256
DFRPG / Re: Stoicism Catches
« on: April 27, 2013, 06:10:26 PM »
It is an interesting idea, though.
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.
257
DFRPG / Re: Law Talk
« on: April 26, 2013, 12:53:28 PM »
You insinuate that Mab, , had a book published to diseminate information about Outsiders that would increase Outsiders' influence in this reality?
(click to show/hide)
258
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 25, 2013, 06:29:26 PM »
The balance of the game as a whole begins to break down as refresh enters the teens, but yes, Pure Mortals are one point where it breaks down particularly severely.
259
DFRPG / Re: Law Talk
« on: April 25, 2013, 06:27:58 PM »I assume you meant white council?Yes, my bad.
If so that would be hilarious. You should totally do this
EDIT: Better yet make him a mental mancer and have him implant all his knowledge on his victems.
My point being that I do not believe such things should warp an individual's soul in such a way as would be represented by Lawbreaker.
Fundamentally, I do not believe Lawbreaker should be able to be imposed by one on another.
260
DFRPG / Re: Law Talk
« on: April 25, 2013, 05:21:22 AM »I agree but I think the idea was the more knowledge about them in the world, the easier it is for them to get into our world. So nobody should learn it because then more outsiders would get in.
Next character idea:
irredeemable warlock makes a habit of sneaking into White Court functions, screams out the name of powerful outsiders at the top of his lungs, uses Outsider sponsored magic to facilitate his escape, then laughs as the Wardens are forced to execute each other for their knowledge
261
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 10:16:34 PM »
'collected examples and guidelines'
Those guidelines, tempered by the available examples, strongly suggest that this is one of those times when a limitation is necessary for balance reasons.
Unless you have an argument other than 'nuh-uh! the rules don't say I ALWAYS need to!'
If you do have such an argument, I'd be glad to hear it.
Those guidelines, tempered by the available examples, strongly suggest that this is one of those times when a limitation is necessary for balance reasons.
Unless you have an argument other than 'nuh-uh! the rules don't say I ALWAYS need to!'
If you do have such an argument, I'd be glad to hear it.
262
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 09:57:10 PM »I feel the power is balanced though it doesnt make narrative sense. This is the reason I would change it. I can argue both ways and still be making valid points for both arguments. Doesnt really matter if I am arguing against myself because you are going to rule how you like. So if you like my suggestion on why it should be reduced over why it is balanced that is what you are going to go with in your game and Vice-Versa. There should be no reason for you to limit how my argument goes.I'm not limiting how your argument goes. I'm stating that your two simultaneous arguments are mutually exclusive.
Proposed stunt; "See it Comming" You may defend against physical attacks with alertness
Is that one unbalanced? What about these?
"Honeyed Words" You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts.
"Acrobat" You may use performance to defend against physical attacks.
These stunts may have a caveat such as "As long as you narrate it whatever" but thats not hard. These are all acceptable stunts per rules.
Each and every one of them is probably overpowered as a stunt, judging from the collected examples and guidelines.
263
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 09:04:43 PM »This is the example for why it may need to be limited for certain skills. It is hard to justify defending with guns when you dont have a gun
Thats not really a limitation on the stunt though, its more about fists.Precisely the same effect applied to any skill other than Athletics, Fists, or Weapons would read as something along the lines of 'may use [X skill] for the Dodge trapping of Athletics in any case where the Close-Combat Defense trapping of Fists would not normally apply.'
The stunt provides only the portion of the Dodge trapping that is not already encompassed by Close-Combat Defense. This is not meaningfully distinguishable from having a limitation. The two are effectively synonymous.
This isnt really a defense; its knowing that they have lied. Rapport is ussually used for defense. Though I still agree that AFSA is odd to give you a bonus against social.It is a defense against lie-based attacks and maneuvers.
If you think that the current state of something is balanced, chances are that any meaningful reduction in its power will cause it to be un-balanced.
For those arguing both that the current state is balanced AND that the stunt should be reduced in power, you must demonstrate why this is not the case for your particular suggested changes, or be arguing against yourselves.
264
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 08:00:29 PM »
When 4 is reasonably balanced, <2 is probably underpowered.
265
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 07:43:27 PM »As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting AFSA to just physical defense.
You're 'in favour of' cutting it's power by more than half, but you're arguing that it's probably not overpowered?
Am I just confused, here, or is this as ridiculous as it sounds?
266
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 07:22:38 PM »
The dodge-to-guns stunt discussed as an example in the stunt creation section, and Footwork found in the Fists section of the example stunts (wherein the limitation is the fact that Fists already provides a significant, if inferior, physical defense trapping of its own).
edit: thought of a 3rd comparable stunt:
'It takes one to know one', found in the Deceit section of the example stunts, allows Deceit to defend against a very limited form of social attack
edit: thought of a 3rd comparable stunt:
'It takes one to know one', found in the Deceit section of the example stunts, allows Deceit to defend against a very limited form of social attack
267
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 07:08:16 PM »
Well, I had a nicely crafted post rebutting recent arguments, but alas, it is lost, so I'll have to make do with this cruder version, as I have things to do offline.
The most likely characters to take a trapping-mover stunt or power ARE those that have 'neglected' the skill normally associated with the trapping in question. Coincidentally, they are also the characters that most benefit from such stunts/powers. They are the ones that balance should be measured around, not some imbecilic character with Athletics near peak that nevertheless decided to use Lore as their defense rather than just boosting their athletics for the purposes of defense.
There are a total of 2 canon stunts, of which I am aware off hand, which are directly comparable to this power. Both have a significant limitation. I believe that there is a reason for this. If anyone has reason to believe otherwise, and wishes to share that reasoning with the board, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise, claims of 'you don't necessarily need one' sound like nothing other than 'nuh-uh!' to my ears.
The most likely characters to take a trapping-mover stunt or power ARE those that have 'neglected' the skill normally associated with the trapping in question. Coincidentally, they are also the characters that most benefit from such stunts/powers. They are the ones that balance should be measured around, not some imbecilic character with Athletics near peak that nevertheless decided to use Lore as their defense rather than just boosting their athletics for the purposes of defense.
There are a total of 2 canon stunts, of which I am aware off hand, which are directly comparable to this power. Both have a significant limitation. I believe that there is a reason for this. If anyone has reason to believe otherwise, and wishes to share that reasoning with the board, I would be glad to hear it. Otherwise, claims of 'you don't necessarily need one' sound like nothing other than 'nuh-uh!' to my ears.
268
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 06:21:07 PM »Sooo... it seems like it IS balanced then. Other powers (nevermind stunts) can get you a similiar effect, but it's more powerful than your typical stunt thanks to eliminating a possible +2 mortal bonus. Seems fair.It's not merely 'more powerful than your typical stunt'. It is more than twice as powerful. Probably somewhere in the 3-4x as powerful range.
It is probably among the top 3 most powerful stand-alone single-refresh powers printed in either book.
269
DFRPG / Re: Purview of the Elements
« on: April 24, 2013, 06:15:23 PM »
I do not believe Cadd was suggesting requiring an invoke to cause the hexing, but rather to control the manner of the failure caused by the hex.
270
DFRPG / Re: A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?
« on: April 24, 2013, 02:31:28 PM »If the Lore score is high enough that it's a good defense, why isn't this wizard just using the resources he already has to make an armor or block item for free?
Suppose you want to make a powerful old wizard who isn't [...] a skilled crafter.(bolding added)
Or, maybe you want to have a character with high lore that doesn't use evocation/thaumaturgy or variants thereof?