ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: AstronaughtAndy on July 16, 2012, 12:30:00 PM
-
So it occured to me the other day that you could model Harry's Duster (and similar defensive garments) as an Item of Power. Basically granting a Toughness power with a catch of something like massive trauma (ie. being hit by a car, falling off a building, swords the size of a car, etc.). Its mostly just an idea I want to bounce off of you.
Advantages: On all the time. Not dependent on a high Lore. Extra stress boxes let you take more punishment. Requires an Aspect.
Disadvantages: An enchanted item with a magical block could produce a much higher Armor bonus, or a Block that many things would be unable to beat.
Refresh cost: I'm thinking the catch is around a +2-3 (it is not terribly difficult for mortals to acquire a car and not terribly difficult for a giant monster to throw a car at you). If its your first IoP, it'd get a +2(?) discount, bringing it up to a +4-5 so you're probably looking at Mythic Toughness for the Power granted.
Thoughts, feelings, comments, hopes, dreams, wishes?
-
It's rules-legal. In fact, it's been done before. Though usually with a Catch like poison, because armour does nothing against stuff like that.
The bit about IoP being too awesome for mortals to make will have to be ditched, but that's okay.
I should warn you before you actually use this, though, that this is pretty overpowered.
-
Overpowered specifically because of the high level Toughness power?
I realized after I posted that rules/fluffwise IoPs arent makeable by mortal spellcasters, but like you said, it can be ditched.
So trying to tone it down powerwise, what if the extra stress was sort of like Hunger stress and wasnt cleared after an encounter/scene? Maybe it requires some sort of maintenance, like Lore or Craftsmanship rolls to clear away stress boxes?
-
Overpowered because you're getting difficult-to-penetrate Mythic Toughness for 1 Refresh.
You can add arbitrary limitations if you want. It's just papering over flaws with the rules, but that's not necessarily bad.
-
Mythic Toughness would be a bit much. Especially if this is something the character has supposedly made. As stated, you are already bending the rules here, but that's mostly just narrative anyway... Still if he can make a coat of mythic toughness, what can't he make? I'd keep it to Inhuman in my game, but that's me.
Also, instead of saying that large amounts of trauma are the Catch, I would just make the Catch be anything that isn't blunt force trauma or slashing. That's a +3 Catch on a -2 power, plus the rebate for Item of Power (probably a -2)... All in all your potential rebate is +5, and your only getting +1 (due to the cost of Inhuman Toughness), but like I told one of my players, having the refresh doesn't mean you can spend it on any power you want.
Mechanically its the same as having bought Refinement for slots and used both to build an always on Armor:1 item, except for the extra stress boxes.
-
Mythic Toughness would be a bit much. Especially if this is something the character has supposedly made. As stated, you are already bending the rules here, but that's mostly just narrative anyway... Still if he can make a coat of mythic toughness, what can't he make? I'd keep it to Inhuman in my game, but that's me.
So if it was made by someone else, then you'd let him take Mythic Toughness?
Why should one line of mostly-unimportant backstory give or take 4 Refresh?
Mechanically its the same as having bought Refinement for slots and used both to build an always on Armor:1 item, except for the extra stress boxes.
Always on item? What's that?
-
So if it was made by someone else, then you'd let him take Mythic Toughness?
Why should one line of mostly-unimportant backstory give or take 4 Refresh?
Always on item? What's that?
Typically proof that someone doesn't have the final version of the rules. Or didn't read them.
-
I think by "always on" he means that it doesn't take conscious effort to activate--like the armor in Harry's duster.
I'd also caution against letting someone get Mythic Toughness in this manner. Mythic Toughness is, well, the next best thing to just being invincible. Absent the Catch, it takes a 14-shift hit to even force a mild consequence, meaning that even something with Mythic Strength and a weapon is still going to need a significant roll difference just to scratch you. In normal combat, I'd wager nothing short of a wizard going all out (or someone spending a ridiculous amount of fate points or the entire fight maneuvering) is going to touch you. Definitely overpowered for so low a cost.
-
So if it was made by someone else, then you'd let him take Mythic Toughness?
Why should one line of mostly-unimportant backstory give or take 4 Refresh?
If it were made by a sponsor who had an agenda, limiting it's use and enforcing compels and restrictions on the player character; then yes, I'd be far more likely to let someone take Mythic Toughness for -1 refresh (which is what the cost is when you factor in rebates for the Catch and Item of Power).
And the mostly unimportant backstory is part of the reasonableness test. If players bought powers simply because they could afford them, any player with the free refresh could buy Physical Immunity to mortal magic at -2 refresh (-8 total cost, +2 for an Item of Power, +2 for protecting against one thing, +2 for "not magic" being easy to come by), Beast Change and Supernatural Strength for -1 (-5 initial cost, +2 for an Item of Power rebate, +1 for Human Form, +1 for Involuntary Change [with a condition on the change of something like "when I'm angry," it usually won't even matter that it's involuntary]), etc.
All of that is fine if the character has a valid reason in their backstory, complete with the Aspects and restrictions inherit to such arrangements, to have those Items of Power; such as being the emissary of some old god who hates mortal wizards or being a favorite of Thor gifted with an Amulet of the Berserker. Saying, "I made myself a jacket that puts my toughness on par with that of an ogre," is not a valid reason in my opinion. As I stated above, what's to stop a character who was allowed to do that from "making" more such Items of Power for himself or other players.
By allowing him to make himself an Item of Power giving any Toughness power, you're already ignoring the rules. By limiting the level of power granted, you're minimizing the impact of that. I'm just trying to prevent him winding up like the guy who posted a while back asking for help on how to reset his whole campaign because he let his players become too powerful.
Always on item? What's that?
and
Typically proof that someone doesn't have the final version of the rules. Or didn't read them.
and
I think by "always on" he means that it doesn't take conscious effort to activate--like the armor in Harry's duster.
What Mr. Death said. Plus, I actually only have the final version of the rules. I'm aware that there was a pre-release copy that had rules providing for creating an item which is always on (something about halving the effect, I believe?) but that's only because someone mistakenly copied and pasted from the wrong PDF one time. I'm glad that they took that out, because I could see how overpowered it could become with refinements. If I'd never read the final version of the rules, I'd have just suggested he use the aforementioned, no longer in the rules, method.
-
All of that is fine if the character has a valid reason in their backstory, complete with the Aspects and restrictions inherit to such arrangements, to have those Items of Power; such as being the emissary of some old god who hates mortal wizards or being a favorite of Thor gifted with an Amulet of the Berserker. Saying, "I made myself a jacket that puts my toughness on par with that of an ogre," is not a valid reason in my opinion. As I stated above, what's to stop a character who was allowed to do that from "making" more such Items of Power for himself or other players.
By allowing him to make himself an Item of Power giving any Toughness power, you're already ignoring the rules. By limiting the level of power granted, you're minimizing the impact of that. I'm just trying to prevent him winding up like the guy who posted a while back asking for help on how to reset his whole campaign because he let his players become too powerful.
All IoP must have an aspect relating to them, saying your mythic toughness dragon plate was stolen from a dragons lair or that it passed down through your family as an heirloom is not mechanically different from saying you made it yourself both require an aspects as raw but the aspect Dragon Plunderer is no worse or better than the aspect creator of wonders. Coming up with justification are easy they shouldn't provide a mechanical advantage.
-
All IoP must have an aspect relating to them, saying your mythic toughness dragon plate was stolen from a dragons lair or that it passed down through your family as an heirloom is not mechanically different from saying you made it yourself both require an aspects as raw but the aspect Dragon Plunderer is no worse or better than the aspect creator of wonders. Coming up with justification are easy they shouldn't provide a mechanical advantage.
True, but I wouldn't allow a wizard to have Dragon Plate with Mythic Toughness as an Item of Power either. Why? Cost to benefit ratio is way off. As I have said repeatedly, that level of power should come from an item attached to a sponsor. Compels would be involved and sometimes the power might just not work because the sponsor doesn't support what you're doing.
Coming up with justification is part of what the RP in the DFRPG is all about. It shouldn't be discounted. Otherwise you devolve into a game where you have a character with wings, evocation, thaumaturgy, physical immunity, mythic speed, mythic strength, domination, gaseous form, possession, and incite emotion because the refresh level got so high and the character managed to afford all of it. Before taking a power, always ask yourself, "Why should my character have this power?" If you're answer is, "Because I can afford it and want it," and only that; you're not roleplaying, you're power gaming. That said, if you want to allow someone to have Mythic Toughness for one refresh with no strings attached, that's fine. I'm just saying I won't and I don't recommend it.
-
Before taking a power, always ask yourself, "Why should my character have this power?" If you're answer is, "Because I can afford it and want it," and only that; you're not roleplaying, you're power gaming. That said, if you want to allow someone to have Mythic Toughness for one refresh with no strings attached, that's fine. I'm just saying I won't and I don't recommend it.
I think you do us a disservice here, to say only with some sort of in-depth character reflection makes it allowable for you to take a power. Over the years, I have taken powers that did fit my character or concept, just sounded neat, or to cover some personal or group lacking.
This is neither power-gaming, nor is it role-playing, but merely a fact of gaming.
So on character creation day, if you can show-up at the table with a ten page write-up about your character... great for you. I, and many of those that I've shared a game table with, start with just a seed of a idea for what we want our character to be. With the hope the character will become full form once in play, be it a few sessions or more. And I hate to say, its also because some GMs have trust issues. Its easier to come to the table with less, then get heartbroken as the GM goes over your concept and starts tossing stuff for varies reasons like .... claims of power gaming.
And one of the reason I like DFRPG, is even if the player has a duster that gives mythic toughness for 1 pt.... you still have two other stats you can take them down with. As to strings, the player would have the right to simply fulfill that with a aspect.
Yet I will admit, the Duster with Mythic Toughness for only 1 pt is walking dangerously close to the edge for most gamemasters. But then, my channeler would had protection just as good if I had kept playing him (using xp, and having a high lore).
-
I think you do us a disservice here, to say only with some sort of in-depth character reflection makes it allowable for you to take a power. Over the years, I have taken powers that did fit my character or concept, just sounded neat, or to cover some personal or group lacking.
Except that's not what he said. What he said was that the power should fit the character and who he or she is, not that any power requires "in-depth character reflection".
Hell, the Mythic set of powers says right in the text that they're not something PCs are likely to ever have, even though with the Catch, even a 6-refresh character ought to be able to afford it. "I can afford it" isn't enough justification. Powers should fit the character.
-
Except that's not what he said. What he said was that the power should fit the character and who he or she is, not that any power requires "in-depth character reflection".
Hell, the Mythic set of powers says right in the text that they're not something PCs are likely to ever have, even though with the Catch, even a 6-refresh character ought to be able to afford it. "I can afford it" isn't enough justification. Powers should fit the character.
Can you then define for me, who judges what is 'fit' for the character? The Gm or the Player? Or both? I mean, most gamers I know could justify most anything for their characters. Its kinda like the saying 'Any attorney knows you can get a indictement with a ham sandwich.' Just looking in the book to read-up on Mythic Toughness, I flipped by 'Marked by Power'... so would that be enough to get the Mythic Toughness Duster for 1 pt?
And before we forget, Mythic Toughness only gives you 3 pts of armor.... not a huge game killer. Its only when you add the six more boxes of physical stress it becomes super cool. Which I don't think a enchanted duster will give you...
The coat might have six boxes of physical stress, but I don't see how that would transfer to the character wearing it.
"As to the second point.. I do agree, since it says;
You must have a high concept that
fits taking one of these abilities. The Mythic
level is nearly always reserved for potent NPCs,
as is the special Physical Immunity ability.
Toughness abilities require you to define the
circumstances under which the ability is effec-
tivethis is represented by a stunt attached
to your toughness abilities called the Catch,
defined below."
YS-Page 184
But still, a duster with only 3 pts of armor isn't that much with wizards running around with about the same.
-
Can you then define for me, who judges what is 'fit' for the character? The Gm or the Player? Or both? I mean, most gamers I know could justify most anything for their characters. Its kinda like the saying 'Any attorney knows you can get a indictement with a ham sandwich.' Just looking in the book to read-up on Mythic Toughness, I flipped by 'Marked by Power'... so would that be enough to get the Mythic Toughness Duster for 1 pt?
It's collaborative. The player asks, the GM moderates based on what makes sense.
And I don't know. Is whoever marked the PC someone who could and would give them that much toughness? Mythic Toughness is a big deal. It's the next best thing to being invincible. That is a lot of power.
And before we forget, Mythic Toughness only gives you 3 pts of armor.... not a huge game killer. Its only when you add the six more boxes of physical stress it becomes super cool. Which I don't think a enchanted duster will give you...
The coat might have six boxes of physical stress, but I don't see how that would transfer to the character wearing it.
If you're only talking about the Armor:3, then you're not talking about Mythic Toughness. The power is a package deal: The armor and the stress boxes. That's how items of power work--you wear them, and they give you the power. If it's just Armor:3, then why make it a power and not just an enchanted item? Much simpler to deal with.
-
It's collaborative. The player asks, the GM moderates based on what makes sense.
And I don't know. Is whoever marked the PC someone who could and would give them that much toughness? Mythic Toughness is a big deal. It's the next best thing to being invincible. That is a lot of power.
If you're only talking about the Armor:3, then you're not talking about Mythic Toughness. The power is a package deal: The armor and the stress boxes. That's how items of power work--you wear them, and they give you the power. If it's just Armor:3, then why make it a power and not just an enchanted item? Much simpler to deal with.
Really your arguing that a High Fae, an Elder Dragon, a Ancient Wizard (the sort of people who count as a powers) couldn't give you mythic toughness if they were so inclined, when a saint can give a hundred generations of a human family (loup garous) a whole bunch of powers; physical Immunity, Supernatural Speed, Recovery just because he is upset with them.
-
I don't recall naming any of those powers, so no, that's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that it's a lot of power, and should not be taken simply because a player can afford the refresh. It has to make sense with the player character--hell, even the Summer Lady, as I recall, only has Supernatural Toughness.
-
And this 'invincible' is again only vs physical type stress.... it ain't going to help when you're snogging a red court. But then, I do realizes we mostly deal with physcial damage in games since its the easies to understand. I get gun, I shoot you... instead of, we're dancing at the Fae Ball, and this couple over there is killing us on the dance floor. I don't know how well my Social will be holding-up after this next waltz.
-
I don't recall naming any of those powers, so no, that's not what I'm arguing.
I'm arguing that it's a lot of power, and should not be taken simply because a player can afford the refresh. It has to make sense with the player character--hell, even the Summer Lady, as I recall, only has Supernatural Toughness.
You do realize Harry gave some bones Mythic Toughness and Strength before he was even the winter knight.
-
Through a one-time effect that fell apart immediately after, only lasted a couple hours at most, and was the result of Harry tapping into a leyline of power as well as all the necromantic energy flying around during the Darkhollow.
I.e., not something Harry could sustain or duplicate outside of those extremely specific and non-repeatable circumstances. He outright says that he couldn't have done anything close to it outside of those circumstances.
Sue was a construct that lasted an hour, two tops. She wasn't an item of power that could keep that effect for months and years.
-
Through a one-time effect that fell apart immediately after, only lasted a couple hours at most, and was the result of Harry tapping into a leyline of power as well as all the necromantic energy flying around during the Darkhollow.
I.e., not something Harry could sustain or duplicate outside of those extremely specific and non-repeatable circumstances. He outright says that he couldn't have done anything close to it outside of those circumstances.
Sue was a construct that lasted an hour, two tops. She wasn't an item of power that could keep that effect for months and years.
Both true... yet it doesn't mean Harry couldn't have keep either going for far longer.
Alot of this for me, just falls into what you are comfortable with as a GM. Some could just give it a shrug, and be fine with it and use other means vs the player. Others would likely suffer a meltdown a few sessions in. Most won't allow it... and a few would throw such a bitchstorm that the game never got started.
So pick your poison...
For me, it really would depend on the player and the level of trust. Some I'm afraid no, others maybe some sort of lets see how it plays out before we make it permanent. A handful, I would have no problem with them having such a item.
Its not fair, but it works for me.
-
Both true... yet it doesn't mean Harry couldn't have keep either going for far longer.
Actually, yes, it does. More time = more power. All the power Harry could scrounge up went into Sue's construction. It all came from outside sources, and he was unable to sustain Sue at all when they were gone.
-
Actually, yes, it does. More time = more power. All the power Harry could scrounge up went into Sue's construction. It all came from outside sources, and he was unable to sustain Sue at all when they were gone.
I know this is kinda a trap, but Harry didn't keep Sue going because Jum Butcher knew the story was about done. Players don't usually get that knowledge, so they like to pad their bets. Plus I think your pushing your argument pretty far, to compare a enchanted duster to Sue. Even if its at the level of Mystic Toughness... again, its only 3 armor, and six more boxes of physical stress. Tough yes, but far from impossible to defeat. Its not the "I win" button so many seem to fear.
Ok, maybe Sue comes really close to a "I win" button but I got a soft spot for the old girl.
-
I know this is kinda a trap, but Harry didn't keep Sue going because Jum Butcher knew the story was about done. Players don't usually get that knowledge, so they like to pad their bets. Plus I think your pushing your argument pretty far, to compare a enchanted duster to Sue. Even if its at the level of Mystic Toughness... again, its only 3 armor, and six more boxes of physical stress. Tough yes, but far from impossible to defeat. Its not the "I win" button so many seem to fear.
Ok, maybe Sue comes really close to a "I win" button but I got a soft spot for the old girl.
Ways and Means is the one who compared Sue to the Item of Power version of the duster, not me.
"Only" Armor:3 and six extra stress boxes? "Only"? I fail to see how more than doubling the stress track and having reliable, always-on, unlimited use of armor good enough to stop rifle rounds is "only" anything.
Mythic Toughness means in a physical confrontation, you need a 14 shift hit just to force a mild consequence (assuming Endurance is at 3 or above). That means even with Mythic Strength and a decent weapon, you'll need to beat the defense roll by 5 or more just to barely scratch them. At a Submerged game, even a wizard would have a whole lot of difficulty throwing something at them that will even get their attention. At lower refresh levels, the problem's even worse.
Absent the Catch, physical confrontation has one hell of a lot of bite taken out of it. It's not an "I win" button, but it's pretty damn close to "I won't lose, or even be barely injured."
-
Maybe its because I only seem to play or gm 'submerged' games I 've gotten a bit jaded. But I've seen pc groups defeat some pretty strong beasties that came pretty close in ten boxes on physcial.
And of course, I tend to count on folks knowing the catch as well since we are talking about major power here. Cus if you want it to be the One Ring, the Ring of Power... etc, etc. Well the poor smuck has to take if off sometime during the day. Its not like you can wear it 24/7, even if you're a PC.
And, it does make me wonder how a fight with Mr. Duster would go vs Sue. In fact, if the MS Duster is so bad, what is Sue? The magical nuke of the Dresden Universe...
-
I would venture to say that Sue is also something that a PC shouldn't be carrying around with them.
-
You know, for a npc warden, based on say Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Westerns type character... would be pretty cool to have him show up in that duster.
But not to threadjack, but say you did GM disapprove the Magical Godlike Duster from Hell... would you allow the group to summon their own Sue during the big battle (or the not-so-big battle)? Both are a level of power folks are uncomfortable with, so it would be nice to know if its the level, or the raw power in player's hands.
I do understand we never should have pc just walking thru gunfight like some terminator...ok, even most spells. But then, as a wizard I won't be doing physical stress spells on you if I knew better.
-
You know, for a npc warden, based on say Clint Eastwood Spaghetti Westerns type character... would be pretty cool to have him show up in that duster.
But not to threadjack, but say you did GM disapprove the Magical Godlike Duster from Hell... would you allow the group to summon their own Sue during the big battle (or the not-so-big battle)? Both are a level of power folks are uncomfortable with, so it would be nice to know if its the level, or the raw power in player's hands.
I do understand we never should have pc just walking thru gunfight like some terminator...ok, even most spells. But then, as a wizard I won't be doing physical stress spells on you if I knew better.
Sue and the duster are completely different animals, and I don't know why we're even comparing them.
The duster would be a permanent upgrade to the character, with no in-game cost except -1 refresh. Sue is a single spell with high power but limited duration, and with a huge power and time requirement of the players to cast. Point is, after you use Sue, Sue is no longer in play.
A big spell =/= an Item of Power.
-
True, but I wouldn't allow a wizard to have Dragon Plate with Mythic Toughness as an Item of Power either. Why? Cost to benefit ratio is way off. As I have said repeatedly, that level of power should come from an item attached to a sponsor. Compels would be involved and sometimes the power might just not work because the sponsor doesn't support what you're doing.
Fortunately, Compels have no effect on character power.
1 Refresh for broad Mythic Toughness is too powerful no matter the justification provided. Attaching strings changes nothing, because the strings reward the player whenever they're a problem.
That's why giving your character a troublesome Trouble Aspect is not suboptimal.
...If you're answer is, "Because I can afford it and want it," and only that; you're not roleplaying, you're power gaming.
As a powergamer of sorts myself, I disagree.
The combination of Powers that you suggested is horribly suboptimal and no competent powergamer would take it.
A powergamer's answer would not be, "because I want it". It would be, "because it's an efficient way to spend my Refresh".
It's important to remember this, because in a well-designed game (like this one) spending your Refresh as efficiently as possible will usually give you a good, coherent, and interesting character.
-
A powergamer's answer would not be, "because I want it". It would be, "because it's an efficient way to spend my Refresh".
I very like that.... Well played, sir. Well played.
And to explain, I am not a powergamer but I hate it when folks throw around loaded terms instead of just explaining their dislikes.
But I do agree, for most games the MT Duster would be a unwise choice. If fact, if you did allow it I as a player would just try to bring other Mythic power toys. Yet in a one shot you just wanted to go all crazy and wild.... sure, why not. I've heard far worst in other games.
But it is nice to know, for some people... its not the level of power, its merely the duration.
-
I think the real problem here isn't that mythic toughness for 1 refresh is broken but that you feel a 1 Refresh IoP is broken (the bonus being bigger than the refresh invested).
As this character,
Dragon Knight
Powers
Inhuman Strength [-2]
Dragoon (true aim reskin): Dragon Knights gain a +1 to weapons when wielding Spears.
Dragon Plate [-1]
Obvious Item of Power [+2}
Mythic Toughness (catch of Poison) -3
[-4]
Is no less or more broken than this character
Dragon Knight Mark 2
Mythic Toughness [-4] (catch of poison) : Dragon Knight 2 is mythically tough due to his draconian heritage.
Dragon Lance [-1]
Obvious Item of Power [+2]
True Aim: +1 to weapons (the dragon lance is always thrown true).
Inhuman Strength [-2]
[-4]
-
If anything that's an argument against letting someone take Mythic Toughness as a PC at all. In the second case, the Item of Power isn't what makes him "broken."
-
Mythic Toughness is not broken it cost a lot and scales exactly the same way all its previous iterations do, the only thing broken at the moment about any of the toughness power (which PI is not an example off) is the catch mechanic not the powers themselves. The mythic levels have narrative significance but hardly broken given how much they cost, if anything they are weak comparatively Mythic Speed doesn't compare to the same refresh spent on defensive enchanted items, mythic strength is menial compared to what can be achieved with the same refresh spent in refinement (apart from the lifting and breaking bit which is actually quite good).
-
Fortunately, Compels have no effect on character power.
1 Refresh for broad Mythic Toughness is too powerful no matter the justification provided. Attaching strings changes nothing, because the strings reward the player whenever they're a problem.
We disagree on the scope of limitations available. The type of situation in which I imagine I might allow one of my players to use an Item of Power like the one we're discussing is one where the patron who gave the Item to the character exercises close control over the situations it's used in. The following quote gives clear reasons why what you referred to earlier as "unimportant backstory" can matter quite a bit.
Simply possessing the Item of Power is not
enough to use the abilities. Rules must be
followed, bargains must be made. Work out
the particulars with the GM.
Per the above, going into a situation the patron does not want his power to be used in could well result in the Item not working. It may even be justification for a compel on one of the character's aspects related to his patron to sit that situation out and avoid interference of any kind. Without that kind of "unimportant backstory," a Knight of The Cross could use his Sword of the Cross to go on a murder spree at the local orphanage.
I'm still not saying that I would allow a -1 Mythic Toughness coat in my game. I'm just saying allowing it to be used when there are no strings attached to it is so far out of the question as to be laughable.
As a powergamer of sorts myself, I disagree.
The combination of Powers that you suggested is horribly suboptimal and no competent powergamer would take it.
A powergamer's answer would not be, "because I want it". It would be, "because it's an efficient way to spend my Refresh".
It's important to remember this, because in a well-designed game (like this one) spending your Refresh as efficiently as possible will usually give you a good, coherent, and interesting character.
First, you are obviously not a powergamer, not by my definition. You are arguing against an Item of Power that could give you Mythic Toughness for one refresh (though you're arguing against the reasons I gave when supporting your argument against it...), which is a very efficient way to spend that one refresh, whereas a powergamer would be arguing that it's totally rules legal and therefore, there is no reason he shouldn't have it.
When I use the word "powergaming", I don't merely mean normal character optimization such as efficient refresh spending... that's just "gaming" to me. For a better understanding of what I mean by "powergamer", Google Pun-Pun. It's a D&D character concept that allows a character setup a certain way to be as powerful as the player decides he wants him to be. Like all stats in the tens or hundreds of thousands and every spell and feat and ability in the game. That, to me is a powergamer's win condition: a way for him to be able to beat anyone in a fight and overcome any challenge.
My earlier comment about needing a reason beyond wanting the power and being able to afford it in order to purchase a power was not supporting some lofty ideal of 10 page character concepts and having written a biography about your character, it was just a statement about the nature of this type of game. I have a player who is currently playing a werebear. He has four available refresh. If he comes to me tomorrow and asks to buy Evocation, he's going to get told, "No, werebears are not wizards and don't get evocation." If he comes to me tomorrow and asks to upgrade his inhuman toughness to mythic toughness, he's going to get told, "No, you transform into a normal bear, not one covered in dragon scales.... you're only inhumanly tough." We also have a wizard with two available refresh. If he asks to buy inhuman toughness tomorrow, he's going to get told, "No, you're a mortal wizard and are pretty definitively humanly tough." That being said, my players wouldn't do that because they understand their character concepts. If the abilities don't fit the character concept, they're off limits.
-
My earlier comment about needing a reason beyond wanting the power and being able to afford it in order to purchase a power was not supporting some lofty ideal of 10 page character concepts and having written a biography about your character, it was just a statement about the nature of this type of game. I have a player who is currently playing a werebear. He has four available refresh. If he comes to me tomorrow and asks to buy Evocation, he's going to get told, "No, werebears are not wizards and don't get evocation." If he comes to me tomorrow and asks to upgrade his inhuman toughness to mythic toughness, he's going to get told, "No, you transform into a normal bear, not one covered in dragon scales.... you're only inhumanly tough." We also have a wizard with two available refresh. If he asks to buy inhuman toughness tomorrow, he's going to get told, "No, you're a mortal wizard and are pretty definitively humanly tough." That being said, my players wouldn't do that because they understand their character concepts. If the abilities don't fit the character concept, they're off limits.
So what if your wizard carries out a biomancy ritual to empower himself with inhuman toughness are you saying you wouldn't let him take the power even if he had both the refresh and a valid in game reason? If you don't let character concepts grow then you inspire pc's to take open ended or incredibly powerful character concepts over defined normal character concepts.For example why play a mere werewolf who is limited in your opinion to inhuman strength even at epic levels (because he is only a wolf) when you can play a scion of Fenris (another wolf shifter but with a divine origin) who could easily justify mythic everything at epic levels (Feneris being remarked as incredibly strong in Norse mythology).
-
That's the thing. I would allow him to play a Scion of Fenris. Current plans for his character's development are leaning towards new Forms he can shift into, including so a supernatural strength and toughness possessing bipedal bear form. I've also told him he can buy Inhuman or Supernatural Recovery a la Billy's trick in Aftermath. His character concept is growing, its just not growing into a wizard.
As for the wizard transforming powers onto himself... Not generally and not permanently. Our group discussed the possibility a while back, decided any powers gained through Transformation like that would be temporary, and moved on.
-
That's the thing. I would allow him to play a Scion of Fenris. Current plans for his character's development are leaning towards new Forms he can shift into, including so a supernatural strength and toughness possessing bipedal bear form. I've also told him he can buy Inhuman or Supernatural Recovery a la Billy's trick in Aftermath. His character concept is growing, its just not growing into a wizard.
You know, it kinda sounds like you are 'focus grouping' your characters. I mean, the Harry from a few books ago isn't the Harry I read in the first book. He really grew in ways as a reader I never would have guessed. Gotten powers I thought he would had stayed clear of (like hellfire), made friends with beings I would have guess he would have destroyed or at least stayed far away from.
I, for my part, have no problem seeing a werewolf learning magic if the fates were so kind to allow it. And since you likely have a PC wizard also in the group that might be convinced to train the manwolf... where does it become a problem?
But then, its your game, your players.... so perhaps I should keep my big mouth shut. As I've learned watching other people's kids, you can yell as much as you want about how nice the day is outside... and they will still play those darn video games.
-
Why are some of you trying to make it out like I'm some kind of totalitarian dictator of a GM because I'm saying I won't let my players take powers that aren't covered by the RAW for their character template anyway. None of the powers discussed are listed as options for the character templates in question. A less than liberal reading of the rulebook is all it takes to say those power and template combos aren't allowed.
The ways in which you listed Harry's growth are all easily explained by Sponsored Magic, Refinement, and roleplaying.
Wereforms use magic, but they do it in a highly specialized way. Harry's theory is that they cast that one spell so quickly and efficiently because they've got 100% of whatever magic ability they have focused into that one transformation. I'm pretty sure Harry has also said he's never heard of a single wereform who learned broader magic. Billy has said he doesn't even believe he even uses magic in the way that Harry has theorized.
Could we ignore all of that and let weres take evocation and wizards take supernatural strength? Sure. But, to us, we wouldn't be playing Dresden Files anymore.
-
Why are some of you trying to make it out like I'm some kind of totalitarian dictator of a GM...
Not sure they were going quite that far but, when you use the phrase "I won't let..." it comes across as an arbitrary decision. It may well have been a group decision, but that's not what the phrase states. ;)
As for tying powers to templates, they're good starting points but they shouldn't be seen as permanent limitations. It's the high concept which should really drive choice of powers. Just my opinion of course, YMMV.
-
Point taken Umbra. I had just woken very little sleep after a very long shift when I wrote that and may have been less than generous in my wording as a result.
And I agree completely about the high concept being more important than the template. And high concepts can change in my opinion. The wizard in my game started as a focused practicioner, but underwent training from a wizard and became a full fledged wizard with evocation and thaumaturgy as a result. His template also changed during that time.
This has to do with my entire point on the matter. Buy powers that make sense for the character you are roleplaying to have. The character with the high concept of "Werebear Wrestler" has no reason to have evocation. He may later develop a reason to have new shapeshifting powers, which is where his player wants to go with him, but that will happen when things happen in the course of playing the game that give his character a reason to develop them. Maybe he will come under the tutelage of a more powerful shifter. Maybe he'll find a book with hidden knowledge in the subject. Maybe he'll just see another shifter in action and realize there is no reason he can't do that. I don't know yet, but am anxious to see how all of the characters in our game will develop.
I see my job as GM to guide the story, provide conflict, and arbitrate the rules. But more importantly, its to make sure everyone is having fun. Were one of my players to become dissatisfied with the limitations of bus character concept, I'd always be open to shaking things up, including allowing him to roll a new character. That said, it's never been an issue in my group.
-
We disagree on the scope of limitations available. The type of situation in which I imagine I might allow one of my players to use an Item of Power like the one we're discussing is one where the patron who gave the Item to the character exercises close control over the situations it's used in. The following quote gives clear reasons why what you referred to earlier as "unimportant backstory" can matter quite a bit.
The thing is, the rules of an IoP work through Compels. Having a sponsor breathing down your neck is, from an OoC perspective, not a weakness. (It is one IC, of course.)
This is important. Because if you don't take it into account, then you punish interesting character concepts.
Also, I used the prefix "mostly" for a reason, please don't remove it.
I'm still not saying that I would allow a -1 Mythic Toughness coat in my game. I'm just saying allowing it to be used when there are no strings attached to it is so far out of the question as to be laughable.
EDIT: It's no less laughable with the strings.
First, you are obviously not a powergamer, not by my definition.
With respect, I don't care about your definition. Any three gamers have four definitions of powergamer, I refuse to care about them.
You are arguing against an Item of Power that could give you Mythic Toughness for one refresh (though you're arguing against the reasons I gave when supporting your argument against it...), which is a very efficient way to spend that one refresh, whereas a powergamer would be arguing that it's totally rules legal and therefore, there is no reason he shouldn't have it.
It is totally rules legal, and by the rules there's no reason someone shouldn't have one. In fact, the rules support it much better than they do an interesting IoP.
But I like rules, and I value good rules, so I care about the fact that it shouldn't be totally rules legal.
Plus, I figured the OP deserved a warning. I'm not sure how crunch-savvy he is.
When I use the word "powergaming", I don't merely mean normal character optimization such as efficient refresh spending... that's just "gaming" to me. For a better understanding of what I mean by "powergamer", Google Pun-Pun. It's a D&D character concept that allows a character setup a certain way to be as powerful as the player decides he wants him to be. Like all stats in the tens or hundreds of thousands and every spell and feat and ability in the game. That, to me is a powergamer's win condition: a way for him to be able to beat anyone in a fight and overcome any challenge.
I'm aware of Pun-Pun. In my opinion, he's a work of art.
My earlier comment about needing a reason beyond wanting the power and being able to afford it in order to purchase a power was not supporting some lofty ideal of 10 page character concepts and having written a biography about your character, it was just a statement about the nature of this type of game. I have a player who is currently playing a werebear. He has four available refresh. If he comes to me tomorrow and asks to buy Evocation, he's going to get told, "No, werebears are not wizards and don't get evocation." If he comes to me tomorrow and asks to upgrade his inhuman toughness to mythic toughness, he's going to get told, "No, you transform into a normal bear, not one covered in dragon scales.... you're only inhumanly tough." We also have a wizard with two available refresh. If he asks to buy inhuman toughness tomorrow, he's going to get told, "No, you're a mortal wizard and are pretty definitively humanly tough." That being said, my players wouldn't do that because they understand their character concepts. If the abilities don't fit the character concept, they're off limits.
Ensuring that abilities fit concepts is good practice. However, it has nothing to do with game balance.
Very powerful characters can and often do have good backstories. Look at Elena Blackcloak, or The Twice Betrayer Of Shar.
So while I totally support your efforts to keep concepts coherent, I must stress that you aren't keeping the game balanced by doing so. You're keeping it sane, but not necessarily balanced.
PS: Your werebear would become weaker if he took Evocation. By preventing him, you are not keeping him from being able to defeat everything. You're keeping him from gimping himself.
PPS: Were-forms don't actually turn into animals, IIRC. They turn into their mental images of animals. It's a pretty good justification for excessive Powers.
-
Replying from my phone, so please bear with the poor formatting.
Re: IoP and Compels.
Compels may be involved, but that's not the extent of it. YS states that rules must be followed and bargains made in order to use the powers of an IoP. To me that means, break the rules and the IoP is just as good as a paperweight. No compels to be bought off, just, "It doesn't work." Also, I didn't mean to mis-quote you and I apologize.
Re: Definition of powergamer.
Since you are talking to me, my definition of the term powergamer should matter to you. You did explain what you meant by it to me and I appreciate that. Only through understanding can communication be achieved.
Re: Pun-Pun.
It is a work of art. The best bit of rules-lawyering I've ever seen. That said, I have no interest in playing a game where someone did that. It'd be no fun when one character could kill anything without half trying. No conflict is no fun.
Re: Powerful characters and good concepts.
No arguments there. My arguments have all been against characters with no concepts. As for the examples I used having suboptimum powers, it matters little since I was talking about powers that don't fit the concept, whether those powers are great or horrible, the point was they don't fit.
Re: The whole thing.
I respect your opinions and often find your posts quite insightful. These are just a smattering of things on which we disagree. We both feel we have valid points and therefore aren't likely to change our minds. That said, I'm going to stop highjacking this tgread and close with the one thing we both agree on.
Mythic Toughness for -1 refresh is a bad idea. Don't put this in your game without careful consideration.
-
The thing is, the rules of an IoP work through Compels. Having a sponsor breathing down your neck is, from an OoC perspective, not a weakness. (It is one IC, of course.)
This is important. Because if you don't take it into account, then you punish interesting character concepts.
Also, I used the prefix "mostly" for a reason, please don't remove it.
EDIT: It's no less laughable with the strings.
With respect, I don't care about your definition. Any three gamers have four definitions of powergamer, I refuse to care about them.
It is totally rules legal, and by the rules there's no reason someone shouldn't have one. In fact, the rules support it much better than they do an interesting IoP.
But I like rules, and I value good rules, so I care about the fact that it shouldn't be totally rules legal.
Plus, I figured the OP deserved a warning. I'm not sure how crunch-savvy he is.
I'm aware of Pun-Pun. In my opinion, he's a work of art.
Ensuring that abilities fit concepts is good practice. However, it has nothing to do with game balance.
Very powerful characters can and often do have good backstories. Look at Elena Blackcloak, or The Twice Betrayer Of Shar.
So while I totally support your efforts to keep concepts coherent, I must stress that you aren't keeping the game balanced by doing so. You're keeping it sane, but not necessarily balanced.
PS: Your werebear would become weaker if he took Evocation. By preventing him, you are not keeping him from being able to defeat everything. You're keeping him from gimping himself.
PPS: Were-forms don't actually turn into animals, IIRC. They turn into their mental images of animals. It's a pretty good justification for excessive Powers.
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)
Work of art? yes.
Anyone who would try to play this or would allow this in a game.... the opposite of a work of art.