ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: jait on January 14, 2013, 02:50:44 AM
-
Currently discussing something with a player.
Character is telekinetically "shooting" a handful of iron nails at a Sidhe. She has performed a 4-shift air evocation for a total effort of 6-shifts, successfully sending the nails flying... Sadly, said Sidhe rolled poorly for defense.
I read it like this:
+6 Evocation effort (4-shift effect)
-2 Sidhe defense of +2 (it did bypass the catch, after all)
==============
+4 Effort-Damage
+4 Weapon Value (4-shift declared as effect-power)
==============
+8 shifts Damage
Her player is suggesting that there should be an additional shift because it's Iron, and would do damage anyway.
I'm very tired and not thinking real straight right now. Am I thinking this through right?
-
I'd call it a Declaration (and need a roll or fate point) for a +2 if invoked.
-
Throwing nails at someone is no different than any other Evocation in terms of damage, them being iron means they'll ignore it's toughness abilities, but doesn't grant any additional damage per se. Now, if she spends an action on a Declaration or assessment regarding their iron as an anti-Faerie device, that'd add, but barring that you're completely correct, the Sidhe takes a 'mere' 8 stress hit that ignores it's standard Toughness abilities.
-
I'd call it a Declaration (and need a roll or fate point) for a +2 if invoked.
I'd call it a Declaration, invoked to bypass catch.
-
I'd call it a Declaration, invoked to bypass catch.
I'd call that a compel. ;)
Or invoke for effect if you prefer. Isn't DFRPG invented terminology 'fun'?
-
I see 2 issues here.
1) Iron as Catch - that has been covered quite extensively by other posters
2) Nails as weapons themselves - presumably the nails (iron or not) would deal damage, hence I'd probably allow the player to tag that aspect of the nails to deal extra damage.
-
As said, if it's a spell, then the spell's Weapon rating is the weapon rating--I'd just allow the iron to bypass the Fae's Toughness powers. If the Fae doesn't have toughness powers (but instead, say, just recovery--or neither), then I'd go the declaration and tag route to boost the damage.
-
I'd call that a compel. ;)
Or invoke for effect if you prefer. Isn't DFRPG invented terminology 'fun'?
On the player's part, it's a declaration, probably using alertness (There are nails here!). Then the player invokes that (invokes for effect). Players can't compel.
I'd just have the weapon rating be the rating of the spell. That's going to be higher than the 1 I'd have a handful of nails be anyway. Invoking the aspect would allow it to satisfy the catch or boost power (but not satisfy the catch and boost power).
-
On the player's part, it's a declaration, probably using alertness (There are nails here!). Then the player invokes that (invokes for effect). Players can't compel.
I'd just have the weapon rating be the rating of the spell. That's going to be higher than the 1 I'd have a handful of nails be anyway. Invoking the aspect would allow it to satisfy the catch or boost power (but not satisfy the catch and boost power).
This.
The player could tag it for a +2 to boost damage instead of the invoke, but then the toughness/recovery would still apply. "darned aluminum nails!"
-
On the player's part, it's a declaration, probably using alertness (There are nails here!). Then the player invokes that (invokes for effect). Players can't compel.
I'd just have the weapon rating be the rating of the spell. That's going to be higher than the 1 I'd have a handful of nails be anyway. Invoking the aspect would allow it to satisfy the catch or boost power (but not satisfy the catch and boost power).
I disagree--first, players can initiate a compel, it's right in the book.
And I don't see any reason why a Fae creature should still get its Toughness bonuses if it's been successfully declared that they're being attacked by Iron. That rather misses the point of the Catch. A Catch doesn't need to be an invoke for effect at all.
-
Are you saying that by the virtue of the fact that he successfully declared they were iron, they'd automatically satisfy the catch? And if so, they'd get to use their free tag for a +2?
I'm asking because I don't know if I'm misunderstanding.
If it just automatically bypasses the catch, Would you raise the difficulty of the declaration?
For instance, if they're fighting a fae in a construction zone, it'd be a fairly easy declaration that there are nails lying around to use as projectiles. But if they want to find nails that specifically act as a Catch, would you increase the difficulty?
-
Are you saying that by the virtue of the fact that he successfully declared they were iron, they'd automatically satisfy the catch? And if so, they'd get to use their free tag for a +2?
I'm asking because I don't know if I'm misunderstanding.
Yes. Attacking with iron means you bypass the catch for iron--you wouldn't need to invoke for effect if you were using a steel sword, after all.
If it just automatically bypasses the catch, Would you raise the difficulty of the declaration?
Not based on that. I'd only raise the difficulty if it was more unlikely that there'd be a bunch of iron nails there.
For instance, if they're fighting a fae in a construction zone, it'd be a fairly easy declaration that there are nails lying around to use as projectiles. But if they want to find nails that specifically act as a Catch, would you increase the difficulty?
Aren't iron or steel nails the norm anyway? That being the case, I wouldn't increase the difficulty for something you'd never expect not to find.
Personally, call it the Fae's fault for picking a fight around construction equipment.
-
I'm with Mr. Death on this one.
The Fae would certainly get a Compel (and FP) from this, but that requires no action on the player's part and doesn't involve tags or Aspects at all, any more than a Wizard using the element of Fire needs to waste actions having that count as the Catch for something especially flammable.
-
I'm with Mr. Death on this one.
The Fae would certainly get a Compel (and FP) from this, but that requires no action on the player's part and doesn't involve tags or Aspects at all, any more than a Wizard using the element of Fire needs to waste actions having that count as the Catch for something especially flammable.
O.k. This all makes sense to me. My question now is, if there's no aspect invoked, why does the Fae get a FP. Is the FP from a compel to have them fight in a bad locale?
Aren't iron or steel nails the norm anyway? That being the case, I wouldn't increase the difficulty for something you'd never expect not to find.
Personally, call it the Fae's fault for picking a fight around construction equipment.
Yes, nails and iron...that makes sense. It was a bad example, but it was the one OP presented.
-
O.k. This all makes sense to me. My question now is, if there's no aspect invoked, why does the Fae get a FP. Is the FP from a compel to have them fight in a bad locale?
There doesn't need to be an invoke for there to be a compel. Compels against PCs aren't necessarily invokes, after all.
-
O.k. This all makes sense to me. My question now is, if there's no aspect invoked, why does the Fae get a FP. Is the FP from a compel to have them fight in a bad locale?
It's a Compel from the GM on your High Concept whenever your Catch comes up. This is explicitly stated somewhere, I think, and strongly implied lots of other places.
-
There should be an aspect to represent the presence of the nails, if they're mattering enough to the story to be used in a spell, but I would not require that aspect to be invoked in order to bypass the catch. The narrative description of the spell serves that purpose sufficiently. I would likely suggest that the practitioner invoke (/tag) it to add to the spell because iron burns fae and whatnot (though, again, I would not require this).
It's a Compel from the GM on your High Concept whenever your Catch comes up. This is explicitly stated somewhere, I think, and strongly implied lots of other places.
I'm torn on this issue.
The Catch has already been paid for, after all, and thus it seems like 'double-dipping', to me, to be paid in compels for the failure of toughness powers where the Catch is applied.
Running water shorting out a wizard's spellcasting? Compel.
Fire burning a BCV? Paid in advance.
-
There should be an aspect to represent the presence of the nails, if they're mattering enough to the story to be used in a spell, but I would not require that aspect to be invoked in order to bypass the catch. The narrative description of the spell serves that purpose sufficiently. I would likely suggest that the practitioner invoke (/tag) it to add to the spell because iron burns fae and whatnot (though, again, I would not require this).
I'd say this makes sense narratively, too. I tend to look at the +2 of a tag as sort of an 'element of surprise' bonus. In this case, when you declare and tag, you're getting that +2 to the roll implicitly because the Fae didn't see it coming. If you use the nails again (without spending a fate point for it), that implicitly means the Fae knows the nails are there and will defend more effectively.
I'm torn on this issue.
The Catch has already been paid for, after all, and thus it seems like 'double-dipping', to me, to be paid in compels for the failure of toughness powers where the Catch is applied.
Running water shorting out a wizard's spellcasting? Compel.
Fire burning a BCV? Paid in advance.
Honestly, I'd say it doesn't matter for most NPCs. But I'd say iron qualifies as a compel because it's supposed to be a little beyond just getting through their toughness--they can't even touch it without getting burned.
-
I'm torn on this issue.
The Catch has already been paid for, after all, and thus it seems like 'double-dipping', to me, to be paid in compels for the failure of toughness powers where the Catch is applied.
Running water shorting out a wizard's spellcasting? Compel.
Fire burning a BCV? Paid in advance.
Nope! Not the way it works officially anyway. According to the folks at Evil Hat you get a Compel on your High Concept any time your supernatural nature is a problem. They've explicitly said that Lycanthropes get a Compel for every time their powers would be useful but aren't there because it's the wrong time of the month, and that's on top of Human Form [+2], just for example.
-
There should be an aspect to represent the presence of the nails, if they're mattering enough to the story to be used in a spell, but I would not require that aspect to be invoked in order to bypass the catch. The narrative description of the spell serves that purpose sufficiently. I would likely suggest that the practitioner invoke (/tag) it to add to the spell because iron burns fae and whatnot (though, again, I would not require this).
The aspect is a scene aspect that you are putting there with a declaration. Such as "Construction Site" so there are nails there or more directly "Box o Nails".
I'm torn on this issue.
The Catch has already been paid for, after all, and thus it seems like 'double-dipping', to me, to be paid in compels for the failure of toughness powers where the Catch is applied.
Running water shorting out a wizard's spellcasting? Compel.
Fire burning a BCV? Paid in advance.
Yea I dont really see how you would get a bonus simply for using a catch. But if you are spending fate points to do it I can see it happening.
-
On the player's part, it's a declaration, probably using alertness (There are nails here!). Then the player invokes that (invokes for effect).
Yep, as noted previously that's one possibility.
Players can't compel.
As mentioned, you can call it an invoke for effect if you prefer. Less egregious use of jargon is one thing I'm looking forward to out of FATE Core.
-
It's a Compel from the GM on your High Concept whenever your Catch comes up. This is explicitly stated somewhere, I think, and strongly implied lots of other places.
I'm torn on this issue.
The Catch has already been paid for, after all, and thus it seems like 'double-dipping', to me, to be paid in compels for the failure of toughness powers where the Catch is applied.
Running water shorting out a wizard's spellcasting? Compel.
Fire burning a BCV? Paid in advance.
I think the thing we're getting mixed up with is that a Catch has out of combat complications. It specifically states under the Catch:
YS pg. 185
Even the mere presence of the
thing that satisfies your Catch will cause
you discomfort (and may be grounds for
a compel or something similar).
So I see these compels as happening in social situations, for instance. If your catch is silk, but you have to seduce the girl...unfortunately she's wearing a silk bra. That kind of thing.
I'm not really sure you'd get a FP every time you encounter something in combat that has your catch. So I'm kind of with the "paid in advance" thing.
If your catch is holy, do you get a FP for pissing off a Knight of the Cross? probably. But that FP was for pissing him off, not for the fact that he's going to hit you with his holy sword.
-
I'm gonna stick with 'you get FP when bad things happen to you',whether you've gotten some saved Refresh already or not. This (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16472.msg759161.html#msg759161) post is my basic justification, really (though referring to a different vulnerability than the Catch).
I mean, if another player used a PC's Catch, maybe I wouldn't compel, but every time it comes up from an NPC, that's a conscious GM choice to hurt that character...and that's what compels are for.
I would make an exception for those Catches that got the 'Everything but' rebate ala an Ogre's magic-immunity. You don't get crap when things other than your one protected area come up, that's just silly.