ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ImpishMortal on August 17, 2012, 02:43:37 PM
-
Given that we have threads for Powers and IoPs, I didn't think it to be unreasonable to have a thread dealing specifically with building/refining custom mortal stunts.
That being said, I wanted to toss out a few stunts that some of my players are working on and get a little feedback.
Get Behind Me!
When an ally in the same zone is targeted by an attack, this character may choose to step in the way and defends against the attack with their Presence skill. This may not be used more than once per round.
When an ally in the same zone would receive damage from a successful attack, this character may spend a Fate Point, to be struck by the attack instead of the original target. This may be activated as often as this character can spend a Fate Point.
Let's Rethink This...
Any time an ally intends to make an action that would endanger themselves or others, this character may make a social block with Rapport in an attempt to talk them out of it and gains a +2 to their roll.
-
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21952.0.html
-
That's just a master list, not a thread for discussion, hence I made this thread.
-
Personally, I would make Get Behind Me give one free use per scene.
-
You have to spend a FP on it. Why only once per scene?
-
I think he meant 'first use in a scene is free', but I could be wrong.
-
That being said, I wanted to toss out a few stunts that some of my players are working on and get a little feedback.
Get Behind Me!
When an ally in the same zone is targeted by an attack, this character may choose to step in the way and defends against the attack with their Presence skill. This may not be used more than once per round.
When an ally in the same zone would receive damage from a successful attack, this character may spend a Fate Point, to be struck by the attack instead of the original target. This may be activated as often as this character can spend a Fate Point.
I do see some potential problems here - as currently written an invulnerable type could negate one attack per exchange and, using fate, negate even successful attacks. I'd suggest something less 'all or nothing' in effect. Utilizing Locnil's suggestion might look something like:
Get Behind Me!
- Once per scene you may step in front of another character in the same zone taking an attack targeted at that individual.
- When another character in the same zone is physically damaged, you may intercept part of it by spending a fate point. When you do so you take a consequence which would otherwise have hit the intended target.
Let's Rethink This...
Any time an ally intends to make an action that would endanger themselves or others, this character may make a social block with Rapport in an attempt to talk them out of it and gains a +2 to their roll.
Have to say I don't like this much. It's too easy to turn into a stick forcing other players to do what you want. "You can't do that, you didn't beat the Rapport +2 roll!" :( Unless PvP is planned up front I'd avoid using mechanics to control other players.
What's your intent here? Is there a way to rephrase it so you can't accidentally become "that" player?
-
I think he meant 'first use in a scene is free', but I could be wrong.
Yup, that was it.
-
Hey hey, thanks for the input.
Get Behind Me!! was crafted by a guy playing a mortal hunter who has seen a few battles and dealt with the supernatural.
UmbraLux, the rewrite is interesting. A few questions, though. How would the character know that the damage would be enough to inflict a consequence? Or should I be reading that as any damage that is intercepted is taken as a consequence?
As far as the second stunt is concerned, my group has been doing some fairly unlawful activities: attacking police officers, arson, and trying to kidnap babies to finish a deal with the Sidhe, to name a few. They received a major dressing down by another character and one of my players wanted to take a stunt reflecting the change her character was inspired to make.
Basically, if someone goes to steal a baby, she could be like, "Hey dude, that's a bad idea." If he can't beat the block he'll give up for the time being. I wouldn't be allowing her to use it more than once per scene, which I should've added to the write-up.
-
There already is a thread for suggesting and working out new stunts: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21213.0.html
-
UmbraLux, the rewrite is interesting. A few questions, though. How would the character know that the damage would be enough to inflict a consequence?
Same as always...just that the stunt user can take a consequence on himself which would otherwise be applied to the target. No new resistance rolls, just the choice of taking the victim's place for said consequence.
-
I agree with UmbraLux about Get Behind Me! and Let's Rethink This...
Your example of Let's Rethink This... being used sounds like an attack, not a block.
-
I do see some potential problems here - as currently written an invulnerable type could negate one attack per exchange and, using fate, negate even successful attacks. I'd suggest something less 'all or nothing' in effect. Utilizing Locnil's suggestion might look something like:
Get Behind Me!
- Once per scene you may step in front of another character in the same zone taking an attack targeted at that individual.
- When another character in the same zone is physically damaged, you may intercept part of it by spending a fate point. When you do so you take a consequence which would otherwise have hit the intended target.
Have to say I don't like this much. It's too easy to turn into a stick forcing other players to do what you want. "You can't do that, you didn't beat the Rapport +2 roll!" :( Unless PvP is planned up front I'd avoid using mechanics to control other players.
What's your intent here? Is there a way to rephrase it so you can't accidentally become "that" player?
This is dangerous territory and if abused can create hard feelings IRL.
Plenty of games ahve a power or ability that works this way...many times it makes for pissed off players.
I'd just make a stunt that grants bonuses when using logic to talk someone out of something. Those are easy to make and aren't as ham-handed/forceful.
The social combat can resolve as normal and then the loser (lets just say the one being talked out of something)... can still interpret his take out. (he might still continue with his bad idea, but he might do it smarter.)
-
Let's Rethink This...
Any time an ally intends to make an action that would endanger themselves or others, this character may make a social block with Rapport in an attempt to talk them out of it and gains a +2 to their roll.
A stunt that lets you block actions with rapport is fine. Another stunt that gives you +2 to that block would be fine. A third stunt that lets you spend an action ahead of time in certain circumstances would be questionable, but still okay IMO. However, I think the problem with the stunt as listed is its about three stunts in one. In addition is a stunt that pretty actively encourages PvP, you are effectively attacking other PC's. Just because you are using rapport to do it doesn't really make it much different having your character hold them down with might. (Although it would be a hilarious way to stop bad guys.)
-
My question is why do you need a stunt to block someone? You can create a block with pretty much any skill as long as you can justify it. It makes sense to me, that if your buddy is going to go pick a fight with someone and you want to talk him out of it, using rapport as a block (read as "delay tactic") is a reasonable thing.
It's not going to change their mind - just prevent them from doing the specified action until they overcome the block. If you want to convince your ally to change his mind - that's social combat, which might involve maneuvers or consequences that you can tag for effect. It's way less annoying to have the face in your party dictating people's actions if he has to shell out FP's to do it.
My point, I guess, is a stunt gives a +2 for very specific circumstances seems fine to me.
-
You can create a block with pretty much any skill as long as you can justify it.
Yeah, but its pretty hard to justify your pleading to the Shagnasty to not eat you. Its what they do. Plus there are similar stunts that let you broaden how easy it is to block with a skill. (Such as devout words under conviction.) More to the point its a social skill it normally
This has got me thinking of making a whole line of stunts for doing stuff with rapport. Only appropriate for a slightly silly game.
Banter: You may use rapport to maneuver placing aspects on people such as confused, listening to [character] or distracted.
Extreme Banter: Perform a block in a physical conflict. By making assorted comments and talking. This can either be a block against one person performing any actions, or a block against attacking you and close allies near you.
Inane Banter: You may go so far with your banter as to (when affecting one person) act as a grapple! You actually manage to inflict brain damage by making utterly absurd comments directed at one person. (This is the silliest, you may wish to change it to just social damage.)
Witty Banter: When in combat, any blocks using extreme banter directed people who would wish to harm you is at +2.
Quick Banter: You may defend from attacks with rapport by bantering with your targets.
-
Yeah, but its pretty hard to justify your pleading to the Shagnasty to not eat you. Its what they do. Plus there are similar stunts that let you broaden how easy it is to block with a skill. (Such as devout words under conviction.) More to the point its a social skill it normally
Except the stunt they're suggesting can only be used on an ally and only when they are about to do something that will endanger them or their allies. And it never implies in combat - although, I suppose you could prevent an ally from shooting someone in combat. It happens all the time in movies, "Don't do it man; he's not worth it! You're better than this!"
Another example would be if they were charmed by a siren to steer the ship into the rocks. You could use rapport to block the person from crashing the ship...at least temporarily...maybe long enough to sail past the rocks and out of ear-shot of the Siren.
Which is why I don't think the block aspect should be a stunt at all.
Inane Banter: You may go so far with your banter as to (when affecting one person) act as a grapple! You actually manage to inflict brain damage by making utterly absurd comments directed at one person. (This is the silliest, you may wish to change it to just social damage.)
If it was Puns, I'd allow mental damage. :P
-
You don't need a stunt to use Banter or Extreme Banter. The others are pretty cool.
-
You don't need a stunt to use Banter or Extreme Banter. The others are pretty cool.
I'm not sure if I would allow someone to pull that off in combat, especially the blocks, if someone is shooting at you, you'll be able to ignore the person yapping at you. Maybe combine them in one stunt.
-
Float Like a Butterfly: When dodging using your Footwork, spend a fate point to gain a +2 to Fists.
For reference, Footwork is the stunt that lets you dodge using Fists rather than Athletics.
Any good? Should I remove the fate point requirement? I'm of the feeling though that if the fate point requirement is taken away it gives what amounts to a flat +2 to dodging, which is the major part of the Athletics skill, and could be used to give a flat +6/+7 skill in dodging to pure mortal characters, which I hold as (almost) physically impossible.
-
Useless. You can spend a Fate Point to do that anyway. (If you're taking this stunt, then obviously you have appropriate Aspects.)
Bump the bonus up to +4, once/defense. That way it's like a normal +2 defense stunt, with the limiting condition of "only on rolls that I invoke an aspect for +2 on".
-
as Sanctaphrax said
consider this alternative:
+1 to defence rolls using fists, and an additional +1 when invoking an aspect to boost or reroll such a defense roll
-
as Sanctaphrax said
consider this alternative:
+1 to defence rolls using fists, and an additional +1 when invoking an aspect to boost or reroll such a defense roll
There's no point in spending that fate point. I normally get +2 anyway. Unless you're saying it'd be a total of +3.
I'd make it +1 to defense rolls using fists against either melee or ranged attacks. By spending a fate point, you may increase this bonus to +4 once per scene.
I don't like the idea of just boosting all defense rolls. Make it a choice for melee or ranged. Allow the fate point to be much more effective.
-
There's no point in spending that fate point. I normally get +2 anyway. Unless you're saying it'd be a total of +3.
Well, +3 or +1 and a reroll. That's why it says additional.
-
Well, +3 or +1 and a reroll. That's why it says additional.
Ah. I'm of the opinion that when you're writing a rule, if you can give a total number, do so. It takes away any ambiguity and eases player math when they're looking over shorthand notes.