Spirit Spell

[HumAnnoyd]

And I've already said how to make it work.  Just use the standard block rules.  There ya go.  People highly trained in weapons, for instance, can have their training overcome the fear (though it would still reduce their effectiveness).  It does make sense when you think about it

You are right.  You did suggest how to make it work.  I apologize for suggesting otherwise. 

Yeah, I don't think Earth Stomp would be very balanced as written, unless you could also dodge it.  Frankly, I don't understand how it wouldn't be dodgeable.  The problem with a spell like that is that if you let such a thing in, then a player is can just make bunch of things with odd things to resist. 

OK.  So in your opinion it should be resisted by Athletics as well but that isn't as written. 

I think the best way to prevent the problem you are suggesting is to play with a mature group of players who wouldn't try to take advantage of the system too much by making crazy spells that target Scholarship or whatever.  Also it would be important to have a GM who is confident enough to resist them if they try it. In my original proposal I picked Discipline because it makes complete sense given the context.  However, I agree that having the confidence that comes with training with a weapon could provide resistance too. So I will go with the second version of the spell which is a zone block against attacks that can be resisted by whatever skill the target is attacking with.

[Drachasor]

I think the best way to prevent the problem you are suggesting is to play with a mature group of players who wouldn't try to take advantage of the system too much by making crazy spells that target Scholarship or whatever.  Also it would be important to have a GM who is confident enough to resist them if they try it. In my original proposal I picked Discipline because it makes complete sense given the context.  However, I agree that having the confidence that comes with training with a weapon could provide resistance too. So I will go with the second version of the spell which is a zone block against attacks that can be resisted by whatever skill the target is attacking with.

Let's say you only allow people to resist with...
Alertness, Athletics, Conviction (act of faith), discipline, empathy, endurance, fists, might, rapport, weapons, and maybe 1 or 2 other skills.

In a way this is even more problematic than any skill.  With any skill being a potential defense, you really can't effectively defend, so you just pick whatever you like and the traditional defenses.  With a select group like the above, you have now placed undo weight on those skills.  Major Villains will need to be decent in all of them or they'll get struck with a lame attack they don't defend against well.  Non-casters will just be at a major disadvantage against casters since they can't put up a Block.  It would really kind of suck.  The nice thing about a small number of defensive skills except for very, very rare things is that it leaves the players with a lot of room to express their character without feeling penalized by the mechanics.  Same with the GM and expressing an NPC.  I'm not against this sort of thing because I'm against spell creativity, but rather because I think it would damage a more fundamental creativity.  Sure, everyone could put little straight-jackets on themselves and artificially restrict what spells characters use, but I don't think that's a very satisfying way to go for most groups.

That's why I tend to think the way that's more in the spirit of the rules (especially given the GM advice) is to use the default defenses, but if you can come up with something else to overcome an effect or defend then that's ok to use too.  So Morgan's Earth spell cast on your Hercules-clone might prompt the player to go "Grargh, Hercules scoffs at the moving earth!  I overpower it with my great strength!", and the GM might respond "sound good, roll might".  Maybe against your fear spell someone might say "I don't believe this is real, I want to overcome this with my mind!" and the GM might let them counter the ability (kind of like a non-magical counterspell) using discipline.  That encourages creativity but doesn't, imho, risk damaging the game at all.

I'll grant I tend to be pretty certain of my opinion a lot of the time.  Unsurprisingly, perhaps, I do think I am right here.  It might not be a problem in every game allowing this, but I think in a general sense it is problematic.  Kind of like how 3E D&D Clerics aren't overwhelming powerhouses with every group, but the rules certainly allow a cleric to be such a powerhouse.*

*Hence the 3.XE term CoDzilla (Cleric or Druid - zilla).

[bitterpill]

Major NPC all ready need to be good at Discipline (Mind Hacks), Athletics (Most Things) and Endurance (Area of Effect) to stand a chance against a well balanced party. It does make sense that somethings can only be defended against by some things but for most types of block or grapple then number of relevant skills for blocking is at least 4 so go with narrative logic for what and how a NPC can block against an effect. That being said there is a definate advantage of going mental over physical because of the Speed and Strength Powers.   

[zenten]

You hide badly because you have no hide skill.  You have a veil up.  They try to detect you and fail because of the veil.  Ambush away!

Note that there are no rules for staying hidden after you attack.  Well, you could potentially attack one round, hide the next, attack one round, hide the next.  If they never pierce the veil, that would work.  They'd have a chance to hit you so it doesn't help you that much.

In my game I handle someone being under someone else's veil (we have a changeling with Glamour) as being a manouver with the "invisible" aspect, which can be tagged once.  They don't get to have an ambush for free though, but they can use that aspect for the ambush, and it's valid for non-zone wide attacks even if the veil is pierced (like getting shot at), since it covers more space than just the PCs.

[Kommisar]

The best way, IMHO, to work out what defenses are allowed against any given attack is to let the players propose what they should be able to defend with and why.  I let my players make their case as to why, in this case, Empathy would allow them to defend against, say, gun fire.  If I think it is a good argument and makes sense in a specific case, I allow it.

Otherwise, if you allow someone to craft a spell or effect that can only be blocked/defended against a specific skill or list of skills, then you completely lose the ability to allow the specific circumstances of a given scene or encounter to play a part.  You lose a level of flexibility.

Take my example with using Empathy or Rapport to defend against gun fire.  Normally, I would not allow it.  But, if the attacker was being unwillingly controlled by a warlock using mind magic to attack people he knows then I can see it being very appropriate as an expression of his strong feelings for that person pulling against the warlock's control.

 I think that you could build a spell and come up with what you and your GM feel should be the allowed default defenses against it.  Just don't etch it in stone.

[HumAnnoyd]

I am not saying that because I listed Discipline as a skill used to resist this spell that it would be the ONLY one allowed.  In fact throughout this thread there have been cases made for using a variety of skills to resist this spell.  I have noted that.  Flexibility maintained.

But the question remains:  if a spell should be resisted by any skill then why is there a listing for "Resisted By:" in each spell in the book?  Drachasor made it seem as if I was breaking the entire game because he believes that a player has no RIGHT providing an "arbitrary skill" for a spell to be resisted by.  I disagree and see it as something that should be dealt with based on the context of the spell and the rationale of the character who is resisting. Just because Discipline is listed doesn't mean that there aren't other options.

One thing that seems odd to me is that Drachasor suggests a player would come up with spells that would attack a character's lowest skill over and over again.  But how would the player know what skill that would be? Just because a thug comes at a character with a submachinegun doesn't mean he doesn't have a high Discipline and is automatically susceptible to the spell. GMs are not obligated to show the players a NPCs character sheet so I don't see it as a problem.