Cleaning Up The Stunt List

[Anher]

It just seems that the reduction when using Deceit for Social Attacks feels out of place given the way it's worded, at least from what I'm seeing.

What it looks like is the stunt gives you a bonus to convince someone to ignore what's going on by telling them something that's been repeated in the media before. To me that's straight off the Misdirection trapping, which makes it seem like a Social Attack. Which is why I suggested a potential +2 to the result of a successful Social Attack with Deceit.

Though I could be off in my interpretation of what you had envisioned.

[Sanctaphrax]

Nah, it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the media. That's just one example.

Other possible lies:

-I am a heterosexual woman.
-I am not an undercover policeman.
-Queen Mab is your friend.
-The moon is not real; it's a hologram.

And attacks are only part of what it's good for. It can also be used for maneuvers, Declarations, non-conflict rolls, defense rolls, and blocks.

So I don't think it'd be a good idea to make it into a weapon rating booster. Too much functionality would be lost.

[CottbusFiles]

I was thinking about that one, what do you think:

Mind of Steel : You learned through hard lessons to live with pictures you get from your sight. Get +2 to defend against attacks from the images you are seeing.

[Anher]

@Scantaphrax: Well, it just seems odd for it to have reduced effectiveness for attacks when there is a stunt under Deceit that gives a flat +2 to attempts to convince people what you're saying is true if you incorperate some of the truth.

[ways and means]

@Scantaphrax: Well, it just seems odd for it to have reduced effectiveness for attacks when there is a stunt under Deceit that gives a flat +2 to attempts to convince people what you're saying is true if you incorperate some of the truth.

This is a balance issue area which has already been discussed but it basically comes down too do you think the stunt guidelines for attack trapping stunts apply equally to social combat as they do to physical combat or do you think because nearly all the example of canon social stunts in your story seem to ignore this rule (infuriate, honest lies etc) that the combat trapping stunt guidelines were meant for physical attacks only and that stunts for social combat are more open (because of the lack of social weaponry).  Personally I go with the your story examples as a template but I know Sanctaphrax goes with the interpretation that all the stunt guidelines apply equally to all types of conflict which I suppose means he rejects some of the stunts in your story. Mind you neither my opinion nor his really matter this is defiantly a case of gm digression and how s/he wants to run the game.   

[Sanctaphrax]

What ways and means said.

What it comes down to is that the rules and the canonical examples contradict each other.

I side with the rules. ways and means sides with the examples.

Every stunt on the new stunt list that is affected by this controversy will be marked with ** so that folks like ways and means will know that they should alter them for their games.

Not sure if that's a perfect solution, but it's the best one I could think of that didn't involve writing everything twice.

[Anher]

I can understand that, like I said it just struck me as odd and even looking at the rules and examples last night I couldn't seem to make the wording you've used for that fit for effect, though I may not have done as much looking as I could have.

[Sanctaphrax]

@CottbusFiles: Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore you. Here's what I meant to say earlier: this isn't really the place for new stunts. this is.

@Anher: I'm sorry, once again I have failed to extract the meaning from your post. Please explain.

[Anher]

I'll try.

The interpretation bit is completely understandable since that's personal preference.

What I was trying to say about the effect of the stunt is that I couldn't find any that worked exactly like that. I've seen straight +2 stunts and stunts that are +1 on a broad subject with an additional +1 to a narrower focus for a total of +2. The only things I've seen that become less effective are armor or attacks vs specific armor. That had me a bit puzzled on why you worded the stunt the way you have.

[Sanctaphrax]

True, it isn't all that similar to any canon example.

But what's the problem with that?

This is the best way I could think of to word the stunt.

[Anher]

There's nothing wrong with it. I was simply trying to reconcile it with examples from YS and having no luck.

[Sanctaphrax]

Edited new Trained As A Unit for clarity.

Now for purple Driving, Empathy, and Endurance stunts:

Bartender's Ear: Like any good bartender, you know how to understand drunk people. Add two to your Empathy skill when dealing with people who are under the influence of alcohol.

This one is a bit lame. However, I don't see any way to make it better. So it'll stay the same unless I hear a good suggestion.

Tough as Nails: You don’t seem to feel pain the way normal people do. When an opponent tags or invokes one of your consequences in a physical conflict they only receive +1 to their roll. If they choose to reroll, you may lock down one of his dice and leave him only 3 to reroll.

The canon stunt that this is based off of only works against attacks. I think that this should have the same restriction. New version:

Tough as Nails: You don’t seem to feel pain the way normal people do. When an opponent tags or invokes one of your consequences when attacking you in a physical conflict they only receive +1 to their roll. If they choose to reroll, you may lock down one of his dice and leave them only 3 to reroll.

Spell Resistance: Your body rejects the effects of magic more effectively than most. You have a natural armour score of 1 against magic which stacks with everything.

This isn't terrible, but I like it better as an Athletics defense stunt and it makes more sense that way to boot. New version:

Spell Resistance: You're quite good at surviving magical aggression. Add two to your Athletics skill when using it to defend against Evocation effects.

Inexhaustible Power: You always have a bit more juice to draw upon. You may take two additional mild mental or physical consequences when facing the stress incurred from using evocation.

Should only grant mental consequences. New version:

Inexhaustible Power: You always have a bit more juice to draw upon. You may take two additional mild mental consequences when facing the stress incurred from using Evocation.

Was That Supposed To Hurt?: You are TOUGH. You don't avoid attacks, you just take them right. Use your Endurance skill to “dodge” attacks.

As discussed before, this needs a restriction. It now has one:

Was That Supposed To Hurt?: You are TOUGH. You don't avoid attacks, you just take them right. You may use your Endurance skill to defend against any physical attack that could plausibly strike you without inflicting a significant injury.

Any objections?

[Tedronai]

Spell Resistance should probably be reworked to include attacks which cannot reasonably defended against via athletics (there are several examples of such in YS, and the fluff provided would not exclude them from the bonus) as well as attacks from enchanted items and thaumaturgic rituals.
Either that, or rework the fluff such that the restricted nature of the stunt makes sense (and even then, it seems a little too restricted to me).

[Sanctaphrax]

Good point.

But I think that attacks that bypass Athletics should bypass this stunt. Because, well, it's an Athletics stunt. It's unfair, but that's kind of unavoidable when you're bypassing Athletics.

New version:

Spell Resistance: You're quite good at surviving magical aggression. Add two to your Athletics skill when using it to defend against spellcasting. (Enchanted items are a form of spellcasting.)

[Tedronai]

It's only an athletics stunt because '[you] like it better that way'.  Not exactly terribly sound reasoning.