Author Topic: Stunt Balance Problems  (Read 8451 times)

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Stunt Balance Problems
« on: August 20, 2011, 02:53:51 AM »
There are some stunts that, while balanced in theory, become rather unfair when combined with supernatural powers.

For example:

Off-Hand Weapon Training can add more than 2 to an attack's stress if the character is dual-wielding weapons rated above 4. This can easily happen with enchanted items, and it isn't terribly improbable with Items Of Power either.

Swing For The Fences loses its drawback if the character is using an unconventional skill or an enchanted item to defend himself.

Deceit or Intimidation stunts giving +2 to the creation of emotions become too strong if used with Incite Emotion. Stunts boosting physical attacks are limited to a +1 accuracy bonus, and there's no good reason why mental attacks should be easier to boost.

I'm sure I could find more if I looked, but this is ought to be enough for now.

How do you handle this sort of issue? Do you balance stunts in the context of the character taking them? Do you just re-interpret problematic stunts? Do you do something else?

And are there any other stunts that have given you trouble of this sort?

Offline TheMouse

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #1 on: August 20, 2011, 04:15:23 AM »
Okay. Let's go through these.

Off Hand Weapon Training -- I think that the limiting factor on this is that you need a weapon:4+ weapon and a weapon:5+ item (each that you can wield in one hand) in order for this to pay off more than 2. After all, if you have a 3 and a 5, you can add 2 to your 5 (for 7) and not break the +2 cap, or break the +2 cap to add 3 to your 3... but do less damage at the end of the day. This gets to be pretty resource intensive to get two huge weapons that you can use one-handed.

Swing for the Fences -- Don't see this. Page number?

Deceit or Intimidation Stunts -- These should give +1, not +2. The guidelines for attack Stunts are clear on this, and they don't specify physical attacks.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #2 on: August 20, 2011, 04:27:41 AM »
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.

Swing For The Fences is from Fix's writeup in OW.

Your point about attacks is legitimate, but unfortunately it is directly contradicted by one of the sample stunts. Specifically, Infuriate from Intimidation. My current reading of this contradiction was that they meant to specify physical attacks. But it could be that Infuriate is just badly written.

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #3 on: August 20, 2011, 05:34:26 AM »
Off-Hand Weapon Training can add more than 2 to an attack's stress if the character is dual-wielding weapons rated above 4. This can easily happen with enchanted items, and it isn't terribly improbable with Items Of Power either.
Quote
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.
If someone wants to dual wield IoP weapons, I would probably just make the weapons a set anyway, giving them a weapon rating that would represent (and possibly include) this stunt or something similar. Maybe at weapon 4 or 5 when wielding both of them, while each on their own would be a weapon:1. That way, the character concept is concentrated on 1 IoP rather than 2 or more, while still keeping the style of the dual wield.

If a player absolutely wants to dual wield swords of the cross, he better have a damn good reason for it. Plus, it would cost him 9 refresh alone to do so (3 for the first sword, 5 for the second, 1 for the stunt), which would mean, he would not be able to pick up any of the other true believer powers in a game that starts at 10 refresh, which kind of makes the concept itself broken. And even then, a sword of the cross is written as a weapon:2, if they are one handed. On the other hand, having a second sword of the cross would not give him any new powers, so the second sword can mechanically be seen as a mundane sword, there is no difference if he has 1 or 2. He would not have to pay refresh on the weapon, but it would only grant him +1 weapon rating for the stunt, which is good, but not overpowered.

I would probably try to keep IoPs in the lower weapon ratings anyway. A sword is a sword is a weapon:2 (or 3 as a 2 handed weapon). If you want to add to this, there are things like "True aim", which is on the swords of the cross. Or give the  weapon a damage bonus like the strength powers provide, but don't make them flat out higher weapon ratings. That way, the stunt still makes sense and will always simply give a +1 to the weapon rating of an attack (because 1 handed weapons are thought to be weapon:1 or 2 at max), except when you can attack with 2 twohanded weapons (probably reserved for hulking size and/or strength powers), where it is a +2 and that is it. Of course that would still become problematic, if you are carrying 2 IoP with different special effects, but that would become a refresh problem again, very quickly.
In the case of the dual wield IoP described above, I would probably make them both a weapon:1, resulting in a weapon:2 with the incorporated stunt, and then give them a power that would boost their damage. Maybe a stunt that would add an aspect on a successful hit, that has to be tagged on the next attack and can't be given to another player. It would make the weapons sort of lock onto a target. Pretty powerful, once you have connected (or maybe inflicted at least 1 stress, "thirst for blood" sounds good for an IoP power) ,but you would still have to hit without the bonus.

If you have enchanted weapons, activation the enchantment is a full action, and I would not allow a double trigger on enchanted items. Even when using the stunt, that would be a weapon:10 attack plus a weapon:2 / 2 resulting in a weapon:11 attack. Yes, that is a lot, but 1 weapon rating really does not make much of a difference. If you would have 2 weapon:10 attacks on the same exchange, resulting in a weapon:15 attack, I agree, that is too much. Though I would probably not even allow the use of the stunt AND the enchanted item. The action is either about your super sword fighting skills, or it is about the enchanted sword, not both.
 
Quote
Swing For The Fences loses its drawback if the character is using an unconventional skill or an enchanted item to defend himself.
This one is simple to solve. Sure it says "weapons, fists or athletics", but I would simply have it say "on your defence roll", whatever skill is used. The idea behind the stunt is, that you can make a more powerful attack by opening your defence and making yourself vulnerable, and you are not less vulnerable from that move, just because you use a different skill.

Quote
Deceit or Intimidation stunts giving +2 to the creation of emotions become too strong if used with Incite Emotion. Stunts boosting physical attacks are limited to a +1 accuracy bonus, and there's no good reason why mental attacks should be easier to boost.
Quote
Your point about attacks is legitimate, but unfortunately it is directly contradicted by one of the sample stunts. Specifically, Infuriate from Intimidation. My current reading of this contradiction was that they meant to specify physical attacks. But it could be that Infuriate is just badly written.
There are a lot of stunts that give you a +2 when creating maneuvers with a skill. Suddenly this stunt is the equivalent of a social or mental gun, that seems very wrong. I would change it to only apply when trying to put a temporary aspect on the target. It would still be strong, and it could be tagged on the subsequent incite emotion roll, but it would take 2 exchanges to do so, which would be in line with any comparable stunt.

I think the most important part is to look at the spirit of a stunt, not so much at the wording (which is a bit off at times). I know, players and GMs discussing this can be like a fay bargaining, but I think any of the solutions above leaves the stunts viable, while removing the part that would be overpowered or badly worded.

I hope that helped. If something is unclear, please ask.
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline Todjaeger

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 332
  • Dresden Files Alpha Burn Playtester
    • View Profile
    • Butchered New Haven campaign site
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2011, 05:57:41 AM »
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Wizard-level Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.

I don't actually see this as a 'real' problem though.  Sure, using a properly 'built' Crafter, a player could end up with a pair of highly potent enchanted weapons.  However, just how much did the character have to 'spend' to get enchanted weapons that potent?  Off the top of my head, in order for a character to have a Weapon: 10 effect, the Crafter would need to have Lore: Superb (+5) or thereabouts.  Also at least two Enchanted Item slots are required, as are several points of Refresh to purchase Refinements to boost the level of the effect, potentially allow other wielders of the enchanted weapon(s), and/or increase the number of uses.  In effect, if the character is powerful enough to create two Weapon:10 enchanted items, or even just a single Weapon:10 and another one at Weapon:8, the character most likely not have the skills or other abilities to make good use of such potent enchanted items.

-Cheers
Kill the Child, Doom the World...  Or is it, Kill the Child, Save the World?

Dresden Files Purity test: http://knnn.x10.mx/purity2/purity.html

My results: http://knnn.x10.mx/purity2/purity-result.html?55:70:18:23:6:6:17:26:11:27:11:37:14:41:20:28:3:5:

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #5 on: August 20, 2011, 11:00:41 AM »
I think the balance factor of infuriate is that it means the character using it draws a ton of aggro (gets attacked a lot) as the stunt explicitly references that all consequences created  reference the user.

Swing for the Fences lowers your defense, block aren't defense roll they are block with have a different mechanic so swing for the fences wouldn't effect them even if you did extend it beyond athletics, fists and weapons.
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.

Offline TheMouse

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #6 on: August 20, 2011, 01:41:31 PM »
The Off-Hand Weapon Training thing is pretty resource-intensive. But if one is making a Crafter, and one has access to weapon 10 enchanted swords, then Off-Hand Weapon Training starts looking pretty damn attractive. Too attractive, actually. It's just better than other stress-boosting stunts in that situation.
Well, everything starts to break if you do things like that. If you want to prevent things like that without rewriting how Thaumaturgy works entirely, just rule that weapons more potent than, say, weapon:5 require two hands.

Swing For The Fences is from Fix's writeup in OW.
Ah. That's why I couldn't find it. I was looking for a Stunt in the Stunt section. Silly me.

Anyway, yeah. That Stunt is broke sauce. Ask your wizard buddy to Block for you or take a Stunt that lets you defend otherwise, and you just get a +2 to hit (which is huge) every turn. That needs some errata lovin'.

Your point about attacks is legitimate, but unfortunately it is directly contradicted by one of the sample stunts. Specifically, Infuriate from Intimidation. My current reading of this contradiction was that they meant to specify physical attacks. But it could be that Infuriate is just badly written.
I'm going to say poorly written, yeah. When examples break general rules and don't note that they're able to do so, I assume that they are a mistake. Since that gets rid of an obvious problem, I'm comfortable with it.

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #7 on: August 20, 2011, 02:56:52 PM »
Anyway, yeah. That Stunt is broke sauce. Ask your wizard buddy to Block for you or take a Stunt that lets you defend otherwise, and you just get a +2 to hit (which is huge) every turn. That needs some errata lovin'.
I'm going to say poorly written, yeah. When examples break general rules and don't note that they're able to do so, I assume that they are a mistake. Since that gets rid of an obvious problem, I'm comfortable with it.

I think if your wizard buddy is doing the defence, that is not broken. Harry and Murph work like that all the time. That is just good teamwork, not a broken rule. The wizard himself would never get to attack, if he only blocks. If the wizard would create an aspect every turn for the other one to attack, it would also be +2 every time, so I think it is absolutely ok that way.
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline TheMouse

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #8 on: August 20, 2011, 03:28:23 PM »
I think if your wizard buddy is doing the defence, that is not broken. Harry and Murph work like that all the time. That is just good teamwork, not a broken rule.
Having your wizard buddy block is only one way to take advantage. You can use a magical Block yourself if you're magically inclined. You can use a Stunt that allows you to use another Skill to defend.

The point is, it gets you a +2 attack bonus with a disadvantage you can get around without much of a problem.

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #9 on: August 20, 2011, 03:38:38 PM »
The point is, it gets you a +2 attack bonus with a disadvantage you can get around without much of a problem.
That's just it, it doesn't. I said something about using another skill before, I would still apply the -2 there, because that is what the stunt does, you can't get around the penalty by simply taking another skill to defend. You basically give yourself the aspect "vulnerable defence", which your attacker then tags.
But if you use one exchange to put up a block and then use the next action with swing to the fences, there is pretty much no difference between that and first setting up a maneuver and then tagging it to get +2 on your attack, you are essentially sacrificing 1 action for a +2 bonus on the next, which seems fine to me. If you put up a mundane block before, I might be inclined, depending on the kind of block you did, to say once you do your swing to the fences move, the block is gone, because you can't simultaneously lunge forward and keep up a good defence with it.
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline ways and means

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1783
  • What Lies in the Truth, what truth in the Lies.
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #10 on: August 20, 2011, 03:44:45 PM »
I thought with enchanted items you could only activate 1 offensive item a turn so even if you did have 2 enchanted blades of peerless cutting and the stunt you could only activate 1 at a time so you would have one weapon 10 weapon and one weapon 2 weapon rather than two weapon 10, so a final weapons rating of 11 rather than 15, +1 which isn't unbalanced for a stunt. 
Every night has its day.
Even forever must come to an end....
I think.

Offline TheMouse

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 733
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #11 on: August 20, 2011, 04:17:32 PM »
That's just it, it doesn't. I said something about using another skill before, I would still apply the -2 there, because that is what the stunt does, you can't get around the penalty by simply taking another skill to defend. You basically give yourself the aspect "vulnerable defence", which your attacker then tags.
That's your house rule, not what the book says. Which is fine as fixes go, but we're talking about what the Stunt actually does according to the book.

But if you use one exchange to put up a block and then use the next action with swing to the fences, there is pretty much no difference between that and first setting up a maneuver and then tagging it to get +2 on your attack, you are essentially sacrificing 1 action for a +2 bonus on the next, which seems fine to me. If you put up a mundane block before, I might be inclined, depending on the kind of block you did, to say once you do your swing to the fences move, the block is gone, because you can't simultaneously lunge forward and keep up a good defence with it.
I'm talking about a magical block. Those can last for a while and apply to several defenses. A single free invocation happens once. Then you're using a single action to set up a couple rounds of defense that get around the -2 penalty and taking advantage of the +2 bonus. You can get a significantly higher bonus this way.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #12 on: August 20, 2011, 04:21:06 PM »
That's your house rule, not what the book says. Which is fine as fixes go, but we're talking about what the Stunt actually does according to the book.
I'm talking about a magical block. Those can last for a while and apply to several defenses. A single free invocation happens once. Then you're using a single action to set up a couple rounds of defense that get around the -2 penalty and taking advantage of the +2 bonus. You can get a significantly higher bonus this way.

As opposed to a caster using a single action to set up a block lasting several exchanges, thus making up for the fact that they have crap all in any conventional defense skill?
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #13 on: August 20, 2011, 04:59:15 PM »
That's your house rule, not what the book says. Which is fine as fixes go, but we're talking about what the Stunt actually does according to the book.
And you are talking about a house rule stunt that moves the defence action to a skill that isn't weapons, fists or athletics, and if you do that, you should look at how it might affects other stunts and adjust them accordingly, I do not see the problem.

Quote
I'm talking about a magical block. Those can last for a while and apply to several defenses. A single free invocation happens once. Then you're using a single action to set up a couple rounds of defense that get around the -2 penalty and taking advantage of the +2 bonus. You can get a significantly higher bonus this way.
If you can set up a decent block for a few exchanges, you have put significant amounts of refresh into that power, so I don't see, why it should not be an advantage. A character with supernatural speed or toughness would equally not suffer from this stunt as a mortal would. Evocation + a few points of refresh are more expensive and need a full action to be set up, I don't see why the character should not be able to benefit from it. And the attacker can even break through the block, something that a speed or toughness power does not have to deal with.
“Do you not know that a man is not dead while his name is still spoken?”
― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Stunt Balance Problems
« Reply #14 on: August 20, 2011, 05:08:24 PM »
Mm. Truth be told, I'm not really worried about these specific examples. I can fix them, no problem. But I was interested to see what general approaches you guys had to these things.

Swing For The Fences could easily be rewritten to give a bonus to attacks against you, like Hulking Size.

Infuriate could be rewritten in a number of ways. Like Mouse says, it's likely only problematic because of a mistake in the first place.

Off-Hand Weapon Training could easily be made into a general +2 stress while dual-wielding.

There are two arguments for the balance of Off-Hand Weapon Training that I'd like to address.

First, I know of no rule limiting you to activating one enchanted weapon per turn. A page reference would be appreciated if possible.

Second, the resource investment needed to make the stunt overpowered is not relevant. Partly because stunts are not drawn from a fixed list, but mostly because some characters will have made that investment anyway.

Anecdote time.

I was making a Warden as a personal antagonist for a player character in my PbP game, and because the player character in question is pretty well optimized I decided to make him similarly powerful. I chose to make him a Crafting specialist, and I gave him a Crafting power of 12. Then I looked around for Weapons stunts, because he was supposed to be a master swordsman to go with the Warden Crafter thing. At that point I realized that both Swing For The Fences and Off-Hand Weapon training were way overpowered in this guy's hands*.

So I started made this thread.

*I might just use them in their original forms anyway, though. I suspect that the player would do the same.