Backstabbing/silent take down

[riplikash]

So maybe I've misread something, but are backstabs and silent take-downs just impossible in this game? You know, short of nuking someone with magic or burning through 5 fate points to invoke tons of aspects.

Here is my understanding, please tell me if I'm missing something.:
To take out your average accountant you need to do 15 stress damage in 1 round. Lets assume you are a world class martial artist, so +5.
Maneuver to hide in shadows +2
Has a special takedown stunt +2
declare he is unaware and tag that +2
invoke special forces training +2
invoke darkness in building +2
And there is no margin of error here.

This seems excessive to take down an accountant, and most PCs wont have this level of specialization. And heaven help me if I want to ambush a PC. There has to be a better way to go solid snake on a bunch of mooks. Last game I basically just did concessions for the mooks, but I wasn't very happy with it. Any ideas on how to handle these situations?

[Doc Chaos]

Your average accountant will be an NPCs and faceless NPCs won't take all the consequences for something like this. Unless your GM hates you.

[bibliophile20]

also, when you're attacking from Stealth, according to page 142 of your hymnal, they can only defend themselves with an effective skill level of +0 (meaning a flat die roll). 

[sjksprocket]

I was thinking of same thing. The solution I came up with is doing a maneuver. Applying an aspect like "throat slit" or "broken neck" or "black jacked" or the like and then paying a fate point to compel. seeing how most low mooks and crumby henchmen in my campaign won't have any starting fate points it would mean being taken out right away. where as more note worthy opponents will have starting fate points they can buy off the compel, making it more dramatic.

[admiralducksauce]

I like the maneuver idea, that's pretty elegant.  One round to set up the maneuver, one round to attack, dealing the mook's 2 or 3 stress, and tagging/compelling the maneuver to keep them down.

[Seb Wiers]

Not that its necessarily a flaw, but wouldn't that same mechanic allow people to take out mooks WITHOUT using any sort of stealth, just by putting a "knocked out" aspect on them?  I suppose putting an aspect on the mook requires GM permission, but it seems odd to bypass most of the conflict result rules by spending a fate point, when there are already rules for spending fate points during a conflict.

[admiralducksauce]

That's why I mentioned my alteration, where the maneuver is used to create an aspect which you can tag during the subsequent attack.  The way I'd do it would involve an actual attack roll.

[sinker]

As Doc Chaos mentioned mooks shouldn't have consequences, so realistically you should only have to deal four or five stress which should be easy to pull of if they have a defense of 0.

Of note there's very few ways to reliably disable (but not kill) others without a lot of skill/training involved, so that kind of thing is what I would qualify as "lethal intent" (meaning the take out should likely be death).

[Seb Wiers]

There's very few ways for a normal human to disable (and silence) another normal human non-lethally, yes.  But for supernatural characters, you could have all sorts of things; stingers with knock out toxin, vulcan nerve pinches, kung-fu chi strikes, hypnotic gaze, etc.  Many Dresnden characters who aren't mortals would likely be able to find a way to do it. 

[Tallyrand]

I don't like that "throat slit" aspect idea, if only because I pretty much never apply rules to my PCs that don't also apply to my NPCs which will lead to a LOT of character death since baddies tend to out number the good guys.  The obvious solution is that non-main villains don't tend to get consequences.  Also of note, even if mooks do get consequences in your campaign there's nothing saying that you have to kill them in one hit to take them out.  Your average accountant would probably take one consequence and then offer a concession along the lines of "Left for Dead" or "Bleeding Out".

[toturi]

So maybe I've misread something, but are backstabs and silent take-downs just impossible in this game?

And heaven help me if I want to ambush a PC. There has to be a better way to go solid snake on a bunch of mooks. Last game I basically just did concessions for the mooks, but I wasn't very happy with it. Any ideas on how to handle these situations?

Well, I think that it might be easier if the attacker had a weapon of some sort. A garrote or a commando fighting knife might make the silent takedown more efficient.

[UmbraLux]

It is possible, get surprise and the victim rolls at +0 to defend.  Add a couple of aspects (you should have time to set several up if you have time to set an ambush up), add weapon skill and weapon rating.  You're probably at +13 or better for combat oriented characters.  If the victim isn't conceding prior to taking all three levels of consequences, he probably has taken at least two you can tag when following up.  With the right rolls or an NPC who concedes prior to consequences, your victim is taken out in one hit.  But, if you want to be certain, set it up so two of you take one down...or set up more aspects to tag.

[ducere1315]

Instead of applying an aspect via a manuever, why not just make an attack for consequence. Like an addictive saliva consequence. All the attack shifts could go towards a consequence that is something like "knocked out cold" or "throat slit", and compel the consequence as normal. Or tag for another attack.

But most of the surprise attacks we're talking about here are hand to hand which would probably involve a grapple result as well as a more specific attack. So the grapple could prevent the victim from alerting others while the results of the attack take effect. Why not do this as a grapple with weapon:+x added as well as any other tags, declarations, etc?

[devonapple]

Instead of applying an aspect via a manuever, why not just make an attack for consequence. Like an addictive saliva consequence. All the attack shifts could go towards a consequence that is something like "knocked out cold" or "throat slit", and compel the consequence as normal. Or tag for another attack.

Generally you need powers for inflicting direct Consequences, but we've produced at least one Stunt (Brutality) on the Custom Stunts thread which allows the user to directly inflict consequences.

If the GM allows it, you could reskin it to be a "Knockout" stunt which allows you to inflict consequences with a decent Burglary/Stealth/Weapons/Fists/whatever-you-determine-it-to-be roll.

[sjksprocket]

But there are certain characters, Mainly non combat oriented characters or with diminutive that can't come up with 13 plus shifts in one attack (At least two of my players). But realistically anyone should be able to take down an opponent in one hit. I like DFRPG due to it's small amount of numerical mechanics when it comes to conflict. I would say that a maneuvers like I mentioned before are rather realistic and convey a "critical hit" better then a lucky die roll IMO. I thought about it after my original post though and figured that it might be more difficult to get such an aspect put on some one but haven't figured out too many ways to represent that yet. I have a feeling that this might get brought up a lot in my campaign due to the fact that one of my player has an aspect "sneak attack". And anything that might not have an anatomy that the character maneuvering knows about would be unable to have this aspect applied to them.

Plus I would say that such an aspect could be put on someone in normal conflict as well. Yet again as a maneuver with a compel, but that person is going to be actively defending so would have a better chance of not getting hit. Plus if you fail the other combatant could make a deceleration that you have "overextended" yourself or "left an opening" for tagging on there turn. Imagine a conflict of two combatants going for the jugular each time. It would be rather dramatic.

I know it circumvents the combat system to some degree but I'm still working out the kinks a little. Plus in my campaign I don't want to have long drawn out physical conflict be the center of attention. I can also see this being used to some degree or another in other forms of conflict, not just physical. I think it could get interesting, but might need some sort of limitation though. Haven't settled on one yet.