because that's really a bigger issue. An evocator against a combat-focused Pure Mortal of equivalent refresh in a white room brawl has only even odds.
At 8 Refresh, I take nine stunts: two to improve my defense, two for toughness, three for +1s to attack, two for +2 stress per hit. Now my assault rifle functions as Weapon:7 and I roll +8 with it. My defense is +9 and I can soak several hits even if they get through. All of these bonuses are situational, but not terribly so, and I can overlap situations between stunts that do different things. For instance, "when wielding an assault rifle" and a little relevant flavor could apply to all four categories. I'm good at firing it, I aim for maximum damage, I know how to dissuade attacks by blind-firing, and just holding it lends me resolve and tenacity.
I direct you to the stunt stacking guidelines in the stunt creation rules of YS.
Basically, the above doesn't work. (or at least not nearly so well as intended)
-
I direct you to the stunt stacking guidelines in the stunt creation rules of YS.
Basically, the above doesn't work. (or at least not nearly so well as intended)
Hmm. So I guess it's not possible for a mortal to keep up with an evocator even if the mortal sacrifices everything to an exceptionally narrow area of focus.
Carry on.
-
Why would "weaponized sleep spells" have any less potential for lethality than other attack spells? I mean, if you shove three bottles of sleeping pills down someone's throat, what do you think is likely to happen?
You're comparing chemicals to magic, which follow different processes.
Chemistry is about knowing that x compound has x effect, and then using the right amount to create the desired effect. Too much (or too little) has a different effect based on the same concept.
Magic is the other way around. It's about purpose. It's about having a desired effect and then filling that effect with power. Too much (or too little) will have the same effect with varying effectiveness, because it's purpose remains the same.
-
The thing is, there's a lot more to the game than combat. A battle-wizard is going to do ridiculous things given inhuman opponents and a clear field. This is easy to complicate by throwing human opponents or hostages out there to prevent zone-wide attacks, having a mental attack take out his mental track so he can't cast freely, or use magic resistant enemies.
edit: That same doom-wizard can't convince anyone the sky is blue and wouldn't notice a clue if it bit him on the behind, and probably has no money and no connections. His friends with presence and rapport and deceit and resources and contacts however... They're all just as important to the story.
I just had a "Longest Day" style adventure where my dudes went through a gauntlet of adventures without any breaks between (they were being chased through the nevernever by... oh lots of things.) The wizards ended up using their swords for half of it, they ran out of gas.
-
I direct you to the stunt stacking guidelines in the stunt creation rules of YS.
Basically, the above doesn't work. (or at least not nearly so well as intended)
This is the main source of the overpoweredness of the wizard, wizards get to stack their far more effective than stunt powers (refinement) to over five times the level of what non-casters can achieve to without any drop in effectiveness. I suppose one way to balance wizards and non-wizards is to allow stunts to stack up to the level of the skill bonus without an penalty.
-
It isn't so much that Wizards are stronger than mortals as it is that they have a higher ceiling.
Mortals can only invest about 3 or 4 Refresh into combat before diminishing returns ensue. Wizards can invest about 7. But both end up with a (very roughly) comparable amount of power for the Refresh invested.
So mortals are forced to diversify earlier than wizards.
All other stats being equal, WCVs and Werewolves who have speed and strength powers are going to beat a mortal combatant, stat for stat.
All else cannot be equal. The mortal will have the Refresh not invested in Speed and Strength available to use elsewhere.
And a Chest Deep mortal with one or two Superb combat skills, a good weapon, and a few basic stunts will have little trouble being tougher than a Chest Deep Werewolf or WCV can ever be. Seriously.
I would say that the books having several sections dealing exclusively with spellcasting, how to build a spellcaster, and the consequences of spellcasting (the section on the Laws) would make a good argument that the game is kind of centered around wizards. As the game itself notes, "It's not called The Borden Files."
Wizards =/= spellcasters. In fact, I'd argue that Wizards aren't even the best spellcasters.
You could, but, uh, that'd be kind of a screwy way to play. Though I'd say if you're a wizard with most of 30 refresh spent, a lot of that would've likely gone to Refinement, which means your martial abilities are at least decent unless you focused them all on Thaumaturgy, which, again, would be kind of an odd way to play a PC.
Refinement does little for your defences unless you are a Crafter. And even if you are a Crafter, mooks can chew through the uses of your items pretty quick.
Look at the Merlin, either in OW or in Deadmanwalking's writeup. A few gunshots will rip him apart. In fact, the OW version could be killed pretty effortlessly by a few dudes with Good Alertness, Good Guns, and Fair Athletics unless you give him an enchanted item defence.
And I totally agree, having mooks kill a powerful wizard is possible and reasonable--they just have to catch him unprepared. A wizard can certainly toss up a 9-shift shield to keep goons out--but he has to have a turn first.
Actually shield spells are usually a waste of time. You're better off just taking out your opponents. What you really need to do to drop a powerful wizard is attack him while he's away from his Enchanted Items.
But...they are a balance against magic. That's exactly what they are. The Laws of Magic are explicitly there to protect pure mortals against wizards. How many times in the books has Harry faced some mortal goons and either gotten his ass kicked, had to run away, or had to brawl it out, because they're mortal and he can't risk killing them with an errant spell? In Storm Front, a mortal goon nicks some of his hair--Harry immediately realizes this is a life and death scenario, and if the goon gets away, some wizard is going to kill him. So Harry...tackles him. Because he can't risk hitting him with a spell and killing him. When Harry's attacked by three goons in Heorot, he has to fight them hand to hand instead of just laying them out with a spell for the same reasons.
Those would be compels. Which is good, because otherwise a character becomes vastly more tough simply by being labelled mortal.
Molly and Harry seem to have broken laws without it being "instantly fatal." And it's not meant to be a full balance to bring Wizards down against everything. As I said before, I believe this is a setting where Wizards are supposed to be badass when they can let loose. Going against mortals is supposed to be one of the times Wizards simply cannot afford to let loose. Letting a wizard blast--without concern or consequence--a room full of mortal goons into submission goes against the spirit and rules of the setting.
That's why you compel him. Your sig is very accurate in this case.
Most Wizards have 1 Refresh. Which means that one broken Law will render them unplayable unless something weird happens.
Breaking a Law as a source of drama and tension doesn't really work unless you either use different Lawbreaker rules or deliberately build the character for the story.
Yeah, that's what I was getting at with my math example. Wizards can be really damn badass, but generally only in one, maybe two areas until they get to the really high power levels. The problem I keep seeing is people seem to assume if a wizard can toss out a 12-shift shield spell, they can cast other spells of similar power too.
True. With the caveat that, again, shield spells are not very good.
-
Compels against wizards only work to a certain extent. But it is applicable to other character types as well.
I think a supernatural will have an edge against a mortal in any arena of conflict due to the very simple fact that a -1 Refresh power is allowed to be a little more effective than an otherwise equivalent stunt.
-
It isn't so much that Wizards are stronger than mortals as it is that they have a higher ceiling.
Mortals can only invest about 3 or 4 Refresh into combat before diminishing returns ensue. Wizards can invest about 7. But both end up with a (very roughly) comparable amount of power for the Refresh invested.
So mortals are forced to diversify earlier than wizards.
You're contradicting yourself. They're either comparable or one hits diminishing returns early and (by definition) doesn't get the same bang for the buck (or refresh) as the other.
I also fail to see the difference between higher ceiling and stronger. If you still think there is a difference, can you explain?
-
An optimized Wizard with 3 Refresh worth of combat stuff is not much stronger than an optimized mortal with 3 Refresh of combat stuff. (Though the mortal will be subject to the restrictions of his stunts, and will have a +2 Refresh bonus. Whatever. It's a rough comparison.)
Evocation alone gives weapon 5 accuracy 8 if all you want is to attack as hard as possible. An assault rifle with stunts giving +1 accuracy +2 stress is weapon 6 accuracy 6. Then the mortal can pick up a +2 to dodge stunt. This will make neither combatant clearly stronger.
But an optimized mortal with 8 Refresh of combat stuff basically isn't possible.
Evocation with 5 Refinements gives weapon 10 accuracy 12. A mortal is not allowed to invest enough to match that.
Does that make sense?
I think I misspoke earlier...mortals don't get the same bang for their buck after a certain point. But up to then, they do.
-
Does that make sense?
I think I misspoke earlier...mortals don't get the same bang for their buck after a certain point. But up to then, they do.
Yes...and I agree. I simply don't see how you can say the above and still say "wizards are not more powerful". Granted, you could design a wizard to be incapable of feats a pure human couldn't match...but I don't think that's the norm.
-
You've got to compare at an equal level of investment. Since a mortal cannot invest much, that means you won't be comparing at a very high level of investment.
But at that low level they are roughly equal.
Since Wizards are playable at Chest Deep and cannot buy any Refinement then, they will not be significantly stronger than mortal combatants in many games.
-
Let's say a supmerged mortal starts with a 5 gun skill and carries arround a weapon 3 assault rifle. He has 12 Fatepoints to play with. Let's say he has 2 appropriate aspects. That's a +4. There are still 10 Fatepoints he can invest in rerolls/+1 so he can attack with a +18 or something. First round. He could go with +17 and compel the wizard to not have his defense up.
Case rested.
-
Let's say a supmerged mortal starts with a 5 gun skill and carries arround a weapon 3 assault rifle. He has 12 Fatepoints to play with. Let's say he has 2 appropriate aspects. That's a +4. There are still 10 Fatepoints he can invest in rerolls/+1 so he can attack with a +18 or something. First round. He could go with +17 and compel the wizard to not have his defense up.
Case rested.
Right, but then of course the wizard win initiative, makes an easy hex, and then eats the mortal for breakfast. Or the Wizard tags CRATES or LOT FULL OF CARS or something similar to say the attack misses completely. Or the Wizard spends a fate to invoke his high concept to have the gun auto hexed. Or......
That being said, I'm cool with Wizards being 'better' than the other templates, and I think that if it is a problem in your game it is better solved narratively than with a mechanics change.
-
Power isn't the same as nova potential.
Power comes from being able to win conflicts and solve problems.
So Beast Change is actually quite a powerful power, though it does nothing for one's nova potential.
-
Wizards =/= spellcasters. In fact, I'd argue that Wizards aren't even the best spellcasters.
Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, there's a lot of the book that deals directly with what Wizards do, is written based on the notes and experiences of a Wizard, and the White Council's laws about wizardry are important enough to warrant their own big section. I don't see the game adding a whole extra chapter on telling you how to be a werewolf.
Refinement does little for your defences unless you are a Crafter. And even if you are a Crafter, mooks can chew through the uses of your items pretty quick.
You don't have to be exclusively a crafter to put Specializations or Focus Slots into crafting items.
Look at the Merlin, either in OW or in Deadmanwalking's writeup. A few gunshots will rip him apart. In fact, the OW version could be killed pretty effortlessly by a few dudes with Good Alertness, Good Guns, and Fair Athletics unless you give him an enchanted item defence.
If I remember correctly, the Merlin's write up comes with a note along the lines of, "We don't really know. This is probably way underpowered." I can't think of any reason the world's most powerful (and probably most paranoid/cautious) Wizard wouldn't have a badass armored item of some kind.
Wait, why am I arguing this point? I agreed with you that wizards could be really fragile.
Actually shield spells are usually a waste of time. You're better off just taking out your opponents. What you really need to do to drop a powerful wizard is attack him while he's away from his Enchanted Items.
Well, depends on the dynamics of a fight. If the wizard's alone against several people, yeah, a shield isn't worth the time when you can attack. But if the wizard has some friends, I've seen people get significant mileage out of throwing up a solid block while his buddies took care of offense.
Those would be compels. Which is good, because otherwise a character becomes vastly more tough simply by being labelled mortal.
That's why you compel him. Your sig is very accurate in this case.
Agreed. This bit started with me suggesting they be compels, in fact :P
Most Wizards have 1 Refresh. Which means that one broken Law will render them unplayable unless something weird happens.
Breaking a Law as a source of drama and tension doesn't really work unless you either use different Lawbreaker rules or deliberately build the character for the story.
Fair enough on most wizards, but I know several players who've deliberately held to at least 2 refresh just to have the points available when they need them.
I suppose it depends on what you define as 'balanced' (Overall vs. combat, etc.). I'd say a versatile wizard is more versatile than a versatile Pure Mortal, though.
-
The stuff about magic does not pertain only or even mostly to wizards. The Laws of the Council are not wizard-only. Magic has so much page-space because it's both complex and common. That doesn't prove that the game is about wizards.
Anyone who crafts is a Crafter, right?
Even in a team fight, I find shields are rarely useful. If you can be confident that your shield will hold, the fight is probably not going to be hard at all anyway.
It's not impossible for a wizard to have free Refresh, but it's suboptimal and most people don't do it.
Pretty sure that a versatile wizard is a contradiction in terms. A wizard, by definition, must invest 7 Refresh and 3 skills into a single area. That more or less precludes versatility at or below Submerged. My experience building Wardens taught me that making Wizards don't have much room for non-spellcasting capabilities.
-
When a single area of focus is hypothetically capable of performing most of the functions of all other skills combined, and then some, that single area of focus would seem to be rather impressively versatile.
-
I think the real weakness for wizards is in their skill selection. Combine this with the fact that they generally don't have the spare fate points to boost their skill rolls means that there is a lot of stuff that they aren't good at.
So, one way of highlighting this is putting the wizard into situations that he has to use his skills. Don't always let the member of the party who is good at something do it.
Beast change is one of the most powerful abilities in the game, in that I can make a character that looks something like:
Superb: Rapport, Empathy
Great: Investigation, Burglary
Good: Stealth, Presence
Fair: Athletics, Fists
...
Superb: Fists, athletics
Great: alertness, stealth
Good: endurance, investigation
fair: empathy, rapport
...
-1 echoes of the beast
-1 beast change
-2 inhuman recovery
+3 the catch: silver (common, researchable)
+1 human form, covering:
-2 inhuman strength
-2 inhuman toughness
-2 inhuman speed
-2 inhuman toughness
-1 claws
(-9 total)
Attack (targeting 5, weapon 4)
defense (6, + armor 1, + stress boxes, + recovery)
And I have the skills to cover talking, sneaking, breaking into places, beating people up, etc. I can come pretty close to stealing the whole show like that, because I have great skills at everything.
Of course, for optimization, probably want to fit some discipline in there somewhere...
-
Umm, you've got inhuman toughness listed twice.
Richard
-
That aside, bob is totally right.
-
The stuff about magic does not pertain only or even mostly to wizards. The Laws of the Council are not wizard-only. Magic has so much page-space because it's both complex and common. That doesn't prove that the game is about wizards.
Fair enough, but you can't deny the prominence of magic, magical practitioners, and wizards to the setting. The White Council is arguably the most important organization, since chances are most games will involve the laws of magic, the Red Court War, or other things related to their jurisdiction. Wizardry and spellcraft in general (which, while not exclusive to wizards, is kind of the wizards' domain anyway) are central to the setting.
Anyone who crafts is a Crafter, right?
Well, yeah. That was kind of my point, that a wizard is part crafter, and part other things. And so is, technically, anyone with a spellcasting power, since they get item slots.
Even in a team fight, I find shields are rarely useful. If you can be confident that your shield will hold, the fight is probably not going to be hard at all anyway.
Even if the shield buckles after three maneuvers and an overwhelming attack, it's still done its part: The enemy has used up several of its turns and actions just to get around your shield, which means they haven't been directly attacking someone on your team.
Though it is, admittedly, situational, shields help a lot when a party member's got a relatively low dodging skill.
It's not impossible for a wizard to have free Refresh, but it's suboptimal and most people don't do it.
You don't have to break a law, though, for the law to bring drama and tension to the game. A wizard having to scrap tooth and nail against three or four thugs because he's concerned about the Laws of Magic is dramatic and tense, more than if the wizard could've non-lethally blasted them into submission without concern for the laws.
Pretty sure that a versatile wizard is a contradiction in terms. A wizard, by definition, must invest 7 Refresh and 3 skills into a single area. That more or less precludes versatility at or below Submerged. My experience building Wardens taught me that making Wizards don't have much room for non-spellcasting capabilities.
A versatile wizard is one that has Conviction, Discipline, and Lore all somewhere in the 4-5 range. That means, as Tedronai pointed out, they can effectively replace almost any skill roll with a 4 or a 5. With Thaumaturgy, they can--with some time and effort--replace almost any skill roll with something in the double digits.
That sounds pretty versatile to me.
-
What skills can Evocation replace? It's good for attacks and for some trappings of Might, but that's about it.
As for Thaumaturgy, that's not as broad as you present it as. What you can do with Thaumaturgy and what it takes is largely dependent on GM fiat. Would you let someone use Thaumaturgy to win an argument? To own an airplane? It's up to you. And a teen-level ritual is kind of a big deal, it's not something that you're supposed to toss out casually.
If your shield requires even a single boosting maneuver to break, you probably outclass your opponents quite badly.
A zone shield's strength is two less than the power of the spell minus any shifts of duration. And ties go to the attacker, if I recall correctly. Assuming no duration, you need to beat the opponent's attack by 3. If you can do that reliably, why not just take your opponents out?
Worse, it's possible to ignore a block entirely without sacrificing anything. Spending a round maneuvering is often a good idea even when there's no block in the way, the baddies can just do that.
Shields aren't totally useless, but the cases where they are useful are extremely rare.
(Unless you frequently have the chance to prep for combat ahead of time. In that case, shield away.)
Magic is prominent in the setting =/= wizards are the game's protagonists and power players. It's an undeniable fact that Evil Hat intentionally erred on the side of power for wizards, but it seems strange to me that people think they were meant to be the best things in the game.
Maybe it's residual expectations from other RPGs...in D&D, non-casters kinda suck by comparison with full casters. And in some White Wolf games, mortals are by design quite pathetic.
-
What skills can Evocation replace? It's good for attacks and for some trappings of Might, but that's about it.
It can replace any skill if you would use it for a maneuver, any attack still, it can be your primary defense and it can with some creativity do the work of a lot of social skills.
As for Thaumaturgy, that's not as broad as you present it as. What you can do with Thaumaturgy and what it takes is largely dependent on GM fiat. Would you let someone use Thaumaturgy to win an argument? To own an airplane? It's up to you. And a teen-level ritual is kind of a big deal, it's not something that you're supposed to toss out casually.
Even with a strict GM it can easily be used for Investigation, any sort of information gathering skill use, any type of maneuver, and with sufficient forethought even let you win an argument. Of course GM fiat can say no to almost any of these, but it can also say no to anything else.
Magic is prominent in the setting =/= wizards are the game's protagonists and power players. It's an undeniable fact that Evil Hat intentionally erred on the side of power for wizards, but it seems strange to me that people think they were meant to be the best things in the game.
Maybe it's residual expectations from other RPGs...in D&D, non-casters kinda suck by comparison with full casters. And in some White Wolf games, mortals are by design quite pathetic.
I think that the argument really comes down not to that wizards are meant to be the protaganists (we'd have to ask them about that) but that they are the most powerful. You seem to agree since the two examples you site are two of the classic examples of unbalanced games. In D&D (3.5 and before) there was a balance logic that low level wizards suck and high level wizards are gods. And in White Wolf mortals aren't intended to be balanced with Mages.
-
You can't use Evocation for Rapport or Craftsmanship or Athletics maneuvers. It has its own maneuver trapping, but that trapping doesn't duplicate the maneuver trappings of other skills well.
While GM fiat can say no to anything, it actively has to say yes to Thaumaturgy. That's kind of important.
Even with a strict GM it can easily be used for Investigation, any sort of information gathering skill use, any type of maneuver, and with sufficient forethought even let you win an argument.
I'm anything but strict, but this isn't true when I'm running the game. If something would be a difficulty 3 Investigation roll, and you have Lore 5, that doesn't mean you can just say "I do it with a ritual".
-
What skills can Evocation replace? It's good for attacks and for some trappings of Might, but that's about it.
Eh? It's good for any physical skill and possibly a few non-physical. Maneuvers cover a lot of ground. Blocks & Veils almost as much.
I wouldn't call it a universal skill replacement, but getting a +2 when you need it certainly helps boost an otherwise low skill.
And a teen-level ritual is kind of a big deal, it's not something that you're supposed to toss out casually.
You continually assert this...but making teen level anything difficult requires making maneuvers and declarations arbitrarily difficult. Kind of a jerk GM move in my opinion. The default rules would allow a group of four to hit teens on the second exchange even with a few failures. With a hundred percent success rate (not too likely but not impossible) they could hit +14 on the same exchange in which one of them acts to use the tags.
It'll probably take them two exchanges with an average maneuver / declaration target of Good and a requirement of one aspect per skill. (The latter being a restriction I prefer to use, not a book requirement.)
Magic is prominent in the setting =/= wizards are the game's protagonists and power players. It's an undeniable fact that Evil Hat intentionally erred on the side of power for wizards, but it seems strange to me that people think they were meant to be the best things in the game.
Maybe it's residual expectations from other RPGs...in D&D, non-casters kinda suck by comparison with full casters. And in some White Wolf games, mortals are by design quite pathetic.
Don't know if it was entirely intended (though I do think they were meant to be very powerful) but casters are capable of more than most. Pure mortals can nova - one exchange of fate point dumping for massive totals - but then they're out of fate points. Casters get 3 to 6 exchanges (give or take) of numbers around three times the high skill limit. Everyone else puts out consistent numbers close to twice the high skill limit. (Lower for a pure mortal post nova.)
Those are simply the (ballpark) numbers. Other games aren't relevant.
-
Anecdotal offering:
My players rip out 12- to 17-shift rituals almost every game, but they have THREE Wizards so that's not a huge challenge.
In the game I play in, I can generally get a handful of 3-6 Declarations out of the other players to support one of my character's rituals, which means he can reliably run rituals in the high teens. Casting the ritual is, of course, a blast.
-
Boosting a skill with an Evocation maneuver is not the same as having Evocation replace another skill.
And the difficulty of a ritual is almost totally arbitrary. All you can do is try to work out how hard it should be and make it that hard.
The game seems to be written under the assumption that 12 shifts is a powerful ritual. (In the Evil Acts casefile, a big plot-level ritual is described as being 25 shifts IIRC.) This assumption also makes the game more balanced. So not adopting it seems unwise to me.
-
I think one thing that may need more discussion is to what extent can evocation (and to a lesser extent, thaumaturgy and enchanted items) be used to substitute for skill rolls. For example, Harry has used evocation to 'force jump'. So that implies that you could use evocation to replace (or augment?) an athletics roll for movement. And veils already let you use evocation in place of stealth.
During combat, this sort of thing isn't a big deal, because of the very limited number of spells you can bring off, but in non-combat situations, where stress doesn't matter, this can be a big thing.
If evocation is allowed to be a general skill replacer, then yes it can quickly be over powered.
Maybe make skill replacement evocations like rotes, in that you can only do a limited number/type of them?
-
Boosting a skill with an Evocation maneuver is not the same as having Evocation replace another skill.
I agree. It's more an enhancer than a replacer. It also takes two actions (if using maneuvers). But it does help make up for having three of your highest skills dedicated to magic.
And the difficulty of a ritual is almost totally arbitrary. All you can do is try to work out how hard it should be and make it that hard.
There are guidelines - I tend to interpret them fairly strictly which can put tracking spells in the teens...higher with wards or intentional hiding. And, importantly, impossible without an appropriate symbolic link.
The game seems to be written under the assumption that 12 shifts is a powerful ritual.
Where is this assumption from? Or is it your assumption?
(In the Evil Acts casefile, a big plot-level ritual is described as being 25 shifts IIRC.)
Err, this is "a big plot-level ritual" for a campaign lasting one or two sessions, right? Sounds about right to me. Certainly isn't immediately world shaking.
This assumption also makes the game more balanced. So not adopting it seems unwise to me.
Mechanical balance is a secondary goal. Still a goal, but it takes back seat to balancing "screen time" / narrative effectiveness. It does matter, and it can affect the primary goal if too imbalanced. But I don't particularly want to play rock-paper-scissors either. ;)
-
What skills can Evocation replace? It's good for attacks and for some trappings of Might, but that's about it.
Attacks, blocks, and maneuvers of pretty much any type, more reliably than a skill roll. Someone with Guns at 5 could roll a block against a doorway to keep people out, and end up with only a 3-shift block. Someone with Conviction at 5 could block that same doorway with a spell of up to 8 shifts. Evocation can replace a dodge score with something well beyond what the caster might have ever rolled. Though it's risky (or at least, compel-worthy), they can even use it for sprinting. Name a combat action, and there's probably some way to do it with evocation.
As for Thaumaturgy, that's not as broad as you present it as. What you can do with Thaumaturgy and what it takes is largely dependent on GM fiat. Would you let someone use Thaumaturgy to win an argument? To own an airplane? It's up to you. And a teen-level ritual is kind of a big deal, it's not something that you're supposed to toss out casually.
I said versatile, not fast. Yes, it depends on GM fiat, but I'm talking about accomplishing the goal, not necessarily the same effect. Own an airplane? Probably not. Give yourself a speedboost through the Nevernever and make it there faster than any plane? Almost certainly. Create a winning argument? Again, probably a stretch. Putting a solid maneuver on the crowd to make them clap for you even if all you're doing is reading the phone book? Potentially law-breaking, but doable.
If your shield requires even a single boosting maneuver to break, you probably outclass your opponents quite badly.
How do you figure? If your opponent is attacking from 5, that means you're talking a strength of 7 or 8 shifts, which is easy to pull off for a wizard with Conviction at 5 and any focus items.
A zone shield's strength is two less than the power of the spell minus any shifts of duration. And ties go to the attacker, if I recall correctly. Assuming no duration, you need to beat the opponent's attack by 3. If you can do that reliably, why not just take your opponents out?
Maybe you're defensively focused, rather than offensively. Maybe the baddies have a lower attack score than their dodge score. Maybe not getting hit is just plain more important for whatever reason than going on the offensive is.
Worse, it's possible to ignore a block entirely without sacrificing anything. Spending a round maneuvering is often a good idea even when there's no block in the way, the baddies can just do that.
Yeah, but if they have to maneuver to get around your block, that means it's not their choice--you're controlling the flow of battle, not them.
Shields aren't totally useless, but the cases where they are useful are extremely rare.
(Unless you frequently have the chance to prep for combat ahead of time. In that case, shield away.)
They can make a heck of a difference if the wizard's dodge roll is comparatively low (and assuming an optimized wizard in a Submerged game, chances are the dodge roll's not going to be higher than 3), even if it is broken. A monster matching and beating the 5-shift block is going to do less damage than if he'd nailed a solid hit on a 3-shift defense.
Magic is prominent in the setting =/= wizards are the game's protagonists and power players. It's an undeniable fact that Evil Hat intentionally erred on the side of power for wizards, but it seems strange to me that people think they were meant to be the best things in the game.
Maybe it's residual expectations from other RPGs...in D&D, non-casters kinda suck by comparison with full casters. And in some White Wolf games, mortals are by design quite pathetic.
Could be. Also, as noted, the name of the game and its star is a wizard, so those who came into the game from the books are going to look at Harry Dresden, and by extension wizards, as very important.
-
Evocation can be used to represent quick illusions. These illusions can serve as intimidation, presence, maybe even rapport (seduction) if trying to lure a lecherous fella around a corner.
Athletics, Might, attack skills (guns, fists, weapons), rapport, intimidation, presence, stealth, whatever skill you use for demolitions, - likely more that aren't coming to me.
That is a fair number of skills, being replaced or made obsolete.
If we take sponsored magic into account and by extension EvoThaum.... well you can get most any short term effect in the time it takes to get a skill roll.
-
You can't use Evocation for Rapport or Craftsmanship or Athletics maneuvers. It has its own maneuver trapping, but that trapping doesn't duplicate the maneuver trappings of other skills well.
Rapport probably not, but the purpose of Athletics is to move you around - why couldn't you model that through telekinesis, a perfectly controlled surge of wind, a pack of stone sled dogs, or a flowing ice halfpipe? As for Craftsmanship, I'd argue that fixing or constructing things is within the range of Earth or Spirit, and Water, Fire, and Earth all look good for structural attacks.
-
Rapport probably not, but the purpose of Athletics is to move you around - why couldn't you model that through telekinesis, a perfectly controlled surge of wind,
Well, with Harry the downside of this method of movement is getting spattered across the landscape if it goes out of control, which is always an option with magic, especially if the Wizard has any aspects you could compel.
a pack of stone sled dogs,
I'm not an expert on Evocation, but isn't it fairly direct and straight forward? Animating stone dogs that last for any length of time would seem to be the province of Thaumaturgy.
or a flowing ice halfpipe?
Cool enough to momentarily ignore balance issues IMO. Also wouldn't sliding in an ice halfpipe require it's own Athletics roll? Might be a cool way to avoid barrier ratings or get to inaccessible areas though.
As for Craftsmanship, I'd argue that fixing or constructing things is within the range of Earth or Spirit
Again, fixing or constructing seems beyond the scope of Evocation.
Water, Fire, and Earth all look good for structural attacks.
No argument here, Evocation is good at smashing shit, though if you count lightning among Air's elements there's no call to count that out. Also raw force can smash stuff good, so Spirit should be in there too. It really doesn't take much to spot the destructive potential of the various elements.
-
I'd limit construction applications to gross, bulk, unskilled rearrangement: making huge holes in the ground (Maneuver), or hills (block: zone border), perhaps chaotic piles of nearby detritus (block: zone border).
I would also, perhaps, allow a few rounds of "setup" Maneuvers to accomplish more organized effects: an Earth Maneuver to displace some earth, and Air Maneuver to squeeze it together into a wall, and a Fire Maneuver to reinforce it, then tag them all to give more duration to whatever is being cast.
-
Wow, a lot of people here are really permissive with Evocation. It's important to note that its maneuver trapping is not all-encompassing, and that its blocks are easier to break than normal blocks. And that you have to pay extra to shield a zone.
I can't help but feel that many of people's problems with Evocation come from letting people use it for basically whatever they want. There is no "evocation move" action. It does not exist. Your only chance of pulling something like that off it to Invoke a maneuver aspect for effect, which is not a reliable way to do anything.
And shields =/= dodge rolls. Shields are more analogous to skill blocks, or to full defence actions.
Anyway, like I said, there do exist scenarios where shields are useful. But they're rare, and usually a little bit contrived.
-
There is no "evocation move" action. It does not exist.
If I remember correctly, there's a sidebar discussion where Harry and Billy discuss this, and conclude that it's possible (and there's a couple times Harry does it in the books), but risky (before falling painfully on his ass, at best).
And shields =/= dodge rolls. Shields are more analogous to skill blocks, or to full defence actions.
Point is, a solid shield turns someone who'd normally be dodging at 2 or 3 into someone you have to pass 5 or 6 to lay a hand on.
And I'm not sure they're easier to break. I know, once they do break they're gone (though I could make an argument that that makes little sense when applied to blocks against perception), but you can make it much harder to break them. Someone using Weapons to establish a block is still at the whims of the dice--however badass you are, there's always the chance you'll blow the roll and end up with a 3-shift block instead of a 5. With evocation, even if the dice are against you, you can still put the block up in full force for a price, and that full force can be considerably higher than the skill cap.
-
Wow, a lot of people here are really permissive with Evocation. It's important to note that its maneuver trapping is not all-encompassing, and that its blocks are easier to break than normal blocks. And that you have to pay extra to shield a zone.
I can't help but feel that many of people's problems with Evocation come from letting people use it for basically whatever they want. There is no "evocation move" action. It does not exist. Your only chance of pulling something like that off it to Invoke a maneuver aspect for effect, which is not a reliable way to do anything.
And shields =/= dodge rolls. Shields are more analogous to skill blocks, or to full defence actions.
Anyway, like I said, there do exist scenarios where shields are useful. But they're rare, and usually a little bit contrived.
You have to be able to model telekinesis with magic. It goes far faster than thaumaturgy rituals. If you assume evothaum is required for that...I don't know what to say other than it makes sense telekinesis should be doable with Spirit magic. Telekinesis should allow people and things to be moved, including the caster.
-
Telekinesis is basically Harry's application of Spirit magic--using it as pure force to do stuff, including move himself on several occasions (though he might have used Air for those, come to think of it).
-
Gotta agree. The reason Harry doesn't use it more than a couple times is that he specifically has issues with control and doesn't want to mess up and begin a brief career as an intercontinental ballistic wizard. In calmer circumstances he's managed to use Evocation to float a bottle of liquor from a cabinet to his hand (Turn Coat) so it's certainly in a Spirit user's wheelhouse.
-
Based on the information available (sidebar YS251, for example), I would say that movement via evocation would be about as effective as movement via having a giant with a huge boffer weapon smack you toward your destination.
Doesn't sound like a good idea to me...
-
Good idea? No.
Still possible? Likely.
Why couldn't rules be modeled for it?
-
I don't believe I ever said they couldn't. In fact, I pointed to a sidebar in YS that discusses just such a house rule, and then makes basically the same conclusion I did: "So, doable. But foolish."
Hm. Perhaps use the Thaum travel mechanics (power = effective athletics result) but inflict a (power/2) stress hit on landing, plus another (power/2) stress hit per barrier encountered... :p
-
Magic is as risky as normal skills, in a way. Sure, you can force a spell to work even if you roll badly. But rolling badly with magic is actually dangerous, whereas rolling badly with skills just means wasting your action.
I don't have a problem with the idea of Evocation-based movement as long as it doesn't make Wizards significantly more powerful. If Evocation really could replace most other physical skills effectively then it really would be broken.
Previous discussions of said topic:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29788.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29788.0.html)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29723.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,29723.0.html)
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25674.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25674.0.html)
-
How's this sound?
---------------------
While evocation is technically capable of many tasks, many of them require considerably more skill, practice, and luck than most wizards put into it.
So what are these 'other' uses of evocation?
Many skill rolls can be outright replaced by evocations, examples include moving (force jumps, 'tactical' hops through the nevernever, etc), very fine manipulation of objects (lockpicking, eavesdropping, fine craftsmanship, etc), illusions of considerable complexity, etc
In general, the power of the evocation will act as a roll of the appropriate skill.
You can gain access to the 'other uses' of evocation in the following ways:
1
Spend a fate point, to get access to the ability for a single use.
2
spend a point of refresh of a permanent expansion of your evocations to cover one trapping of a skill.
-------------------------
So, for example, if you want your wizard to force jump occasionally, you can spend a fate point, and then use the evocation power of the spell in place of an athletics roll. If you want your wizard to force jump all the time, you spend a point of refresh to explicitly gain the ability to do that all the time.
People worried about spirit being the 'most equal' element (gaining access to veils, while other elements can't do anything else), can either add one trapping to each of the elements that you can do with them, or can make veils and ability that requires one of these expansions to use.
-
I'd allow that, however I would make one addition.
In cases where the trapping relates to a skill that should require some experience or training then the character ought to have that capability in some form or another before I would allow them to buy the relevant stunt, even temporarily.
eg. 1: If I was to use this to move the lock-picking trapping from Burglary onto evocation then shouldn't I have at least some training in picking locks. Trying to manipulate the intricate tumblers of a lock with pure mental force, without any idea as to how the lock operates seems like a recipe for a broken lock and potential disaster (and if I'm going to break the lock anyway, why not just use a concentrated blast of force to blow the lock out anyway), Added to that, if I have the necessary skill to use my Evo-Trapping Stunt for Lockpicking to open a locked vault from accross the room, but can't use lockpicks to open a simple doorlatch...that would seem a little silly.
eg. 2: If I was to move Medical Attention onto evocation then shouldn't I have an idea as to which bone the knee bone connects to, what that purple thing in my patient's chest cavity is etc.
I'd suggest that as a requirement for moving the trapping onto evocation (which potentially could be fairly powerful) the PC must either have the relevant skill at some level, or another stunt that describes how or why the character has the relevant knowledge or experience (e.g. a stunt called "Field Medic" moving the Medical Attention onto survival might allow a Survivalist Hedge-mage to buy the Evo-Trapping (Medical Attention) stunt.
-
How's this sound?
So, for example, if you want your wizard to force jump occasionally, you can spend a fate point, and then use the evocation power of the spell in place of an athletics roll. If you want your wizard to force jump all the time, you spend a point of refresh to explicitly gain the ability to do that all the time.
Add the usual mental stress cost based on the amount of power drawn, and that's not bad -- though it does makes evocation even better than it was, which is not really necessary.
People worried about spirit being the 'most equal' element (gaining access to veils, while other elements can't do anything else), can either add one trapping to each of the elements that you can do with them, or can make veils and ability that requires one of these expansions to use.
The easiest way to balance spirit is to enforce the suggestion made in YS to limit wizards to 'subtle' spirit or 'brute force' spirit. One way to do this is to split them into two elements, another is to have them label their element based on their choice, then treat it as an aspect to be compelled.
-
I've not really been following the discussion here, I'm just going to throw in my 2 cents. Templates are not meant to be balanced, you don't choose a template based upon how 'powerful' it is you choose a template to fit your character. Templates should not be balanced or tried to balanced with one another, because lets face it in the dresdenverse all are not created equal and it takes a very skilled mortal to equal that of a wizard but it is possible.
My character is suppose to be a monster hunter, who is mortal so I chose pure mortal and gave him skills appropriate to his back story. He isn't great at dealing with wizards, sorcerers or warlocks but he is a very good monster hunter. Would he be a better monster hunter if he was a wizard? perhaps but perhaps not. I know magic is very useful but it seems to me that there are a lot of times when a gun is just as or more useful than magic.
-
I'd allow that, however I would make one addition.
In cases where the trapping relates to a skill that should require some experience or training then the character ought to have that capability in some form or another before I would allow them to buy the relevant stunt, even temporarily.
eg. 1: If I was to use this to move the lock-picking trapping from Burglary onto evocation then shouldn't I have at least some training in picking locks. Trying to manipulate the intricate tumblers of a lock with pure mental force, without any idea as to how the lock operates seems like a recipe for a broken lock and potential disaster (and if I'm going to break the lock anyway, why not just use a concentrated blast of force to blow the lock out anyway), Added to that, if I have the necessary skill to use my Evo-Trapping Stunt for Lockpicking to open a locked vault from accross the room, but can't use lockpicks to open a simple doorlatch...that would seem a little silly.
eg. 2: If I was to move Medical Attention onto evocation then shouldn't I have an idea as to which bone the knee bone connects to, what that purple thing in my patient's chest cavity is etc.
I'd suggest that as a requirement for moving the trapping onto evocation (which potentially could be fairly powerful) the PC must either have the relevant skill at some level, or another stunt that describes how or why the character has the relevant knowledge or experience (e.g. a stunt called "Field Medic" moving the Medical Attention onto survival might allow a Survivalist Hedge-mage to buy the Evo-Trapping (Medical Attention) stunt.
I think that's why you don't use Evocation to do exactly the same thing as another skill--you find a way that Evocation can get the job as a whole done, rather than using it to "fake" the same exact method.
As for move actions and forced-movement actions, I don't think you need to take a stunt for those kinds of things. Forced movement could easily be a Taken Out result, depending on just how far you want to move them (think of Harry blasting the Loup-Garou in Fool Moon, when he knocks the thing two or three blocks away with that fire spell).
-
Add the usual mental stress cost based on the amount of power drawn, and that's not bad -- though it does makes evocation even better than it was, which is not really necessary.
I agree.
The basic idea here is sound, but I instinctively dislike the idea of making Evocation better.
The easiest way to balance spirit is to enforce the suggestion made in YS to limit wizards to 'subtle' spirit or 'brute force' spirit. One way to do this is to split them into two elements, another is to have them label their element based on their choice, then treat it as an aspect to be compelled.
The former method sounds good, but the latter method doesn't. Aspects do not make characters weaker. If I give my Wizard a Trouble Aspect of UNABLE TO USE MAGIC, that does not actually make him less powerful.
-
The former method sounds good, but the latter method doesn't. Aspects do not make characters weaker. If I give my Wizard a Trouble Aspect of UNABLE TO USE MAGIC, that does not actually make him less powerful.
Although I would argue that, if your GM let that one pass, it would make the resulting game weaker. I suppose that's a different definition of 'weak', though.
-
It wouldn't make a wizard less powerful if, every time he desperately needed to cast spell X he got a Fate point instead?
"Ok, the house around me is fully engulfed in flames. Hm. Ok, I'm going to use Fire to channel the heat and flame away from me, leaving me safe."
"Hm. That's a pretty good idea, and it certainly would have protected you from the fire."
"Great. Then I ... wait a minute, what do you mean 'would have', and why the evil smile?"
"Here, have this nice, shiny new Fate point. I'm eager to hear your backup plan!"
-
It wouldn't make a wizard less powerful if, every time he desperately needed to cast spell X he got a Fate point instead?
"Ok, the house around me is fully engulfed in flames. Hm. Ok, I'm going to use Fire to channel the heat and flame away from me, leaving me safe."
"Hm. That's a pretty good idea, and it certainly would have protected you from the fire."
"Great. Then I ... wait a minute, what do you mean 'would have', and why the evil smile?"
"Here, have this nice, shiny new Fate point. I'm eager to hear your backup plan!"
It should be safe to assume that he has the points to buy out of it, given how many compels he's probably already taken.
-
I'd allow that, however I would make one addition.
In cases where the trapping relates to a skill that should require some experience or training then the character ought to have that capability in some form or another before I would allow them to buy the relevant stunt, even temporarily.
I think this is unnecessary, it's a 'balanced' use of a point of refresh to shift the trapping of a skill onto discipline instead. So if I wanted to have 'telekenetic lockpicking', or something I could buy a one point power that shifts the lockpicking trapping onto discipline. And anything I actually need to know about picking locks in included in the point costs.
-----------
I thought it was a way of slightly depowering evocation.
1
It tells new GMs explicitly not to let players get away with using evocation as a skill replacement. But it still allows it to happen, you just have to pay for it.
2
Since the other evocation related option is refinement, taking a skill trapping shifting power expansion is likely to make you character less over powered, not more. If you wanted to be OP, you'd just take more refinement.
This also allows non min-maxed wizards and evocators some additional flexibility, since they may actualyl have fate points left over to spend on such things.
-----------
Other commentary:
As 1 point spent on powers, may not actually be good enough; problem is that how much of a potential benefit you get from evocation is variable, depending on your build and refresh. In the 10-15 refresh range, likely to get between power +0 and power +3, but then, you are also paying points for the refinement and the mental stress. Maybe should add a minor addition to the power, the fact that you don't need tools is good for some skill shifts, but what about the ones that you didn't need tools to use to begin with?
Implies a third category of evocation foci for 'utility' effects, but who would waste slots on that?
-
You're adding a capability that Evocation didn't have before. I don't see how that can do anything but make the power stronger.
The trapping substitution power will often be weaker than Refinement, but since Evocation often has bigger numbers than any skill it will sometimes make people ridiculously good at whatever trapping they select.
Also, Evocation is balanced against the assumption that you are in a conflict. If you're not, there's not much reason to care about mental stress. Which means that you can push the power of your spells up without worrying about the cost.
It's worrying. It might not actually be broken, but it makes me nervous.
-
Part of the reason I wanted to make that explicit was to start explicitly separating things 'any wizard can do' from hings that 'only some wizards can do'.
For example, the folding sunlight trick that harry does in Grave Peril. Is this something (sorta) exceptional that Harry does, or is it something every wizard can do? Is just saying "my character is happy" enough justification to let my PC this? What about some other catch bypassing trick? If sunlight is (relatively) easy to store?
As the books and samples of play expand, 'stuff wizards can do' will get more and more stuff added to it.
As a sample, we have Harry's belt buckle in, erm, Fool Moon?, LTWs shapechanging, and )forget his name) super speed in Ghost Story. Even Harry moving himself around with force magic is not something really covered by the rules.
Another example is the knowledge of the Ways that Harry gets in Changes. Is this pretty much something that every wizard can do? Hop around the world, more or less safely, and pretty much at will? Or does this require, say, the world walker power? And if it does, what portion of it do wizards get 'for free'?
When I first read the rules, my impression was this:
Harry can move himself around with evocation, thus, evocation can replace (some) skill uses, this is reenforced with the rules about veils, which replace stealth. As I didn't really want spirit to be the best element, I thought that the other elements should probably have similar skill replacement trappings too. And since force jumping and veils appear to be 'free' extras of spirit magic, the skill replacement trappings of other elements should be free too.
Wizards and flight:
Harry mentions some attempts to fly on a broomstick (or something like that), indicating that he didn't really have any trouble getting himself into the air, but it was the control and attention required not to drop himself back onto the ground that was the problem. Of course, Harry was a teenager at the time, and even in his adulthood, his control (when compared to other wizards, at least) is nothing special.
So, being able to fly around is something that other wizards are perfectly 'capable' of doing, but just like, say, tightrope walking, is something 'everyone' can do, most people don't. If you want your wizard to be able to fly around, you should probably take the wings power, to represent your time spent actually practicing/learning how to do it well.
Now, no one ever seems to have objected to the second interpretation, but look how bad an idea the first one is. So, while I want to 'allow' the first interpretation, I wanted to explicitly make it be something that not every wizard can do. How? by making ti cost extra refresh, to represent the practice/concentration/aptitude, etc.
-
Another example is the knowledge of the Ways that Harry gets in Changes. Is this pretty much something that every wizard can do? Hop around the world, more or less safely, and pretty much at will? Or does this require, say, the world walker power? And if it does, what portion of it do wizards get 'for free'?
Any Wizard can open a portal to the Nevernever (as can most other supernatural types). Not all Wizards know the Ways well enough to achieve the safety and efficiency of travel that Harry achieves in Changes. Given that that capability comes to Harry by way of an item that he inherits, I'd call that Worldwalker attached to an IoP.
-
That's all very sensible. But I still can't shake my doubts about the balance of this proposal.
Really, I think this deserves/needs to be tested in play.
-
I could see allowing flight as the result of a potion, or a thaumaturgic ritual to give yourself a temporary power, or something like that. But evocation would be right out--if anything, an evocation 'flight' spell would be along the lines of 'shove myself that way really really fast.'
As for things like knowledge of the Ways, Lore declarations make the most sense to me. As pointed out, any wizard can open up a door to the Nevernever anywhere, but knowledge of the Ways is a different story. So something like Harry's mother's notebook thing wouldn't be another power, but maybe an aspect like "ALL THE KNOWLEDGE" or a stunt offering a bonus to Lore rolls to find a Way.
Or just a plot device.
-
How's this sound:
Basic evocation includes one skill trapping replacement for 'free', Harry's is movement, Molly's is veils, other wizards might have other basic abilities. For example, if you want to have (some) knowledge of the ways, then maybe you'll take the navigation trapping of driving.
This means that the RAW can stand almost exactly as written, with most wizards being assumed to take veils as their default.
This removes spirit as the most equal element, puts slight hedge on free veils, explains why Harry doesn't do them until several books in, and hedges in other skill trapping replacements of evocation.
It's not really perfect, but does seem to solve some slightly irritating issues, (somewhat) hedge in free expansion of wizard power, and is easy.
-
Eh. I like your other suggestion better.
It's more flexible and increases Evocation power less clearly.
-
Knowledge of the Ways is no more inherent to spellcasting than literacy is inherent to possessing a library card.
Access to the Nevernever is available to almost every type of supernatural entity in the canon, but once they're there, they find their way around pretty much the same way a vanilla mook does on the downtown streets. With skill rolls.
And Harry moves himself around with magic even less often through the series than he attempts a veil.