Incite Emotion questions

[Magicpockets]

Hello all,
I've got some questions regarding Incite Emotion:
1) Assuming you do not have the "at range" trapping, do you need to hit someone with fists before using it? Or is it considered touching when both characters are in the same zone?
2) The deceit/intimidate +2 obviously applies to maneuvers. Does it apply to blocks and attacks too? The wording is rather ambiguous.

I've always assumed that you need to roll fists vs target's melee defense and at least equalling it in order to use Incite Emotion, and that the +2 only applies only to maneuvers, but I realize this ruling might screw Chest Deep WCV a lot. What do you people think?

[Deadmanwalking]

1) In combat, yes, you need to roll Fists to touch them. In a social situation (where they're supposed to be better anyway) it's usually more doable, I mean, who doesn't shake hands?

2) It's a little unclear, so it's really up to your GM. I generally go with it applying to everything. That makes the White Court really nasty in their way, but I'm comfy with that.

[CrispyXIV]

1) In combat, yes, you need to roll Fists to touch them. In a social situation (where they're supposed to be better anyway) it's usually more doable, I mean, who doesn't shake hands?

Is that implied somewhere specific?  I've got a guy using it in the game I just started, and looking for relevant rules came up only with the note under Emotional Vampire that you can Feed and use Incite Emotions with the same roll (and action).

I also noted that DFRPG is big on 'never roll more than one action a turn', which seemed to explain the above, plus requiring multiple actions to slap the big emotion-whammy (and do a basic maneuver or Block) on someone in combat seems... really, really awful as an ability.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, it's a -1 ability that gives a new skill trapping (or, really, two since it can Maneuver or Block) and a +2 to using it (both of them really). Expecting it to be good in physical combat, too, might be a bit much. At Range is what makes it a combat power, IMO.

[CrispyXIV]

Well, it's a -1 ability that gives a new skill trapping (or, really, two since it can Maneuver or Block) and a +2 to using it (both of them really). Expecting it to be good in physical combat, too, might be a bit much. At Range is what makes it a combat power, IMO.

Wait... its not business as usual to allow Deceit and Intimidate for maneuevers or blocks in combat anyway?

Deceit for feinting (Thrown Off Balance) or distractions (Look Over There!) or confusion (I'm Really an Undercover Cop!) in combat all seemed pretty intuitive, as did Intimidate for intimidation (Shaken, Bigger Than He Looked, This Is The Part Where You Run Away) stuff, too...

...in which case Incite Emotions in these situations is just giving a +2 to one (said two previously, but forgot Incite only gives one emotion to start) skills under very specific situations (Maneuevers and Blocks, at Touch Range, versus things who care about emotions).  Thats better than a stunt (or at least, with its other additions, more broad), but so are most powers (and this one not by much).

Or am I running that wrong then?

[Sanctaphrax]

1) In combat, yes, you need to roll Fists to touch them. In a social situation (where they're supposed to be better anyway) it's usually more doable, I mean, who doesn't shake hands?

Pretty sure you're wrong. Maybe Fists could restrict Deceit, or maybe victims could defend with Athletics, but there's no real reason to assume some kind of bizarre and unique double-roll.

Especially since touching someone is really easy. Even in a fight.

Bear in mind that DFRPG is fairly abstract...stuff like touching is usually left out of the mechanics.

2 is a long-standing ambiguity. I prefer applying the bonus to blocks but not to attacks.

[Deadmanwalking]

Pretty sure you're wrong. Maybe Fists could restrict Deceit, or maybe victims could defend with Athletics, but there's no real reason to assume some kind of bizarre and unique double-roll.

Especially since touching someone is really easy. Even in a fight.

Not in a gunfight. Or when using some kind of defensive spell. Though I suppose both of those do avoid the issue in other ways...

Okay, I'm convinced. You can almost certainly defend with Athletics, but the roll doesn't change.

Bear in mind that DFRPG is fairly abstract...stuff like touching is usually left out of the mechanics.

True enough usually. It just seems like 'not letting them touch you' should be an option...but letting people defend with Athletics does that.
.
.
.
Honestly, At Range is just so useful(even without this aspect of it) that I've never seen a PC White Court without it, so this has never actually come up in play.

[Sanctaphrax]

Honestly, At Range is just so useful(even without this aspect of it) that I've never seen a PC White Court without it, so this has never actually come up in play.

Same here, actually.

On second thought, maybe I had some NPCs with Incite Emotion without At Range once. I have a vague memory of pain demons.

But never a PC. PCs always seem to go for At Range.

[Magicpockets]

Honestly, At Range is just so useful(even without this aspect of it) that I've never seen a PC White Court without it, so this has never actually come up in play.

Chest Deep White Court Vampires aren't really popular, hmm? I feel like they are among the weakest at chest deep, and really start to shine at submerged and higher.