Author Topic: So I'm probably missing something  (Read 8849 times)

Offline Vargo Teras

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 113
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2012, 04:17:38 PM »
Without something like Kemmlerian Necromancy to provide psychomancy as evocation, you're probably limited to fairly simple and straightforward effects.

Offline Shadowman17

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2012, 04:34:18 PM »
In this case, I wasn't thinking about anything too complex, more of a psychic pressure effect.

Offline Tedronai

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2343
  • Damane
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2012, 05:17:35 PM »
Thanks for these responses. Just a note, my player doesn't want to just halve enchanted item blocks, but all blocks.

This, to me, suggests a possible 'inadvertent house rule' regarding blocks.  Because they're pretty much useless at low values (which a value of half peak skill definitely is except against mooks).
Could you explain your table's understanding of what it is that a block accomplishes?

I think his issue with aiming is that when he looks at the books series, Harry misses with his spells quite a bit. What I'm not sure he understands is that, from a mechanical perspective, Harry's control, and thus targeting, isn't all that great, at least at the start. As stated in Our World, he's got Superb Conviction and only good Discipline, and any of his focus items only give +1 control at best.

This, on the other hand, screams 'inadvertent house rule' regarding what it means, narratively, for an attack to 'hit' mechanically.

Inflicting stress does not mean that the target of the attack took that ball of fire straight to the face.  In fact, unless a consequence is inflicted, it doesn't even mean that a single hair on their head will be singed.
Even if they DO take a consequence from an attack, even that doesn't necessarily mean that the attack itself caused any harm, narratively speaking, at least.  They could have twisted their ankle while desperately throwing themselves out of the path of the fireball hurtling towards them, or any number of other 'third-party' sources of injury.
Even Chaotic Neutral individuals have to apologize sometimes. But at least we don't have to mean it.
Slough

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2012, 06:20:01 PM »
@fantazero, about mental attacks: can they be performed as evocation? The mental conflict section specifically mentions Thaumaturgy, however in the evocation section under elements, it's mentioned that the Spirit element covers mental magic.

Oh, great. This again.

There's no definite answer to this, let me try to summarize the situation.

1. Some parts of the novels indicate that you can, since mental evocation is the easiest way to model a few spells in them. On the other hand, if one treats the novels as a DFRPG game with mental attacks allowed then Harry looks like an idiot for not dropping mental evocations left and right. Maybe he's just getting compelled.

2. The rules are somewhat vague. Either answer is more or less supported by Your Story. The balance is probably slightly weighted towards them being possible.

3. It's really not a good idea from a balance standpoint. It's a massive power upgrade for everyone with spellcasting. And that's not desirable, since as you know wizards are already pretty boss. And it makes the Spirit element even more better than the others.

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #34 on: February 07, 2012, 06:28:33 PM »
Alternatively, straight up mental attacks that cause consequences (i.e., lasting psychological damage) are probably going up against the Laws of Magic--and while that may make it technically acceptable to use it on Vampires, Ghouls, etc., it probably falls under the 'really bad habit to get into' category regardless. Mental maneuvers on the other hand are probably more kosher since they're much more temporary.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2012, 06:44:43 PM by Mr. Death »
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Shadowman17

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2012, 07:36:43 AM »
In terms of my players performing mental mojo quickly, that's pretty much out of the question, as long as I can compel them and they don't buy it off. Just because they have an element on their sheet doesn't mean they have full mastery of it. Look at Harry, for instance. He's fine when he wants to use kinetic force, but up until Changes, his veils suck. According to Your Story, that's the result of compels. My wizards are heavy hitters, no good at the delicate stuff.

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #36 on: February 08, 2012, 03:06:42 PM »
In terms of my players performing mental mojo quickly, that's pretty much out of the question, as long as I can compel them and they don't buy it off. Just because they have an element on their sheet doesn't mean they have full mastery of it. Look at Harry, for instance. He's fine when he wants to use kinetic force, but up until Changes, his veils suck. According to Your Story, that's the result of compels. My wizards are heavy hitters, no good at the delicate stuff.

Yeah, I would definitely handle it this way.  YS discusses finesse casters, such as Molly, and more "thuggish" casters, such as Harry by tying everything into their Aspects. 

One thing to watch out for, though, are characters who constantly suggest a course of action knowing you'll compel them against it in order to farm FPs.  If this happens too often, it might be time to suggest a change of Aspect for them.
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #37 on: February 08, 2012, 03:10:45 PM »
It might be a good time to point out a classic staple: illusion magic.

Illusionists should certainly be dealing mental stress.  Illusions can't truly hurt you, but they can scare the bejeezus out of you and can leave lasting psychological trauma.

There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys

Offline fantazero

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1217
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #38 on: February 08, 2012, 03:19:01 PM »
Or Psychedelic Mushrooms or Plants.
You can make it a scene based attack. Like a poison gas.
Make them roll for say Discipline (Or whatever) to "Not See" the illusions or at least to ignore them.

Have a Character whose family was killed? How screwed up would it be to see her trying to eat your face, or making out with the Big Bad of your game.

I mean, you as a GM will always have the power to kill your players, but you dont want to do that, you want to challenge them.
Take away a Wizards ability to do Magic isnt cheating, its making things interesting.

Thats why Batman is an interesting Character, hes mortal and fights crazy  powerful guys all the time and wins
Superman sucks because hes superman, nothing challenges him

Offline CottbusFiles

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 135
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #39 on: February 08, 2012, 08:56:43 PM »
A couple ideas:

*Throw some werewolves at them.  It's definitely on the greyer line of the 1st Law, and will force them to pull their punches.

It in fact does not. You can still hit them with your +9 Weapon 10 attack. If you take them out you get to narrate the how. You don't even have to kill anyone (have a FP in reserve just in case) by RAW.
Trouble Aspect : The nazis are trying to kill me
                       I have a phoenix inside of me
                       Nothing goes like i want it to

Offline Becq

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1253
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #40 on: February 08, 2012, 09:10:48 PM »
It in fact does not. You can still hit them with your +9 Weapon 10 attack. If you take them out you get to narrate the how. You don't even have to kill anyone (have a FP in reserve just in case) by RAW.
Yup.  Per the conventional interpretation of the RAW, you can Nuke a city and narrate that all of the victims were merely knocked out (and maybe had some bad sunburns).

Of course, you might also consider stressing that regarding getting taken out, the rules state that "The outcome must remain within the realm of reason" (YS203).  One could argue that if you shove a shotgun in someone's mouth and pull the trigger, it is not "within the realm of reason" for the target to be merely hospitalized.  Similar logic could apply to spells with weapon ratings that make elephant guns whimper.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #41 on: February 08, 2012, 11:39:05 PM »
@Shadowman17: That isn't really a solution. Wizards need a free fate point every fight about as much as they need a free way to bypass Toughness. And if it's a big enough deal, your wizards can always refuse the compel.

@Orladdin: I disagree completely. An aspect that gets compelled all the time to make people act suboptimally is a good aspect.

And illusions aren't necessarily possible with evocation, and if they are they might not be capable of inflicting stress.

@fantazero: You need to read better Superman stories.

@CottbusFiles: It indeed defies plausibility to nuke a city block without killing anyone, but I don't think that nonlethal sleep spells are impossible. And a sleep spell is probably best represented as a physical attack.


Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #42 on: February 09, 2012, 03:25:42 PM »
And illusions aren't necessarily possible with evocation, and if they are they might not be capable of inflicting stress.
Certain events in Ghost Story would seem to indicate they are possible, though I'm with you on the stress bit.
Compels solve everything!

http://blur.by/1KgqJg6 My first book: "Brothers of the Curled Isles"

Quote from: Cozarkian
Not every word JB rights is a conspiracy. Sometimes, he's just telling a story.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_T_mld7Acnm-0FVUiaKDPA The C-Team Podcast

Offline Shadowman17

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 93
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #43 on: February 09, 2012, 03:28:00 PM »
Illusions like that, Mr. Death, would probably be adjudicated like a veil, as a block against perception.

Offline Orladdin

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 514
  • The Undauntable
    • View Profile
Re: So I'm probably missing something
« Reply #44 on: February 09, 2012, 03:39:45 PM »
@Orladdin: I disagree completely. An aspect that gets compelled all the time to make people act suboptimally is a good aspect.

I agree there, but what I meant was someone choosing aspects that specifically counter the way they intend to play their character in order to farm FP that way.  If their aspects are geared toward thuggish spells, and the player always tries subtle spells first (tugging out the compels) they get a free-flowing source of fate points at no real disadvantage-- they're doing it intentionally.

Consider: shouldn't someone's aspects actually guide how they intend to play their character?  Isn't that the whole point?
There is never a blanket answer to an ethical question.  This includes the Laws of Magic.

Perpetrator of The Cold Days Release FAQ

"I never make stupid mistakes. Only very, very clever ones."
-- The Doctor, Timewyrm: Genesys