Cleaning Up The Stunt List

[ALurker]

Found it on pg 250 (and I believe this is significant enough to have its own post).

Hey, Billy, can you take a stunt or cast a spell or make an item of some kind that gives you armor against the mental stress caused by casting a spell?
Good question! And no, you can’t. Armor just doesn’t help against stress you inflict on yourself.

[Sanctaphrax]

@admiralducksauce:

Alright, I'll add a context warning.

@ALurker:

Was That Supposed To Hurt?: What I was trying to say is that the damage from a bullet could just as easily be represented as the damage from falling down in order to avoid a bullet. So this could be non-supernatural. Not that it matters, given that I intend to make it useless against things that are too lethal to shrug off when I revise it.

Five-Fingered Discount: Point taken. I think the problems that you mentioned are best handled by GM discretion, so I'll just add a note saying that the difficulty and time taken for theft might not be the same as that for buying. That way, the GM can keep things sane.

Backlash Absorber: Hm. Fine. A pity.

Gunner: Sounds like a level of abstraction I'm comfortable with. Maybe I'll reword it to say "vehicle weapons", just to get rid of the edge cases.

Fireproof: I still don't see how this is any less plausible than Tough Stuff...but this is not the first complaint I've received about it. If another person objects to it, it's gone.

Spell Resistance: I think I'll make this into +2 to dodge instead of armour.

Disciplined Body: A point of Refinement is honestly probably a better choice for most wizards.

Stubborn Faith: Will add a "directly" to make it a little more restrictive.

Do You Like It? I Made It Myself: I'm convinced. I'll make the change.

Attention!: Well, it's only one trapping. You still need Alertness to avoid ambushes and/or notice things.

Excellent Mount: Eh, I dunno.

Everything else: Sounds good.

[Tedronai]

Was That Supposed To Hurt?: What I was trying to say is that the damage from a bullet could just as easily be represented as the damage from falling down in order to avoid a bullet. So this could be non-supernatural. Not that it matters, given that I intend to make it useless against things that are too lethal to shrug off when I revise it.

What attacks are 'too lethal to shrug off' given the ability to sprain your ankle after getting 'hit' by a(n attack using a) fully loaded 18-wheeler going 200km/h?

[Sanctaphrax]

Anything that you could not reasonably avoid injury from if it hit (not "hit", really hit) you.

The main reason for this is not realism: it's balance. I've become convinced that Athletics-level defense should not be given to a skill with one stunt purchase. But Weapons-level defense is another matter.

[Tedronai]

Anything that you could not reasonably avoid injury from if it hit (not "hit", really hit) you.

So...usable against most things at weapon 1, some at weapon 2, a select few in select circumstances at weapon 3, and almost nothing at all, ever, that's higher?  Depending on how you word that restriction, and how a given table interprets it, of course.

[Sanctaphrax]

Depends on

a) your armour
and
b) your Toughness.

A guy with Mythic Toughness could use this against a tank round.

[Tedronai]

again, not having seen the new wording, but just toss in an 'effective', or 'net' before 'weapon rating', and that's the gist of it?

Seems to me it'd have pretty serious fluff problems, and you might want to consider going at it from another angle.

[Sanctaphrax]

Hadn't decided on the wording, and wasn't planning on explicitly including weapon rating.

What fluff issues do you see?

[Tedronai]

You can 'shrug off' a punch to the face by someone wearing brass knuckles, but not a tumble through the gravel forced by evading a fragmentation grenade?
Or, heck, a tumble through the gravel forced by evading that punch, but not an otherwise identical tumble forced by the grenade...

[Sanctaphrax]

Um, yeah.

Same logic that says a faerie can't use his Toughness against an iron knife by narrating the damage of the attack as from a roll through the gravel caused by his dodge.

I can't think of any thematic issue here not raised by Toughness and the Catch.

It's worth mentioning here that the rules of this game aren't really intended as a simulation of reality. That's why you can narrate things as you please. It's also why you can't narrate your way around the mechanics of the game.

Not sure if those last three sentences made any sense in this context...

Oh, well. I thought they were relevant.

[ways and means]

There seems to be a slight risk with nurfing technically rules legal stunts that more supernatural pc's will choose to ignore stunts all together as stunt like powers can do the same thing more effectively (with just as much flavor). For example the 1 refresh power "couple of seconds ahead" (lore for defense in physical and social) which everything was that 'supposed to hurt' stunts used to do and more (well with different skill trappings). Then again there 'was that supposed to hurt' would probably make more sense as a minor ability anyway without the new limitations. 

I thought the Armour stunt were fine as is a single point of Armour isn't going to nullify anything significant and justification don't need to make physical sense they need to make narrative sense, a person who get attacked often by magic gains a tolerance to it makes perfect narrative sense in my opinion the same with the fire stunts.

[Sanctaphrax]

And that's why I hate A Few Seconds Ahead.

Powers should not be stunts in magic suits. They definitely shouldn't be stunts in magic suits with extra stuff piled on.

When a power and a stunt compete directly, the power wins. Period. (This is why the physical armour stunts are underwhelming.)

This becomes a problem when powers become too stuntlike.

That's why I tried to write up Touch Of Emotion and a few other clearly magical effects as stunts. That turned out to be a mistake, but my intentions were good.

So now I use this principle:

If it looks stuntlike, make it into a stunt. If that isn't possible, make it into a -1 power no stronger than a stunt.

PS: I personally think that the fire stunt makes narrative sense. But the magic one...eh. What exactly is magic, and how does one learn to resist it? Why should getting hit repeatedly with Forzare make you resistant to Feugo? It makes more sense as a boost to dodging. It's more powerful that way, too.

[ALurker]

Here's another one:

Futuristic Weapons Proficiency: Why is this in the weapons skill? Shouldn't this be guns?

[Silverblaze]

I haven't responded due to one major fact.  We aren't writing a rule book.  We're compiling ideas for use in other games.  My opinion of game balance, and everyone else's is never going to truly mesh.  When opinions regarding balance do mesh...you have a great gaming group and should savor that.

Overpowered: matter of opinion; and varies game to game and how responsible the player is. I tend towards being strict and cautious here...seen way too many people who were way too good at stacking and munchkining.  personally my issue is that there is no rule against stunts stacking ...and there should be some guideline or suggested guideline.     

Supernatural: easy fix here.  Make them powers, swap their location.  Or, just leave it as is, let gaming group determine what is too supernatural.  I think removing things from the list is a disservice to those who would have liked to see the ideas listed.  Most people likely house rule hte hell out of this game...and therefore our lists should be no different.

Too weak: same as above, let groups judge this for themselves.

All of that said... I think two things need to be established here.

1. We need to try to be unbiased when compiling lists...think of it as journalistic integrity to present the lists as facts, not opinions.  I'm not saying we can't debate balance or omit things that are just pure OP or crap...but we should try to find a balance.

2.  We are never going to truly agree with wording or balance...add in the fact that this is the internet; we'll be going in circles for this forever.  Debating and arguing/trolling/flaming is half the fun.  We'll only ever establish "close enough".

That said: I'll still be a pain in the ass about game balane as ever and as opinionated as ever...but what I stated above I do believe to be cold, hard fact.

[ALurker]

I haven't responded due to one major fact.  We aren't writing a rule book.  We're compiling ideas for use in other games.  My opinion of game balance, and everyone else's is never going to truly mesh.  When opinions regarding balance do mesh...you have a great gaming group and should savor that.

Overpowered: matter of opinion; and varies game to game and how responsible the player is. I tend towards being strict and cautious here...seen way too many people who were way too good at stacking and munchkining.  personally my issue is that there is no rule against stunts stacking ...and there should be some guideline or suggested guideline.     

Supernatural: easy fix here.  Make them powers, swap their location.  Or, just leave it as is, let gaming group determine what is too supernatural.  I think removing things from the list is a disservice to those who would have liked to see the ideas listed.  Most people likely house rule hte hell out of this game...and therefore our lists should be no different.

Too weak: same as above, let groups judge this for themselves.

All of that said... I think two things need to be established here.

1. We need to try to be unbiased when compiling lists...think of it as journalistic integrity to present the lists as facts, not opinions.  I'm not saying we can't debate balance or omit things that are just pure OP or crap...but we should try to find a balance.

2.  We are never going to truly agree with wording or balance...add in the fact that this is the internet; we'll be going in circles for this forever.  Debating and arguing/trolling/flaming is half the fun.  We'll only ever establish "close enough".

That said: I'll still be a pain in the ass about game balane as ever and as opinionated as ever...but what I stated above I do believe to be cold, hard fact.

I'm not sure I get your post, first you were advocating not removing anything at all and then you suggest we remove anything that is bad. You are also advocating for trying to be unbiased while admitting being unbiased is impossible. I'm pretty sure everyone already thinks they are unbiased (or admits they might be biased but also believes they're right) and telling them to be less biased isn't going to help anything. Also, shooting for perfection is exactly how one gets close enough. Finally, I'm not really sure why you're are talking about this thread as if we've been having really heated arguments. So far this thread has been quite civil and productive.