Forming non broken stunts

[ryanshowseason2]

Wow good point. Didn't think of that.

So what if I send a car into the future and it lands on some unsuspecting victim? First law broken?

[Tallyrand]

The law says against the flow of time, which implies that going with it, only faster or instantaneously, wouldn't be a problem.  I'd have to re-read the section to be sure though.

[Tedronai]

He asked about the FIRST Law, Tallyrand.

And yes, it would break the first law

[Tallyrand]

He asked about the FIRST Law, Tallyrand.

And yes, it would break the first law

D'oh, that's what I get for posting in a hurry.  Agreed, dropping a car on someone by way of magic would likely break the first law.

[bitterpill]

I was thinking of trying to create a stunt to show the effects of slaughter on an enemies phyche this is what I can up with

Scary Slaughtering style
Get a +3 to an intimidate roll if an enemy has seen you kill one of their companions/colleges in the current scene.

Is this too powerful? Considering it requires you to brutally kill someone to gain the benefit.  

[ryanshowseason2]

I was thinking of trying to create a stunt to show the effects of slaughter on an enemies phyche this is what I can up with

Scary Slaughtering style
Get a +3 to an intimidate roll if an enemy has seen you kill one of their companions/colleges in the current scene.

Is this too powerful? Considering it requires you to brutally kill someone to gain the benefit. 

I can't remember if specific situations was +2 or +3 in the book, but this sounds about right actually especially since the specific situation is dependant on a series of actions to kill someone. You might change kill to "take out" though.

Also my player relented a bit and came up with this instead as a stunt:

Finesse: Whenever appropriately described and legitimately possible your character may modify skills with athletics performing actions with grace and style.

[Warpmind]

I can't remember if specific situations was +2 or +3 in the book, but this sounds about right actually especially since the specific situation is dependant on a series of actions to kill someone. You might change kill to "take out" though.

Also my player relented a bit and came up with this instead as a stunt:

Finesse: Whenever appropriately described and legitimately possible your character may modify skills with athletics performing actions with grace and style.

I think it was +2 for specific situations, +3 if you have to pay a Fate point for it... But then the +3 stacks with any OTHER stunts that enhance the same bonus.

[bitterpill]

The rules are a +2 for a specific situation but really I thought the act of killing an opponent was one of the rare situations that warranted more than a plus 2.

[DFJunkie]

I'd say that a +3 is justified provided that the killing was somehow noteworthy or spectacular.  Just shooting a mook dead in a firefight would not cut it IMO.  Now, if you shot a man who was on his knees, begging for his life at an angle that causes warm brains to splash onto the target of your Intimidation roll, yes.  

Think of it as a sort of declaration.  If the character does something gruesome or terrifying enough that it could be considered a declaration of a new scene aspect he then gets a +1 bonus on top of the free tag when he invokes it for a specific reason.

Also, once a fight starts (the most likely scenario for killing an NPC) social combat and skills become rather less effective, so using Intimidate after scoring a kill wouldn't be a frequent occurance.

[bitterpill]

I like that, best area aspect ever  'dismembered body' or 'human debris'.

[Team8Mum]

One thing i tell my GM and have always said wether i am running the game or not.

It is ok to say NO to your players.

I prefer "Well you can try.." it allows them to dig deeper holes.

I was under the impression that FATE system was a stunt gave you either;

• +2 for a specific circumstance.
• Allowed you to use one skill in place of another in a relevant situation.
• some special item relevant to the skill (like your mages library under Lore, or the amoury under weapons or a special car nude drive)
• or a special effect (such as read the surface stunt allowing you to make judgemens quicker than most)
  

[DFJunkie]

No, higher bonuses are already an option.  Check Listening (YS 153).  +4 to Investigation rolls for hearing, but alertness drops to Terrible while doing so.  It doesn't require the expenditure of a FP either. 

Now, Listening comes with a built in drawback for using it, and has a relatively niche application.  Whether or not the Intimidation stunt above is sufficiently specific and limited enough to qualify for a +3 bonus without expending FP is up for debate.

Now, if the stunt under discussion is only applicable to the Threats trapping of Intimidate I would say it is definitely limited enough to qualify for a higher bonus, since it requires a fairly specific and non-inconsequential opening condition to come into play. 

On the other hand, if it can apply to any trapping of Intimidate once the activation criteria are met, I'd say that a +2 bonus would be more reasonable.  Admittedly, if you brutally murder someone Social Combat is probably off the table, but I can definitely see the application to Interrogation and Provocation, and maybe the Brush-Off.