House Rules And Homebrew

[Sanctaphrax]

Spin. I use that too. Why didn't I remember it?

Anyway, this mental stress thing is clearly not settled. I'll just list every proposed solution in the guide, with a short note explaining the issue.

And now I'm going to summarize the vehicle combat rules.

[Sanctaphrax]

And here's the summary. Actually, it's more like a revision since I changed some things. Feedback is mandatory. (Or at least strongly encouraged.)

Vehicle Combat Rules Summary:

             The following rules govern the use of vehicles in combat. In general, they treat vehicles as equipment rather than characters. When one character rides another, a similar but not identical ruleset will be used. (That still needs to be written. Shouldn't be hard.)

             Vehicles, like characters, are located inside zones. Characters who share a zone with a vehicle may use their action to enter that vehicle, acquiring an appropriate aspect in doing so. This requires no roll unless some force (locked door, uncooperative driver, etc) is preventing the character’s entry.
 
             Some vehicles are large enough to contain entire zones. This does not significantly affect the rules that govern them.

             Characters in vehicles are either drivers or passengers. Each vehicle may only have one driver, but the maximum number of passengers depends on the vehicle. The driver must take a supplemental action each turn in order to operate the vehicle. If he does not, then he becomes a passenger and the vehicle has no driver. Simply ignore any rules that reference the driver in that case, or assume a value of 0 for his skill when that is not possible.

             Characters cannot move while inside a vehicle. However, the driver of a vehicle may move the vehicle a number of zones equal to the result of a Driving skill check each time he takes an action. When a vehicle moves, everyone inside moves with it.

             Vehicles provide armour and can be used as weapons like other equipment. The armour applies to everyone inside, but the vehicle can only be used as a weapon by the driver. Attacks with vehicles use the Driving skill.

             All those inside a vehicle have their skills modified by the Driving skill of the driver. In addition, the driver can substitute his Driving skill for the defence skill of anyone inside the vehicle against melee attacks made by those outside the vehicle.

             Each vehicle has two statistics not possessed by most equipment. These are Durability and Maneuverability. Maneuverability modifies the driver’s Driving skill for all purposes. Durability dictates the difficulty to hex (or otherwise sabotage) a vehicle and that vehicle’s stress capacity. Some vehicles also possess the equivalent of Toughness powers and/or innate armour.

             Vehicles can be attacked just like characters. They defend against attacks with their driver’s Driving skill. They take stress and consequences just like characters. The effects of a vehicle’s destruction upon its inhabitants are highly variable and should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

             Living mounts may also be treated as vehicles. Use Survival instead of Driving in that case. A mount’s Maneuverability is equal to its Athletics skill, and its Durability is equal to its Endurance skill.

[LCDarkwood]

Anyway, this mental stress thing is clearly not settled.

Hey, 'Phrax? What sort of evo did you envision would be able to cause mental stress in the RAW? Spirit's really the only thing that might qualify, and spirit attacks are pretty explicitly limited to force applications, usually in the form of telekinetic pushing and solid shields. Veils are an edge case, but they also operate on purely physical principles - bending light and whatnot. It's not a mental whammy.

So, I'm confused as to why a house ruling on this would be necessary. Which isn't to say it's not. I'm just curious.

To contribute to the thread, I have a house rule that I sometimes use, sometimes don't, about fate point transfers in a conflict. RAW states that if you spend a fate point to use someone else's aspect to their detriment, the fate point goes to them at the end of the exchange. Sometimes I'll wait until the end of the conflict to dole those out. It's just a slight change in flow and creates a grittier atmosphere - yeah, you're going to get paid out, but not until after you've gotten your ass kicked.

[Tedronai]

Hey, 'Phrax? What sort of evo did you envision would be able to cause mental stress in the RAW? Spirit's really the only thing that might qualify, and spirit attacks are pretty explicitly limited to force applications, usually in the form of telekinetic pushing and solid shields. Veils are an edge case, but they also operate on purely physical principles - bending light and whatnot. It's not a mental whammy.

So, I'm confused as to why a house ruling on this would be necessary. Which isn't to say it's not. I'm just curious.

To contribute to the thread, I have a house rule that I sometimes use, sometimes don't, about fate point transfers in a conflict. RAW states that if you spend a fate point to use someone else's aspect to their detriment, the fate point goes to them at the end of the exchange. Sometimes I'll wait until the end of the conflict to dole those out. It's just a slight change in flow and creates a grittier atmosphere - yeah, you're going to get paid out, but not until after you've gotten your ass kicked.

Harry's notes in the margin of YS255
"Plus mental
magic, emotions,
ghosts – that
sort of stuff.
Most of that’s
beyond me,
though—I’m
all about the
force effects
end of things."

[Sanctaphrax]

Spirit, definitely. Some forms of sponsored magic, too. Other elements on a case-by-case basis. Someone brought up Harry's "ball of sunshine" trick when this was discussed before.

And thanks for the houserule. I might start using it myself, since it always kinda bugged me that players got penalized for using others people's aspects instead of their own.

Anyway, I still need feedback on the vehicle rules.

[LCDarkwood]

He says, "Spirit also covers..." That doesn't necessarily mean all that stuff can be done with evocation by default. I mean, there's no evo spell to launch a ghost at someone. The paragraph tells you how Spirit evo manifests - as the bending or manipulation of light and kinetic force.

Behind the scenes, we happened to know about Spirit's association with other kinds of magic, so it became a marginalia comment. Other elements have similar associations with different kinds of magic that reach beyond the boundaries of evo. We didn't know as much about those at the time of publication.

My point being, if there's a house rule to be had here, it's in exploring Spirit/Mind as an evo element, rather than Spirit/Force, which is what the book describes. I'm not opposed to that, though I find the implications hella scary. The inline text never tells you that you can use Spirit to do mental stress, though. So that shouldn't be a concern, though I recognize that clarification is always good if you feel you need to make it.

[ways and means]

Even if you argue sprit does not allow mental attacks some sponsored magic for example Kemmlerite Necromancy (

(click to show/hide)

attacks on an enemies soul and corpsetaker style possession

) and Fairy Magic (Enchantment and compulsion) certainly would.  

[Sanctaphrax]

Seems that this is even more ambigous than I thought. Maybe I'm not actually houseruling: maybe I'm just ruling.

Whatever. This'll get a paragraph or two in the guide, explaining what a mess it is.

[LCDarkwood]

Yeah, sponsored magic definitely does allow mental whammies. That's part of what makes it really damn scary and often Lawbreaking.

Which is, consequently, the reason why we don't see a lot of it in the books - they're about a White Council wizard who, for the most part, upholds the Laws. Bad guys use mental whammies on people all the time. (See White Court Vampires, Victor Sells, Corpsetaker, etc etc ad nauseum)

So I guess that's my issue - mind magic *is* an easy proof against Toughness. It's supposed to be. Targeting that cuts out a large part of what makes that cool and scary.

If there's a house rule to be had here that better fits the setting, I think it should revolve around expanding the function of Toughness, not limiting the function of sponsored magic. Just sayin'.

(Edit: I kind of like the idea of advanced wizards or True Faith folks being able to take mental-related Toughness as a power, "fortress of the mind" kind of shit.)

[devonapple]

It looks great! I just had a few comments which came to mind, and all of these are pretty minor suggestions.

Vehicle Combat Rules Summary:

Vehicles, like characters, are located inside zones. Characters who share a zone with a vehicle may use their action to enter that vehicle, acquiring an appropriate aspect in doing so. This requires no roll unless some force (locked door, uncooperative driver, etc) is preventing the character’s entry.

I think a vehicle - any vehicle except one that is obviously open, like a horse or a motorcycle - should automatically be considered its own Zone. Trying to get into most any vehicle requires *some* finagling unless it is already open (like a van door), and this would be anything from a 0- to 2-shift Zone Border. Having to use keys, having to jump into a convertible - any of these things are a nontrivial time sink when bullets are flying. But: this could be more detail than is appropriate for a summary.

Characters cannot move while inside a vehicle. However, the driver of a vehicle may move the vehicle a number of zones equal to the result of a Driving skill check each time he takes an action. When a vehicle moves, everyone inside moves with it.

I think we should specify what specifically "cannot move" entails. Passengers certainly can't move the vehicle along, we can all agree. But shifting seats happens in fiction all the time, and if the vehicle is large enough to have multiple zones (or one really big zone) then common sense indicates some moving is appropriate.

All those inside a vehicle have their skills modified by the Driving skill of the driver. In addition, the driver can substitute his Driving skill for the defence skill of anyone inside the vehicle against melee attacks made by those outside the vehicle.

We may want to specify that all skills are Limited by the Driving skill of the driver (not simply Modified). In intervehicular combat, I can see the opposite: a good Pilot/Driver can help line up shots. But if the rules are to represent vehicles and their handling on a personal combat level, I think passengers are unilaterally going to have their skills Limited by the Driver.

[Sanctaphrax]

Thanks for the feedback, devonapple. If these rules pass muster with you, then I feel a whole lot more comfortable using them.

I'm a bit hesitant to make the vast majority of vehicles contain zones. The reason is that it makes it impossible to make melee attacks against people inside a vehicle unless you are in the vehicle yourself. Which is appropriate if you're on the back of an elephant or in the middle of a bus, but not so much if you're in a normal car.

I'll change "requires no roll unless..." to "may or may not require a roll." As for the time required to open doors, etc, the action that you have to use to get in should (usually) cover that. Note that you can't just sprint into a vehicle by these rules. You have to take a seperate action.

I'll replace "cannot move while..." with a more detailed note that takes into account large vehicles that contain multiple zones.

You make a good point about Limiting vs Modifying. On the other hand, I want to give really good drivers a benefit. I'll have to think about it.

[UmbraLux]

Anyway, this mental stress thing is clearly not settled. I'll just list every proposed solution in the guide, with a short note explaining the issue.

My take:  Mental stress can be caused by evocations but generally requires some set up.  Mechanically, it's maneuver created aspects used in a subsequent attack.

So a wizard might use an air evocation to have the victim start hearing things...then use Deceit to drive someone over the edge while tagging "I'm Hearing Voices" and "They Say Awful Things".  With an extreme consequence, the victim is now obeying voices only he hears.  Lesser consequences may simply make him Jumpy or Paranoid.  

I do agree with the problems surrounding simple assaults on the mind.  

[devonapple]

I'm a bit hesitant to make the vast majority of vehicles contain zones. The reason is that it makes it impossible to make melee attacks against people inside a vehicle unless you are in the vehicle yourself. Which is appropriate if you're on the back of an elephant or in the middle of a bus, but not so much if you're in a normal car.

You make a good point. I'm alright with not making each car a de facto Zone, but it should be harder to hit someone in a vehicle. People always try to shoot or stick blades through cars, it is true, but the Durability gets in the way. A Zone Border seemed the simplest way to run it.

Which creates less homework, do you think?
A) vehicles aren't automatically Zones unto themselves, but their Durability acts as an Armor Block against all attacks coming from outside the car
B) all vehicles count as a sub-Zone within a larger Zone, but melee attacks targeting the vehicle from the containing Zone are allowed, though they must overcome the Zone Border of the vehicle's Durability

[Tedronai]

A) vehicles aren't automatically Zones unto themselves, but their Durability acts as an Armor Block against all attacks coming from outside the car

That might be a bit high for most vehicles.  Perhaps 1/2 their Durability as Armour, similar to shifts of power from evocation-based armour

[Sanctaphrax]

Vehicles do provide armour. The armour rating is often greater against melee than against ranged. I figured that that was enough.

The armour rating is not directly related to the durability of a vehicle, although more durable vehicles tend to provide better armour.