Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - RonLugge

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
16
DFRPG / Re: Dresden Files Cooperative Card Game
« on: May 02, 2016, 01:07:25 AM »
I would have preferred Toot and the rest of the Za-Guard or maybe Lea, but then she is way to overpowered.

Build her deck around being unable to do anything unless paid, like a, well, faerie.  Or she helps the bad guys (almost) as much as the good guys.

17
DFRPG / Re: Who can death curse?
« on: May 02, 2016, 01:05:49 AM »
Well, in game terms it could work that way, but in the novel it looks more like an actual Death Curse. Harry uses up all of his regular magic, but he's so angry that he reaches further and his body begins to shut down on him. Sounds pretty Death Curse-like to me.

Death curse requires deliberation, and flat out isn't survivable.  It may have been headed into death-curse territory -- but it really was just taking a severe for LOTS of extra oomph to the spell.

18
DFRPG / Re: Dresden Files Cooperative Card Game
« on: April 30, 2016, 07:08:07 PM »
Yay Mouse!  He deserves it!

19
DFRPG / Re: Who can death curse?
« on: April 29, 2016, 04:05:08 PM »
Also something to keep in mind is free will. I would argue that only a practitioner who has free will can cast a death curse. We get into a grey area with vampires as they seem to be creatures with far more free will than other monsters, but less than humans. Vampires aside though, most monsters shouldn't get a death curse. Faeries, old gods, dragons and the like are all bound by rules and limitation that might not be readily apparent, but forbid them from taking actions of true free will and thus cannot act outside of those restrictions. further, it is entirely possible that most of the power they wield are mantles of one form or another and the power of a mantle can't simply be used up and discarded, it must be passed to another individual (as logic would dictate by the very nature of a mantle of power).

I'd need to re-read the scene, but Harry was pretty clear that the only reason he didn't eat a death curse from the villain in Summer Knight is because said villain was too focused on trying to fulfill her purpose.  If the villain had recognized the futility of that effort and turned on him, he certainly thought she could curse him.  I think you're putting too much emphasis on the power of the mantle, and overlooking that anyone who takes up a mantle of any sort has to have the free will & life energy to do so.

Rather than calling Mavra an exception, lets just accept her as proof that even monsters without free will still have the ability to throw a death curse.

Quote
Harry does almost kill himself with magic a few times in the book, just when he is slinging it around at his enemies. It's entirely possible if you don't stop yourself in time you could bleed yourself dry with magic, possibly with one big spell.

The difference here is the death curse deliberately tosses any limits overboard.  You could accidentally drain yourself to death, maybe, but I'd argue that without the choice to do so, your body's final reserves will go untapped, even as they dwindle to a point where they aren't enough to keep yourself alive.  Your body -- your *life* -- has a lot of energy bound into it that you can't tap into on a daily basis.  A death curse willingly shoves those limits aside, knowing it's your death.

20
DFRPG / Re: Evocation Revamp Ideas
« on: April 25, 2016, 09:33:35 PM »
True.  But since you are trying to nerf accuracy, they're out of luck.  Besides, Power comes at a cost.  Those maneuvers still get resisted so they'll have to boost the power high enough and risk taking backlash....

Or, they can have back-up skills to create aspects to tag.  Even melee-types should create aspects before they hit.  High alertness or investigation to spot weaknesses or create scene aspects, high scholarship to work out algorithms and angles before they shoot etc...

Your second paragraph is exactly the type of manuevers I was thinking of.  I manuevers to apply things like [Focused Concentration] with discipline.  [Good Angle] with athletics.  Etc etc.

And I'm not trying to nerf accuracy, to be honest -- I'm trying to find a way to balance out control after you remove the +to hit from it, as one of my players was pushing for pretty strongly since it 'breaks the game balance' since 'no one else gets to break the skill cap'.  (Note the was: we appear to be coming to a different agreement now.)

Quote
Nerfing accuracy forces the wizard to be creative.   It's true that power becomes more important but throwing around lots of power comes at its own cost.  Also, I think having wizards create aspects with spells is a great way to turn them into a better support character instead of a Canon.  If they can't hit, but can choose the difficulty required to make an aspect stick, they become an ideal for that job.  Now the spot-light shines on the other characters more often.

Also, I like to make sure maneuvers have side-effects.  A Power 10 "earthquake" aspect is way more dangerous than a Power 5 "rumbling" aspect and is more likely to have side-effects that will bit the PC's in the arse.  Compel those against the PC's.  have buildings start falling around their ears!

We're still learning our way into the system, but those are interesting ideas.  We actually did house-rule multiple aspects in.  For each additional aspect, you pay a 2-shift premium.  So assuming a 3 shift base, 3 shifts for the first aspect, 3 + (3 + 2) = 8 for the second, 3 + (3 +2) + ( 3 + 2*2) = 14 for the third, and so on.  (Effectively only useful for scene or self-targeted manuevers)

Quote
Still makes control more useful.  Maybe just allow extra tags on maneuver...for every 3 shifts.  Or a 3:1 ratio instead of a 2:1  That way it rewards MUCH better control or really lucky rolls...but doesn't make it go crazy.  Well, that's just my gut feeling.  I'd have to do the math.  Would 3:2 be too powerful?

I went with 2:1 because it was easy and a ratio you saw frequently.  It's an idea -- to be commented on, discussed, and ultimately improved on if possible.

21
DFRPG / Re: Evocation Revamp Ideas
« on: April 25, 2016, 07:43:02 PM »
1.  In my experience, it's not specializations that create a problem, it's Foci.  Remove the accuracy bonus that control foci give but keep specializations.  Remember that a +3 bonus to 1 single element represents 3.5- 4 refresh...If my math is correct.  That's a big investment for a single weapon.  The problem with Foci is 3 refresh represents +6 accuracy since foci don't need to stick to a pyramid.

That's... a good point, and not how the idea was originally presented to me.  May have been a communication issue.

Quote
2. I don't understand 2.  Please elaborate.

If you have control in excess of what's needed for power, roll it over into additional power at a 2:1 ratio, representing the ability to 'do more' with less.  E. G. a person with +6 control but little power can still do some impressive things, just by using his control to compensate for his strength.  One of my favorite examples of this actually comes from a book, where the main character uses a very small amount of power to cause people's feet to stick to the ground for just an instant while running.  They immediately trip, possibly even breaking an ankle.  Little power, massive result.  Right now, this is something that maneuvers can't really represent, since your opponent resists against your power.

Quote
4.  Instead of removing weapon values, why not just give them a base?  Like weapon 3.  So they act like any other weapon.  You can still add power to make them zone-wide and stuff.  You could have some kind of algorithm that increases it. Where it gets more and more expensive the higher you boost damage. like 3+*2 weapon damage.
So 4 damage = 3+1*2= 5 Power
5 damage =3+2*2=7 Power
6 damage =3+3*2=9
- I'm just throwing around numbers...doubling the Power for each point of weapon damage is an easy fix (#5)  10 shifts for weapon 5.  and the math is easy. 

That's... an extremely interesting idea, actually.  I like it.

Quote
4.  This is interesting.  Accuracy is always better, though.  I'd rather hit with a weapon 2 than miss with a weapon 10.
let's assume Power 5; accuracy 5.
I'd always put 3-4 shifts into accuracy.  Now all my attacks hit because I'm starting at +8-9 accuracy.  I don't really like the idea of a sliding scale for accuracy.  It puts way too much control into the casters hands....especially since every point of accuracy is a point of damage anyways.

Look at it this way:  I roll a 5; weapon 5 attack.  Opponent dodges with a 4.  I do 6 damage: weapon 5+1.

Or I put 4 power into accuracy, weapon 1.  Opponent dodges with a 4.  I do 6 damage: weapon 1+5.

same damage but the latter method ensures that I ALWAYS hit.

Which is one reason why I noted that this probably doesn't work.  It's an idea, nothing more, intended to spark conversation.

Quote
I'm not sure why it puts a focus on maneuvers....

A focus gets put on maneuvers by anything that restricts a wizards aim, because wizards -- more than any other archetype -- cannot afford to miss.  Each spell is a large opportunity cost, since you only get 4 total before you start taking consequences.  Most characters can just throw their big punch again and again.  Wizards face a sharp resource limitation per encounter.

22
DFRPG / Evocation Revamp Ideas
« on: April 25, 2016, 05:04:45 PM »
I have a full-length text document explaining a good chunk of my thought processes, so this is going to be the TL;DR version.

First, I feel that the mechanical balance between power and control doesn't create the desired narrative from the books.  Second, I've got players pushing to 'balance' wizards by removing the to-hit bonuses from control specialization.  I came up with some ideas on how to adjust this, and would like to provoke a discussion.  The below are given as starting points to help the conversation along.  Tables should try to intelligently mix-and-match to find the right balance for your personal table.

Idea 0: Remove control bonuses to your to-hit rolls with evocation attacks (common 'fix' included as reference)
Idea 1: Roll excess control into power at a 2:1 ratio.
Idea 2: When taking backlash, only 'recover' 1 shift of power for every 2 shifts you prevent from going to fallout.
Idea 3: Combine 1&2
Idea 4: Remove weapon values from evocation attacks, and instead let the shifts of power add to your to-hit roll.  Assumes Idea 0 included.
Idea 5: Halve the weapon value of evocation attacks

=== My Opinions ===

Idea 0 on it's own is a flat nerf to wizards that puts, IMO, too much emphasis on power over control.  It weakens control significantly, but offers little in return.  But it can be combined with other rules to create interesting results.

Idea 1 is probably my favorite, in a lot of ways.  It makes control just as useful for maneuvers as attacks, and mixes very well with Idea 0.  You can create a character who focuses on maximum power at the cost of taking stress, or a character that focuses on control at the cost of raw power.   Or even just pick a balance of the two.  Combined with Idea 0, I think this is something that should trigger a re-discussion on the balance of mental toughness and spellcasters.

Idea 2 introduces an interesting mechanic that I think is worth experimenting with, but is also a flat nerf.  As such, I wouldn't include it with Idea 0, though it technically works well with it.  If you do go that route, I'd argue that you *need* to allow wizards to take mental toughness or otherwise buff them a bit.  Please note that this actually places a large premium on wizards doing manuevers, which *is* something I'd consider a net positive.

Idea 3, as per my notes, is probably not a good idea.  1 or 2 in isolation is interesting, but this really just creates a muddy mess.  It definitely puts a much higher emphasis on either taking control of maneuvering to make best use of your power, but...

Idea 4 is an interesting idea.  Wizards can still get their massive attacks and massive accuracy, but probably not at the same time.  Instead of choosing up front if you want massive weapon values or perfect aim, you get 'both' -- but the more you need the aim, the more the weapons value goes away.  Frankly, I don't think this one works well, I'm just including it to spark further discussion.

Idea 5 is something someone else came up with.  It's an interesting idea worth considering, but it puts the emphasis on power for maneuvers again, which doesn't fit my original desires.

My personal option would probably be a mixture of ideas 0, 1, and 5, but I love idea 2 even though I know I'd never it get it past my table.t my table.

23
DFRPG / Re: Social Combat: House Rules and Random Thoughts
« on: April 21, 2016, 08:11:06 PM »
But yeah, keeping track of passive skills is difficult as a GM, at least it is for me.  I like to hope my players will call it out and make up for my failing in that area.

Which is one reason I'm starting to encourage players to argue with me over what skills are applicable to a given situation.  And, by extension, to mention when a passive might apply.  Some things, like 'tip off' from contacts is hard to remember, but...

24
DFRPG / Re: Social Combat: House Rules and Random Thoughts
« on: April 21, 2016, 05:33:05 AM »
I have a group that's merged 'Presence' and "Rapport" into the 'Charisma' skill.  Frankly, I think that's the right way to go with those.  Presence just isn't strong enough as an independent skill at most tables.  Similar to how might is just a skill drain that should probably be merged into physique.

25
DFRPG / Re: Adjudicating Maneuvers
« on: April 14, 2016, 05:53:52 PM »
I think you misunderstood me.  I said attacks can almost always be dodge by athletics.  I can see maneuvers targeting specific skills.  But not only.

The problem is evocation, generally, targets athletics.  It's only, really, Thaumaturgy that let's you target a specific skill.  There's exception, I suppose, and it probably depends on your GM, but for the most part you can dodge any evocation with athletics.  And any evocation that targets discipline has problems with Lawbreaking.

You appear to be contradicting yourself.  As for my examples, some of them (notably the hag) won't ever be stress-dealing attacks.  But some of the others...

Quote
"Blinded' aspect.  Resisted by alertness or athletics.

Or it could be intended as a stress-dealing attack, with an effort to inflict a consequence related to blindness.  And while, yes, you can use athletics to dodge it (because that's the catch-all skill), you could *choose* to use other abilities.

Quote
I'd say that's more of a declaration tagged for effect to allow you a perception roll to overcome the veil.  Success means you can attack them.

That's... probably a better way to roll with it, actually.  I was running with the concept that veils are just another type of block, roll past 'em to beat 'em.  (Especially since in this case, the smoke was thrown up to try and cover the caster's escape)

26
DFRPG / Re: Adjudicating Maneuvers
« on: April 13, 2016, 01:54:39 PM »
Yeah, those all sound like maneuvers.  And as I said above, maneuvers are better at targeting different skills than attacks. 

Some of those could just as easily be attacks.  And yeah, your post was kind of contradictory -- do you by any chance not consider manuever spells evocation?

27
DFRPG / Re: Adjudicating Maneuvers
« on: April 13, 2016, 06:04:44 AM »
The problem is evocation, generally, targets athletics.  It's only, really, Thaumaturgy that let's you target a specific skill.  There's exception, I suppose, and it probably depends on your GM, but for the most part you can dodge any evocation with athletics.  And any evocation that targets discipline has problems with Lawbreaking.

I don't think I agree with this.  That Hag is holding onto the Denarian coin tightly -- trying to take it from her by causing it to become magnetically attracted to your staff is a case of your power vs her (superhuman) strength (might).  The changeling invokes winter chill to draw body heat away from the white court vampire: resist with endurance (since it's taking the form of a general chill centered on the vamp, you can't really dodge that effectively).  Or, a flash of brilliant light in your eyes could be defended against with alertness (realize what's happening in time to avert your eyes) or endurance (work through the blinding pain).  That veil that's screwing with your sight?  Use empathy modified by weapons to guess where the enemy is about to go and put a bullet through their knee despite not actually being able to (quite) see 'em (maybe with a single level of disadvantage on this one, but...).

28
DFRPG / Re: Adjudicating Maneuvers
« on: April 12, 2016, 11:10:23 PM »
I dunno how I feel about it...it's interesting. Though one of the things I like about Power for Maneuvers is it gives Power builds another thing to be good at. This way it's less important than Discipline again. I'm curious what you think of it after playing it this way for a while.

The thing that really makes me laugh is that control based builds are obviously great for attacks, while this helps make power based builds are great for maneuvers (especially if you apply success with style or other multiple-aspect allowing rules).  Which, if you think about it, is exactly the opposite of what a person might expect.  Raw power seems like it should be the attack option, while control heavy individuals would direct little power to great effect via maneuvers.

29
DFRPG / Re: Adjudicating Maneuvers
« on: April 12, 2016, 07:54:42 PM »
Huh, I've missed that in the past.  It's interesting, but I think I prefer my house rule.

I've been rolling with the idea that a manuever's targeting roll is actually the number of shifts in the spell.  So if you throw a 5 shift spell, the enemy has to roll 6 or better to avoid it.  (Fragile aspect on a 5).  I like that this puts power back into the equation, encouraging use of focus items with both power and control instead of a single, insane control value.

30
DFRPG / Re: Fate More Kickstarter
« on: April 11, 2016, 09:41:59 PM »
Thanks for the necromancy :P

Wish Id' had money to spend when the kickstarter was going on -- that venture City PDF looks interesting.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5