ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: PirateJack on March 17, 2013, 04:15:49 PM
-
So I've been hosting a game for a while now and have discovered how easy it is to abuse Cloak of Shadows (plus the dice hate my NPCs). So I'm trying to come up with ways to give my antagonists a chance to catch a Rogue-like PC without bullshitting their Alertness/Investigation up to insane levels.
Thinking on that led me to re-reading the Cloak of Shadows entry and brought me one important question. Does being able to see in the dark mean you can pierce the cloak's protection?
-
Have the PC face a wizard. Give the wizard cause to use the Sight. Have wizard blast away off of an easy effective targeting roll of 7. See how well the PCs fare.
-
Not a bad idea. I'll have to fiddle around some of the antagonists a bit, but it's certainly doable.
-
Using the Sight acts as a block against all actions equal to the power of the "thing" they are looking at. While it does say that certain things can be made easier when using the Sight, like seeing a supernatural baddy manipulate shadows, the pure horror of that baddie may act to prevent the wizard from getting off a good shot.
I would say seeing in the dark *could* overcome Cloak of Shadows. Best case scenario, the seeing through shadows negates the power and worse case scenario they can make an easy declaration to tag "can see in the dark" and tag it to overcome/neurtralize the +2 they get for hiding.
Is CLoak of Shadows really that powerful? What's making the PC so strong is he's pumped all his skill into stealth. Besides after an initial ambush attack, if the PC is fighting multiple foes, he's screwed after he shows himself.
I'd think Glamours is much more powerful for that kind of stealth thing, which would let you veil yourself mid-combat.
-
Nope. If you use the Sight to help direct something else, it does nothing of the sort. It says it in YS.
Besides, you don't need to have the Sight up for the entire fight. It just has to See someone in the shadows. Then, close the Sight, and go to town. The PCs may not even have a way of anticipating the attack, in which case, they're ambushed by a wizard. Magic blasting people during an ambush? Good luck.
-
If it was the Sight that was letting you see them, and you then close the Sight, you can no longer see them. You're not going to have much luck 'going to town' on your once-again-effectively-invisible foe.
-
Nope. If you use the Sight to help direct something else, it does nothing of the sort. It says it in YS.
Yeah, it sure will help with that awareness check, but it may not help with an actual attack roll. If the person was completely spiritual or if you want to target something unseen, like a spell (which is the example in the book), then you could target it. It doesn't make sense to me that you have a person "not hiding" and the Sight provides a Block, but when that same person chooses to hide, the Sight suddenly makes it easier to hit them.
quote YS 224:
For unrelated actions,
such as shooting a gun, driving a car, or drawing
a picture, the Sight is more of a distraction than
a helpful tool.
I'd equate targeting someone with an evocation to shooting a gun.
In any case, it seems unlikely A wizard is going to "just happen" to keep his Sight open. What if that invisible person is a Skin Walker? Sure didn't work out for Harry. The wizard doesn't know what's hiding until he sees it, he may not want to risk it.
-
If the PCs are unaware that the wizard used the Sight (why would they be?) they might not have moved to avoid the blow. I'm fairly positive the wizard can remember where a guy was not one half a second later. Especially since the Sight is a quite a bit memorable, apparently.
And the same page says that if you're using the Sight to see something and direct you, it doesn't hinder the action.
If a wizard is suspicious someone is around, the default is, apparently the Sight. When Harry feels a veil around him in TC, he goes for his Sight, Seeing the nagloshii. It's standard procedure for finding a veil, too, as in DB, Morgan uses it to scan McAnally's.
-
And the same page says that if you're using the Sight to see something and direct you, it doesn't hinder the action.
I pointed that out. Except, in this case, what you're saying is if a wizard is using the Sight, a character is better off turning off their Cloak of shadows, because suddenly the Sight will cause a block against attacks whereas it helped the wizard with the CLoak was up.
D'you get what I'm saying? I'm reading my sentance and it doesn't seem clear to me.
If the guy was using a veil, the Sight would automatically beat the veil and break the spell, but it wouldn't help the wizard target the person with an evocation.
-
Two things to keep in mind:
First, Cloak of Shadows is not Cloak of Invisibility. It makes it easier to hide in the shadows, but does not grant the ability to hide in plain side.
Any source of light will cut through the shadow with ease. The cloak does not create shadows, it uses them. Infrared detectors don't rely on visible light, shadows don't affect them. The same goes for magical detection, for example a web spell like Harry does in PG. There are a lot of things that can make life for a sneaky character complicated.
Second, if the Character has Cloak of Shadows, sneaking around is what he does. There is no reason why he shouldn't be good at it.
However, you don't always have to make a stealth vs. alertness roll and be done. You could also, for example, turn it around, if your character wants to get in somewhere. Give the target a security rating, like an alertness skill, and then add on a few aspects, each adding +2 to the rating. You can add fairly simple things. Good lighting, guard dogs, cameras, well drilled security personal, and so forth. Now your thief has to get around those things, either by creating aspects and adding them to his own roll, or by countering the security aspects.
Another way to make life harder for him would be to have him take someone with him. Sneaking in and out of places is a lot more difficult if one of you has no clue what he is doing. Or the other one doesn't fit through some of the narrow passages the thief is used to going through, so he has to work around them.
I'm curious, how exactly did your player abuse CoS? Can you give an example? Maybe there is an easy workaround.
-
I pointed that out. Except, in this case, what you're saying is if a wizard is using the Sight, a character is better off turning off their Cloak of shadows, because suddenly the Sight will cause a block against attacks whereas it helped the wizard with the CLoak was up.
D'you get what I'm saying? I'm reading my sentance and it doesn't seem clear to me.
If the guy was using a veil, the Sight would automatically beat the veil and break the spell, but it wouldn't help the wizard target the person with an evocation.
But the CoS person has no way to see if the wizard is using the Sight. From their poit of view, it just looks like he's looking mundanely. See the scene where Morgan uses the Sight in DB.
-
@Haru. All good points.
@ Narphoenix: I don't get what you mean.
The person with CoS has nothing to do with the Block that the Sight causes. The wizard is being bombarded with colour and images and crazy stuff when using the Sight. Assuming he makes his Lore check to know what he's actually looking at - he could be looking straight at the guy hiding and not understand what he's seeing - he still has to deal with the massive distraction that is opening his Sight.
Example:
2 people are hiding in the shadows, one is using CoS the other is using mundane means.
The wizard opens the Sight. Let's say it causes him to resist vs a Good +3 difficulty and suffer a 3 shift block against all actions. Assuming he makes his Lore to understand what he's actually looking at(and therefore spots them), Why would he get to ignore the 3-shift block while shooting the CoS guy and not ignore the block against the mundane guy?
My point, after saying all that, is that there are much better, safer and easier ways to counter the Super-Stealth guy than using the Sight.(see Haru's post) That's all I'm trying to say.
-
Ok. Here's the question I'm trying to ask. Why would the wizard throw the Evocation while he's using the Sight? The CoS person has no way of knowing that the wizard is using the Sight to take advantage of it. Wizard can just See them, remember where they are, close the Sight, go to town.
-
Ok. Here's the question I'm trying to ask. Why would the wizard throw the Evocation while he's using the Sight? The CoS person has no way of knowing that the wizard is using the Sight to take advantage of it. Wizard can just See them, remember where they are, close the Sight, go to town.
Yup, that's true. The Wizard would have to be suspicious enough to open his Sight in the first place, but once he did he could do what you suggest.
The PC could tag the "shadowy" aspect to compel the wizard to miss since they're still under the cover of darkness, I suppose. Otherwise, once the guy is spotted there's nothing from keeping him from shooting.
@Tedronai: How would you prevent someone from attacking a stealthed person once they've been discovered? Would the GM just rule that they can't be targeted, or would it be the realm of compels - like I mentionned above?
@PirateJack: I am curious, though, how CoS is overpowered. Like Haru, I'm curious how it's been used in the game so far.
-
@Tedronai: How would you prevent someone from attacking a stealthed person once they've been discovered? Would the GM just rule that they can't be targeted, or would it be the realm of compels - like I mentionned above?
For the case of attempting to attack a known but currently undetectable target, I might have the established Stealth (or Stealth-substitute) of the target act as a block against the targetting roll, and have that roll modified by the Alertness (or, if appropriate, Lore) of the attacker.
Unless, of course, the attacker is using a zone-wide effect, in which case the defender is left with aspect invokes/tags to provide what they might.
-
Yeah, I like the idea of stealth(and veils for that matter) as a block against stuff like attacks after they've been detected.
-
Thinking on that led me to re-reading the Cloak of Shadows entry and brought me one important question. Does being able to see in the dark mean you can pierce the cloak's protection?
Dunno. The text seems kinda vague to me.
Up to the GM, I'd say.
PS: I too am curious about how Cloak Of Shadows is being abused.
-
Yeah, I like the idea of stealth(and veils for that matter) as a block against stuff like attacks after they've been detected.
"After they've been detected" kind of implies, that the block has already been penetrated by an alertness or investigation roll, and a block is removed once it is penetrated.
-
Dunno. The text seems kinda vague to me.
Up to the GM, I'd say.
PS: I too am curious about how Cloak Of Shadows is being abused.
Well, not so much abused as it is that the PC has built his entire character around stealth and supernatural strength. Part of it is my fault for letting him basically bump himself up to a higher level than the game was intended to be (newbie GM, still learning the ropes), but the effect of it has been to make him nigh undetectable in combat.
Since stealth rolls count as a block against detection it means that unless someone passes an alertness/investigation check the PC can basically do anything he likes without fear of being caught. Part of that is because he's rolling better than me (you have no idea how many vampires have died to crappy rolls in this game) and part of it is because of his combat-focused character (he has pretty much 0 social skills and he's the type of gamer that will opt out of a social situation via throwing minions at the opponent... and breaking her spine).
I just need a way to counter his stealth that doesn't feel like cheating. It's getting to the point where I'm considering bringing Tiny the Gruff and a band of minions with Great Alertness + stunts just to stop him from wiping out the competition.
-
"After they've been detected" kind of implies, that the block has already been penetrated by an alertness or investigation roll, and a block is removed once it is penetrated.
The Sight doesn't overcome blocks vs perception, it bypasses them.
You don't get to overcome a ward against tresspassing just because you can whistle.
-
Since stealth rolls count as a block against detection it means that unless someone passes an alertness/investigation check the PC can basically do anything he likes without fear of being caught. Part of that is because he's rolling better than me (you have no idea how many vampires have died to crappy rolls in this game) and part of it is because of his combat-focused character (he has pretty much 0 social skills and he's the type of gamer that will opt out of a social situation via throwing minions at the opponent... and breaking her spine).
So he kills everything from the shadows and his stealth block stays intact the whole time? I am always going off the assumption, that you are becoming visible, when you attack someone. It is a common enough trope, and it just makes sense, if your target is standing in the light. Especially, since a block usually lasts exactly one exchange if the character doesn't renew it.
If there are two or more targets, he can't kill them all with one strike, and the other ones will surely notice what is happening. I would have him drop the stealth block for an attack, and if he wants to retreat into the shadows, he'd have to reroll the stealth block in the next exchange. While the opponents have all the time to act, and he'd only have his athletics to dodge, not the block. And even if he returns into the shadows, they know he is there. They would no longer be surprised by his attacks. They could do some sort of scene attack, throw a grenade, cover the scene with fire, things like that. People do crazy things when they are frightened. Those wouldn't have to be attacks, btw. A hail of bullets as a block or a grenade as a maneuver would be just as viable in this case. Light will kill the shadows, as I said before, and he just would not be able to do a stealth roll in the first place. Don't let your NPCs act too dumb.
Usually, you'd sneak to avoid being seen, not to kill everything. Killing people will be noticed sooner or later, and whereever he is sneaking is at heightened alert, he'll have a pretty hard time.
The Sight doesn't overcome blocks vs perception, it bypasses them.
That seems strange to me. If you have a way to overcome the block, you've overcome the block. In this case, the block would still be active, so other people wouldn't be able to see you, but the wizard would be ready to rain hell down on you. See Harry vs. Ariana.
You don't get to overcome a ward against tresspassing just because you can whistle.
That doesn't make sense at all. It would be more like being invited to overcome the ward. You are no longer affected by it, others certainly will be.
-
That seems strange to me. If you have a way to overcome the block, you've overcome the block. In this case, the block would still be active, so other people wouldn't be able to see you, but the wizard would be ready to rain hell down on you. See Harry vs. Ariana.
You haven't overcome the block. The block did not affect your use of the Sight. There's a difference.
That doesn't make sense at all. It would be more like being invited to overcome the ward. You are no longer affected by it, others certainly will be.
You're right, that is the better analogy. Except that it's missing a piece (because the argument I was opposing suggested that the block would remain 'overcome' even after the Sight was closed).
So it'd be like being allowed to pass through a ward, leaving, and then somehow claiming that the ward no longer affects you because you bypassed it earlier under conditions that do not apply to the present.
-
YS210
Typically, a block action lasts until the player who initiated the block takes his next turn.
If you're using stealth as a block vs. perception, it only lasts until your next turn. At the very least, it's going to be a supplemental action to maintain, if you're trying to stay hidden.
They way we play is: If your action does not directly affect another character (like attacks, maneuvers against them, etc) then you can do it as a supplemental action. If your action does directly affect another character, then your block is gone. You may re-roll it your next turn.
One of the players has a "Sniper's Camouflage" stunt that lets him maintain a block using Stealth as a supplemental action when making an attack from at least one zone away.
He also wrote up an "Assassin's Cut" stunt that allows a melee attack to be made while maintaining the block as a supplemental action.
When veils are used, we require additional shifts to be spent on duration if the caster is going to make an action directly affecting another character.
-
You haven't overcome the block. The block did not affect your use of the Sight. There's a difference.
True, and I thought I'd addressed that. If the block had been overcome, it would have vanished. It didn't, but for the wizard, it is just as if the block had been overcome, since it doesn't apply to him anymore.
You're right, that is the better analogy. Except that it's missing a piece (because the argument I was opposing suggested that the block would remain 'overcome' even after the Sight was closed).
So it'd be like being allowed to pass through a ward, leaving, and then somehow claiming that the ward no longer affects you because you bypassed it earlier under conditions that do not apply to the present.
Yes, but you could still make declarations about the interior, based on what you have seen. Granted, the more time passes, the higher the chances they would be wrong, but in this case, we are talking about split seconds on a target that has to move carefully, thus slowly.
Also, I don't think there is a reason for the wizard to not cast with his sight active. Other things might be negatively affected by the sight, but his own spells? I don't think so. I might increase the intensity he has to defend against when closing his sight, but not block his magic because of it.
@InFerrumVeritas
I like the supplemental action idea and the stunts to allow it.
-
Also, I don't think there is a reason for the wizard to not cast with his sight active. Other things might be negatively affected by the sight, but his own spells? I don't think so. I might increase the intensity he has to defend against when closing his sight, but not block his magic because of it.
See my post above. Using the Sight, Why should it be easier for him to taget someone who is stealthed while having to deal with a block if the person isn't stealthed. The block has nothing to do with the kind of attack (whether it be guns or evocation) it has to do with actually performing the action while being distracted.
-
See my post above. Using the Sight, Why should it be easier for him to taget someone who is stealthed while having to deal with a block if the person isn't stealthed. The block has nothing to do with the kind of attack (whether it be guns or evocation) it has to do with actually performing the action while being distracted.
If you want to set up a block against all actions when using the sight, be my guest. I'd rather treat that as a compel (setting the desired skill to 0), or in some cases just a GM-veto, if the player in question is proposing something too ludicrous. But even if I were to set it up as a block, I would not have it block magical attacks. Not for any rules or anything, I admit, it just wouldn't feel right to me.
-
In this case i would just consider Harry's description in the books of how distracting it is to simply turn it on and look at the city streets. It seems to be a dubious proposition to me that you are going to have the concentration to wield the energies of creation while doing it.
-
By that ruling, Harry would not have had the presence of mind to unravel the spell on Murphy's fellow officer in Grave Peril, because he would be too distracted by what he was seeing. I don't see any reason why, used properly, you'd block all actions while using the Sight. It's got to have some leeway for using it for things like targeting veiled or illusion-bearing beings, or Harry wouldn't say it's such a good tool for piercing veils and illusions.
Now, if there was a Skinwalker nearby, you'd be fully within your rights as a GM to block all actions. :)
-
By that ruling, Harry would not have had the presence of mind to unravel the spell on Murphy's fellow officer in Grave Peril, because he would be too distracted by what he was seeing. I don't see any reason why, used properly, you'd block all actions while using the Sight. It's got to have some leeway for using it for things like targeting veiled or illusion-bearing beings, or Harry wouldn't say it's such a good tool for piercing veils and illusions.
Now, if there was a Skinwalker nearby, you'd be fully within your rights as a GM to block all actions. :)
This is the EXACT example they give in YS. The reason it worked so well is because he would have been UNABLE to counter the magic without opening the sight. Hence the explanation in in YS how the Sight is a scalpel
-
Since stealth rolls count as a block against detection it means that unless someone passes an alertness/investigation check the PC can basically do anything he likes without fear of being caught.
I suspect that your stealth rules may have more to do with the problem than Cloak Of Shadows does.
You may want to change them, though obviously you'd have to discuss that with the player. Does he agree that there's a problem?
-
True, and I thought I'd addressed that. If the block had been overcome, it would have vanished. It didn't, but for the wizard, it is just as if the block had been overcome, since it doesn't apply to him anymore.
For the duration he keeps the Sight open, yes, but remember, we're talking about opening it, then closing it, then taking action based on what it revealed. At which point the wizard has, metaphorically, exited the wards and is attempting to break back through them.
Yes, but you could still make declarations about the interior, based on what you have seen. Granted, the more time passes, the higher the chances they would be wrong, but in this case, we are talking about split seconds on a target that has to move carefully, thus slowly.
It is my understanding that the Sight may only be closed at the end of a player's turn, after they have defended against the intensity of the visions, and only if that defense is successful. Assuming I am correct in that interpretation, any action taken based on information revealed by the now-closed Third Eye would be inherently suspect.
And they could have made Declarations about the scene whether or not they had opened their Sight, so that's not really relevant.
Also, I don't think there is a reason for the wizard to not cast with his sight active. Other things might be negatively affected by the sight, but his own spells? I don't think so. I might increase the intensity he has to defend against when closing his sight, but not block his magic because of it.
YS224: "actions other than perception [...] will all face a block"
Clearly, the block representing the intensity of that vision was not so great as to unduly hamper Harry's ministrations.
-
Just to chime in with an example from the books, Harry's duel in Changes near the end right before the really big fight takes place almost entirely with his Sight open because she kept veiling herself. That along with what's already been discussed points pretty strongly to being fully capable of using your magic without hindrance while the Sight is open sans eldritch abominations.
-
And in the case of the skinwalker...I think it was just a case of Harry's psyche having never encountered something like that before. A hundred years from now (if Harry were to make it that is) Harry might be popping skinwalkers head's off with laser beams, while using his Sight, while doing a handstand.
-
That along with what's already been discussed points pretty strongly to being fully capable of using your magic without hindrance while the Sight is open sans eldritch abominations.
All it points to is that 'sans eldritch abominations', Harry has sufficient control of his magic (by that point in the books) to make effective use of it in a combat situation. 'Without hindrance' is too strong a conclusion to draw from the information available, particularly when it directly contradicts an explicit statement within the rules.
-
All it points to is that 'sans eldritch abominations', Harry has sufficient control of his magic (by that point in the books) to make effective use of it in a combat situation. 'Without hindrance' is too strong a conclusion to draw from the information available, particularly when it directly contradicts an explicit statement within the rules.
^Have you seen Harry's Discipline? If he was facing any real block, he'd have gotten his clock cleaned against Arianna.
-
A block of 1 is still a block. As is a block of 2, or 3, or 4.
All we can surmise from that scenario is that whatever impediment was levied by the distracting influence of the Sight was not so great as to cause Harry to fail in his endeavors.
-
In reading the rules on YS225, the language to me that strikes me as most important is: "While the Sight is active, you may take actions
other than perception, but these actions will
all face a block (page 210) with strength equal to
the intensity—unless they “cooperate” with the
Sight in some way."
If it can be justified that the actions are working in concert then there is no block. If they don't, then apply the block. Utilizing the Sight to smoke out hidden attackers and smite them seems to fall under "in concert".
-
If you don't want to be distracted by The Sight while peeling carrots, be sure to veil them first.
/sarcasm
-
@Tedronai
Well when you're running the game you can state that doesn't fall under cooperating then, eh?
-
Just to clarify, you wouldn't find it absurd to avoid, say, a 4-shift block levied by the Sight by placing a 1-shift veil on the target of your attention?
-
As I stated previously, I agree with Tedronai. Just because something is hidden or veiled does not mean the sight causes no block.
If a certain action is impossible without having the sight open, then I might consider it a case where the sight "cooperates with the action", otherwise, a block against said actions.
It would certainly help you discover a veiled target(perception check), and assuming you succeed on your lore roll, it might allow that check to automatically succeed. It would be hard to target someone with a spell or attack action....
Remember that the sight is not, "hey let's see what's hiding". It's a spiritual vision of the world around you. Anything you see needs to be interpreted to even make sense.
You are being spiritually and psychologically attacked by the vision you are witnessing...
All that is gonna get in the way.
In this case i would just consider Harry's description in the books of how distracting it is to simply turn it on and look at the city streets. It seems to be a dubious proposition to me that you are going to have the concentration to wield the energies of creation while doing it.
Also This.
-
I'm not sure that's a really good...example? Why would placing a veil on a carrot just to see the carrot even happen? Just peel them, boil them, and throw some brown sugar on the whole thing...sheesh. :P
Also, if I am reading correctly, your example is saying that someone would overcome the block aspect of The Sight by throwing a veil on something - in that case wouldn't they be casting the veil through the block? The two actions don't seem to be working together, in that case the block would apply. This is ultimately up to the GM of course - I would hope a table could agree on what constitutes cooperative actions with the Sight though.
However, if someone is attacked by an invisible force I would find it acceptable to open The Sight, identify said force, and then have the ability to counter it while the Sight is open without the block applying. Those two actions seem to cooperate to me and, per the rules, is allowable.
Do you have an issue with the cooperation rules? Do you believe the block should always apply?
@Taran
Except when it doesn't, as per the rules and whatever the GM/table agrees to. I believe the difficulties should still be roleplayed even if the block is not applying as per the rules on YS225. Just because you CAN pull off the action with comparitive ease doesn't mean you still aren't wrestling with the sight of existence laid bare - and of course, there's always the aftermath.
-
I'm not sure that's a really good...example? Why would placing a veil on a carrot just to see the carrot even happen? Just peel them, boil them, and throw some brown sugar on the whole thing...sheesh. :P
Also, if I am reading correctly, your example is saying that someone would overcome the block aspect of The Sight by throwing a veil on something - in that case wouldn't they be casting the veil through the block? The two actions don't seem to be working together, in that case the block would apply. This is ultimately up to the GM of course - I would hope a table could agree on what constitutes cooperative actions with the Sight though.
However, if someone is attacked by an invisible force I would find it acceptable to open The Sight, identify said force, and then have the ability to counter it while the Sight is open without the block applying.
You're confusing the carrot example. He's saying if you have the Sight open it'll be hard to peel the carrot. By your reasoning, you could throw a veil on the carrot and it'll be easier to peel.
Let's use your "invisible force"
Situation 1:
Say you are attacked by 2 people. Neither are invisible. You have your Sight up for whatever reason and haven't closed it. To attack those enemies, you are facing a block equal to the strenght of the sight. Right? Says so in the rules.
Situation 2
You are attacked by 2 people. 1 is invisible and one is not. You can now see both because you opened your sight. Now neither are invisible because you have your Sight open. Why do you suffer a block against the non-invisible target, but not suffer a block against the invisible target?
-
@Taran
Not by my reasoning...like at all. The rules say a cooperative action can bypass the block - adding a veil when your already in the Sight just to peel said carrots doesn't seem like it cooperates. In that case, I would just tell the player to close the Sight then peel the carrot.
Unless it's a carrot from another reality and he has to have the Sight open to peel it and if he doesn't peel it the world will end. Then I might allow it.
You would be able to perform an action against them if the action cooperated with the Sight per the rules/GM/table agreement. If not then you have to deal with the block. So says the rules.
Also, the invisible party still gets a shot at defeating a person with the Sight's attempt to see them yes? Or is the Sight an instant ISEEYOU button?
-
My impression of the Sight is it shows you the world "as it truly is" (which is why it bypasses veils and let's you see wards etc..) but our puny mortal minds cannot handle the intensity of such visions - hence the reason you are bombarded with a psychological attack every round you keeep it open and hence the reason you need to interperet the vision you are witnessing.
So yes, I see it as a ISEEYOU button - assuming you succeed on your Lore check to understand that you are looking at a guy hiding in the shadows using CoS and not just a miriad of mezmerizing colours...also assuming your mind survives the vision you just witnessed.
-
I agree with you completely - all I've done is called attention to the rule on YS225 saying that the block can be waived if the action is cooperative. Clearly, this is rule with a lot of wiggle room and subjectivity.
You and Tedronai, for example, might not ever waive the block. I myself probably would, depending on the circumstance. As long as everyone has buy-in to which way you're going on a rule, there should be peace at the table and good will towards GM's. Right? :)
-
From what I've heard people say on these forums is there's too much leniency with the Sight. A wizard with High Discipline has almost no problems with keeping his Sight open and resisting the mental damage. With that in mind, there has to be some kind of draw-back because it's supposed to be an incredibly intense ordeal. That's why I would almost never waive the block. It should almost always be better to fight without having the Sight open.
Yes it'll bypass a veil - which is the advantage, at least you can hit the target, the disadvantage is the block.
-
I've noticed there certainly is that current here. Ultimately, these sorts of situations are up to the GM's discretion and what the table will support. It's in the rules to waive the block under a certain critera - if everyone can agree on that great. If the GM isn't buying it, then it happens. For me, if it was reasonable I'd allow it.
The rules support either point of view so in the end so it's up all of us to have a concenus in our games, be reasonable, and be fair.
-
Well it's pretty clear that waiving the block is the "exception to the rule" and shouldn't be done often. And Cloak of Shadows is not one of those instances where you'd waive the block.
-
I'm not sure that's a really good...example? Why would placing a veil on a carrot just to see the carrot even happen? Just peel them, boil them, and throw some brown sugar on the whole thing...sheesh. :P
Also, if I am reading correctly, your example is saying that someone would overcome the block aspect of The Sight by throwing a veil on something - in that case wouldn't they be casting the veil through the block? The two actions don't seem to be working together, in that case the block would apply. This is ultimately up to the GM of course - I would hope a table could agree on what constitutes cooperative actions with the Sight though.
However, if someone is attacked by an invisible force I would find it acceptable to open The Sight, identify said force, and then have the ability to counter it while the Sight is open without the block applying. Those two actions seem to cooperate to me and, per the rules, is allowable.
Do you have an issue with the cooperation rules? Do you believe the block should always apply?
You seemed to be arguing in your example that, because the vampire in question was veiled, and thus the sight allowed for easier offensive spellcasting against them, that such casting would not be affected by the block thanks to the 'cooperative' clause.
In my carrot example, I attempted to show the absurdity of that, particularly by way of the relative strengths of the blocks involved.
You say you would just tell the player to close the Sight and peel the carrot, but that just sidesteps the issue, rather than addressing it. The two scenarios are essentially equivalent in all but seriousness. In one you are peeling a carrot, and in the other, fighting for you life, but the issues involved are not meaningfully distinct for the purposes of this discussion.
If your response to one is rendered absurd by the other, than it is incredibly likely that it is absurd in both.
-
@Tedronai
I get it. You think its absurd. That's...fine?
I'm not understanding what it is you're trying to say other than the rule and/or my interpertation of it is "absurd". I think the rule is pretty clear, it has room to wiggle, and is ultimately up to the GM/players involved.
Firstly, peeling a carrot is a pretty mundane activity. I'd probably just allow it without a block and have the player roleplay the trippiness etc of peeling a carrot while using the Sight. Now, for the sake of the discussion, I did say that if you were trying to veil the carrot to then peel the carrot without a block I wouldn't allow that. To me, that doesn't seem to jive.
In the scenario where another being was veiled and you were attempting to see then attack that enemy I would probably/possibly allow it. The rules would support me either way I went.
Is your contention that the rule is incorrect or that the scenarios painted aren't enough justifcation for you or...what?
-
In the scenario where another being was veiled and you were attempting to see then attack that enemy I would probably/possibly allow it. The rules would support me either way I went.
^This is the thing we're stuck on.
A wizard has the Sight up and is attacking someone. The wizard suffers a 3 shift block for trying to attack with having the Sight up.
In the next exchange, The enemy throws up a veil and now you're saying that because there's a veil and the Sight helps peirce the veil, the wizard no longer suffers a block? Why does having a veil up allow the wizard to bypass the block? Last exchange he was suffering a 3 shift block against that exact same target!
The Sight is ONLY effective in peircing the veil...not in specifically targeting the target in combat - that's specifically is what the block is impeding.
-
Are the Sight and the attack working together in someway? That is the only question I need to ask myself to justify it systemically. Where one falls on that is up to them.
EDIT: Essentially what the rules say is that The Sight is up and there's a block on actions (because the Sight is problematic). The rules also say that, when the action and the Sight are cooperative the block goes away. So again, all I or anyone has to ask themselves is "are the two working together in some way".
-
and in the example of someone hiding in the shadows they are not.
The Sight is working together with awareness to discover a hidden foe. not with the attack.
Because if the foe were not hidden, how would the Sight be interacting with the attack?
And while you say it's GM fiat, that is just avoiding the issue at hand. Can you use the sight to attack someone hiding with Cloak of Shadows. The answer is yes, but it's unlikely to be the best method because you're likely to run into a block on top of the other crazy things that the Sight does to people.
-
I see what you and Tedronai are saying. I just re-read the section again and I still feel that either point of view is justifiable. I would say if the ONLY way to interact with the being in question (veiled or cloaked) is by having the Sight active, and they have done so successfully, then I might not feel the need to place a block for other actions. I would feel the need for it to have narrative and roleplaying impact (since the Sight is still active).
EDIT: If everything was equal and one used the Sight and had no justification for why it shouldn't cause the block then it would...right?
-
but that's advantage of having the Sight! Sure you have to deal with a block, but you're the only one who can even interact with the target. What are the others supposed to do? Don't you think having the Sight detect and attack untouchable enemies is powerful enough? Why would you give it another advantage?
I'd be pretty annoyed as a player if, by putting all my ranks into stealth and becoming almost undetectable, turned into the reasoning behind a wizard zapping me unhindered.
My personal view for non-block situations:
In a non-combat situations where you're trying to untagle two types of energies or deal with a spell that's entirely on the spiritual realm, then I could see there being no block.
-
I definitely see what you're saying there Taran. I definitely think that the rule for eliminating blocks isn't something to allow lightly. My main thing is, as long as you can get a concenus around the table the rules will support it. Don't want to hamper your stealth players? Then only in special or non-combat situations. Players want to go for broke with the Sight? Then allow it in any justifiable situation.
Player/GM buy in is the key - after that it's just gravy.
-
My main thing is, as long as you can get a concenus around the table the rules will support it.
This can be said accurately of ANY ruling on ANY issue.
-
@Tedronai
Yep. Glad we agree on that.
-
I'm not really sure you understand the implications of that for the purposes of a discussion such as this.
Such statements are utterly without value to pretty much any discussions other than whether it is 'ok' to implement houserules in your games. For a thread discussing what the basic standard rules for the game are, unmodified by houserules, they are wholly tangential.
-
You understand that I've been referring to an actual rule in the book this whole time right? All I'm saying is that the rule leaves room for personal intepertation around the tables because that is ultimately where the decision is going to be made.
Otherwise, for the purposes of this, the block can be waived in circumstances where the action and the Sight are cooperating. What else is there to say?
-
Well, a discussion as to what might reasonable be deemed 'cooperating' could be productive.
-
And we seemingly disagreed on that already, yes?
As I mentioned to Taran (since you both seem to be in alignment on this) I can understand wanting to apply the waiver the block in only special or non-combat circumstances. There is a general feeling that wizards/certain powers have too much utility and by waiving the block aspect of the Sight too freely some feel that would give even more utility. Also, the argument could be made for minimizing certain skill-sets by not enforcing the block.
Do you feel this is an issue that you're going to find an overall concensus on? It seems to me to be a grey-area, hence why I brought it back to the table level.