Author Topic: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?  (Read 56524 times)

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #30 on: March 19, 2013, 10:06:49 PM »
You know, people say this a lot.

But I've never been sure why Wizards are supposed to need prep time. Ritual spells are nice but Evocation is plenty effective without them.

And so far as I can tell Wizards are just as capable of fighting dirty as mortals are.
Yeah, but the mortal needs to get the drop and fight dirty first. A lot of wizards depend on focus items or enchanted items for their attack and defense, and if they don't have those, they're vulnerable. They're also vulnerable if you can catch them before they put up a block--having your high stats in the magic ones means the physical ones are going to be lower.

Quote
Dude.

There are canonical stunts that are like Weapon Specialization except better.
I don't recall any that give you a flat +1 to all of your attacks with no drawback, or any that give a flat +2 to the weapon rating.

Weapon:4 and above are supposed to be a big deal--battlefield explosives, spells, grenades, small cars. Likewise, skills of 6 and above are supposed to be verging on superhuman ability. You really shouldn't be getting Weapon:5 attacks every round without some kind of power, and yet with this stunt any and every melee combatant can and will have it.

It's a personal pet peeve of mine that this kind of number inflation seems to be everyone's go-to. The Pure Mortal isn't supposed to be winning straight up melee with ogres and trolls, and with those stunts it becomes not just possible, but probable.

In a system where a skill of 3 is "good" and 4 is supposed to be professional level, this kind of inflation makes 6 the norm and anything less obsolete.

That's the real problem, honestly--it seems like everyone's just totally obsessed with what's optimal. A character can't compete unless they have all of those weapon specializations, because everyone else will have them. It takes choice out of the player's hands because there's a bare minimum that the character has to meet or else he'll be irrelevant next to his optimized companions.

Quote
And in a straight-up fight, mortals are actually pretty effective.
If their stats are inflated to the point where they're getting for free every round what it costs a wizard stress for every action, yeah.

Quote
What exactly makes you so sure about what the system is intended for?
The Pure Mortal template is given extra fate points because it can't match supernatural creatures in speed, defense or power--but these types of stunts make it so that any Pure Mortal who picks up a sword is superior to most all of them them, even in a Feet In The Water game.
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 Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #31 on: March 19, 2013, 10:58:09 PM »
I've had issues with players seeking optimal builds before. But not so much in FATE-based games. Still it's something to be aware of. DFRPG is about the characters and their stories more so than how effective they are in a fight.

Don't knock Righteousness or Bless This House though. I've seen them be useful quite a bit!

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #32 on: March 20, 2013, 04:09:59 AM »
Yeah, but the mortal needs to get the drop and fight dirty first.

Not necessarily. An ordinary gunshot can completely ruin a wizard's day, and beating a wizard's initiative usually isn't that hard.

A lot of wizards depend on focus items or enchanted items for their attack and defense, and if they don't have those, they're vulnerable. They're also vulnerable if you can catch them before they put up a block--having your high stats in the magic ones means the physical ones are going to be lower.

Neither of those has much to do with prep time.

I don't recall any that give you a flat +1 to all of your attacks with no drawback, or any that give a flat +2 to the weapon rating.

Way Of The AK, Flying Pointy Bits, and Archer all provide a flat +1 to hit with a particular weapon type. Actually, the former two are probably broader than I would allow a stunt in one of my games to be. I intended the Weapon Focus line of stunts to be clearly weaker than Way Of The AK.

Off-Hand Weapon Training gives +2 stress with any pair of weapon 3s. This is broader than Weapon Specialization. And in certain unusual situations it can give more than +2 stress.

Defend My Tribe also gives +2 stress with an easy-to-meet condition. PCs are frequently defending one another.

Lethal Weapon and Target-Rich Environment give equivalent bonuses, but their conditions are a bit harsher.

Armed Arts can easily give +3 stress if you have the right weapon on hand, but it's a bit of a cheap example.

None of these apply all the time. But most of them apply more often than the Weapon Focus line.

Weapon:4 and above are supposed to be a big deal--battlefield explosives, spells, grenades, small cars. Likewise, skills of 6 and above are supposed to be verging on superhuman ability. You really shouldn't be getting Weapon:5 attacks every round without some kind of power, and yet with this stunt any and every melee combatant can and will have it.

You keep talking about how things are supposed to be. But for the life of me I can't imagine how you know how things "should" be.

The rules say that you get weapon 3 for your average big weapon and that +2 stress is one of the standard stunt bonuses. Those rules don't make weapon 5 all that special.

They just don't.

It's a personal pet peeve of mine that this kind of number inflation seems to be everyone's go-to. The Pure Mortal isn't supposed to be winning straight up melee with ogres and trolls, and with those stunts it becomes not just possible, but probable.

Murphy wins all kinds of head-to-head fights.

A straight Pure Mortal combatant is a legal character and totally appropriate to the fiction. I can't work out why you don't think they should be balanced against other characters at the same level.

In a system where a skill of 3 is "good" and 4 is supposed to be professional level, this kind of inflation makes 6 the norm and anything less obsolete.

Um, no.

See, a PC who's designed to be a badass fighter will have 5s and 6s all over.

But such a PC is a badass among badasses. Even at Feet In The Water level.

I, personally, probably have 10-15 skill points and 4-6 Refresh after the Pure Mortal bonus. And I'm a pretty competent person.

It is normal and appropriate for PCs to be way more competent than most people.

That's the real problem, honestly--it seems like everyone's just totally obsessed with what's optimal. A character can't compete unless they have all of those weapon specializations, because everyone else will have them. It takes choice out of the player's hands because there's a bare minimum that the character has to meet or else he'll be irrelevant next to his optimized companions.

If you have two characters, equivalent except for the fact that one has Weapon Specialization or Defend My Tribe or something, then both will be able to contribute. One will be somewhat stronger, but not crushingly so.

This isn't hardcore optimization. It's just "take pluses to the things you want your character to be good at".

If their stats are inflated to the point where they're getting for free every round what it costs a wizard stress for every action, yeah.

That generally isn't possible, if we're talking combat wizards here.

The Pure Mortal template is given extra fate points because it can't match supernatural creatures in speed, defense or power--but these types of stunts make it so that any Pure Mortal who picks up a sword is superior to most all of them them, even in a Feet In The Water game.

What? No.

That just does not happen. Trust me, I've built characters of all types. And with these stunts, mortals don't come out ahead of equal-level supernaturals. Especially since supernaturals can take the same stunts...and maybe even the more-powerful canon stunts if the GM is feeling permissive.

(Except for when the power level is below Feet In The Water, of course. The Pure Mortal bonus is huge if you only have 4 Refresh to start with.)

I've had issues with players seeking optimal builds before. But not so much in FATE-based games. Still it's something to be aware of. DFRPG is about the characters and their stories more so than how effective they are in a fight.

Don't knock Righteousness or Bless This House though. I've seen them be useful quite a bit.

I find that optimization in DFRPG is rarely a problem because it's really easy. No need for complicated builds. Just spend your points on the thing you want to be good at.

So you don't get crippled characters much.

Anyway, RPGs in general are usually about characters and their stories. DFRPG isn't special in that regard.

I've found Righteousness plenty useful, but mostly for the Conviction complement effect.

As for Bless This House, I'd be interested in hearing how it got used. I've had contempt for it ever since I realized that neither Michael nor Charity could actually use it on their own house, and that Father Forthill probably can't use it on his church. And I've never seen it be useful.

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #33 on: March 20, 2013, 11:39:31 AM »
Can I ask a related question ? 

Is higher discipline always the best way to go?  I've just recently made a character, which after foci, has an equal discipline / conviction in his specialty.  He also has lots of enchanted items to make up for his weaknesses.  I've never played a full-fledge wizard before.  He's mostly a defensive-type wizard - unlike the one the OP was talking about.

Here he is, if someone wants to have a look.

To comment on some things:

A wizard who puts all his foci in control won't have enchanted items and would therefore lack some of the "prep" other wizards have.

Bless this house is useful for those places where things have an effective threshold of 0.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 12:09:36 PM by Taran »

Offline Cadd

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 474
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #34 on: March 20, 2013, 12:12:46 PM »
As for Bless This House, I'd be interested in hearing how it got used. I've had contempt for it ever since I realized that neither Michael nor Charity could actually use it on their own house, and that Father Forthill probably can't use it on his church. And I've never seen it be useful.

Rereading Bless this House, I realized the weird thing that as the "True" Threshold rating raises, its effective rating (including inhabitants BtH-boost) could actually drop when it hits the inhabitants Conviction score.

Michael and Charity visit someones home with a threshold rating of 4. Their prescens boosts the effective rating to 8 (+2 from each).
However, their own home most likely has 5 or 6 as threshold, thus not allowing their BtH to boost it.

What would you say to "If Conviction > Threshold, then +2; if Conviction =< Threshold, then +1"? That gives it an actual effect no matter how high the threshold is.

Offline Ard3

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #35 on: March 20, 2013, 12:27:08 PM »
What would you say to "If Conviction > Threshold, then +2; if Conviction =< Threshold, then +1"? That gives it an actual effect no matter how high the threshold is.

I thought about doing it this way too.

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #36 on: March 20, 2013, 01:10:36 PM »
In my experience, if a particular game system has a strong focus on tactical combat (like D&D) then the players are very likely to only select optimal character build options. You won't find a D&D Fighter who specializes in knife-fighting, for example, because knives and daggers do 1d4 damage while a longsword does 1d8.

FATE, thankfully, is all about story and narrative. It's actually quite difficult to create a character who has no way to contribute to the story.

With Bless This House, I think part of the reason for the restriction is one of balance, and also to reflect that there are some places where God believes the extra help isn't needed to keep people safe. I always figured that places like the Carpenter home should be extremely rare. In practical terms, I wouldn't give even a stronghold of faith like a major church a threshold higher than 3.

Offline Cadd

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 474
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #37 on: March 20, 2013, 01:58:17 PM »
With Bless This House, I think part of the reason for the restriction is one of balance, and also to reflect that there are some places where God believes the extra help isn't needed to keep people safe. I always figured that places like the Carpenter home should be extremely rare. In practical terms, I wouldn't give even a stronghold of faith like a major church a threshold higher than 3.

I'd agree with that, the problem is that the very example they give, right in the "Determining Strength" paragraph, is a church (thus starting at +3), with two factors to enhance it (very old & foundation for local Catholics) giving +2 each, thus pushed to +7!

Homes start at +4, then they give examples like "lived in for generations" and "inhabitants lived most of their lives there" as factors, so having both would be +8. The Carpenter house, using these guidelines, would have a natural threshold of at least +6 (all the kids growing up there); I'd say that Michael building it himself would warrant another +2, honestly.

Either thresholds start or build way too high, or BtH is seriously underpowered when it comes to boosting an existing threshold.

Sure, it's great at lifting a very flimsy threshold into something that actually protects, but proper homes aren't gonna see much of an increase!

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #38 on: March 20, 2013, 02:09:24 PM »
Hmm, that's true. I actually hadn't factored in all those additional circumstances. Heck, here in Ireland, where the average house is probably at least 30-50 years old and has seen several generations of families live in it, you'd be looking at +6 being a low threshold.

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #39 on: March 20, 2013, 02:18:45 PM »
I like those numbers for thresholds.  THey're supposed to keep out some of the most powerful baddies.  It does make BtH less useful for many situations.
« Last Edit: March 20, 2013, 02:48:29 PM by Taran »

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #40 on: March 20, 2013, 02:20:51 PM »
It's true. Having access to a good threshold is one of the equalizers available to mortals.

Offline Mr. Death

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 7965
  • Not all those who wander are lost
    • View Profile
    • The C-Team Podcast
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #41 on: March 20, 2013, 02:50:08 PM »
Not necessarily. An ordinary gunshot can completely ruin a wizard's day, and beating a wizard's initiative usually isn't that hard.
It certainly can--but if that gunshot doesn't take out the wizard, the wizard is going to come back with something much bigger. Hence the need for the pure mortal to prepare more, to try and prevent the wizard from having that chance.

Quote
Neither of those has much to do with prep time.
Actually, they have everything to do with prep time. It takes time and effort to fabricate them, and the wizard has to think ahead and bring them--if he doesn't have them, he isn't prepared, and he's in trouble.

Quote
Way Of The AK, Flying Pointy Bits, and Archer all provide a flat +1 to hit with a particular weapon type. Actually, the former two are probably broader than I would allow a stunt in one of my games to be. I intended the Weapon Focus line of stunts to be clearly weaker than Way Of The AK.
I'm not familiar with Flying Pointy Bits off hand, but Archer I can see because a bow is a very unusual weapon in the modern day--unlike a firearm or even a concealed knife, you're really not going to be able to take a bow everywhere, and it completely lacks any ability with spray attacks. Those restrictions, I think, justify being able to have a bonus on using a bow, since a bow is inherently inferior in a lot of ways to a modern firearm.

Quote
Off-Hand Weapon Training gives +2 stress with any pair of weapon 3s. This is broader than Weapon Specialization. And in certain unusual situations it can give more than +2 stress.
Granted. I will say, though, that it makes a lot more sense to me that being hit with a second sword causes more damage. And it would have to be a very unusual situation for someone to be swinging something Weapon:5 on their offhand weapon. I can't even think of what kind of weapon would have that, except that it would be prohibitively huge for anything smaller than your average house.

Quote
Defend My Tribe also gives +2 stress with an easy-to-meet condition. PCs are frequently defending one another.
I'll have to check this one before I can get back to you. But on this, and Way of the AK, I seem to remember someone going on at length about how the stunts and powers in Our World aren't balanced and shouldn't be taken as good examples.

Quote
Lethal Weapon and Target-Rich Environment give equivalent bonuses, but their conditions are a bit harsher.
As you say, the conditions are harsher--and, importantly, not really in the player's control.

Quote
Armed Arts can easily give +3 stress if you have the right weapon on hand, but it's a bit of a cheap example.
That's a trapping replacement, not a stress booster.

Quote
None of these apply all the time. But most of them apply more often than the Weapon Focus line.
I think this is where we differ. How is it that Weapon Focus won't apply 99% of the time? It's entirely in the player's control unless the GM tosses a compel of some kind at them--they're going to be using those bonuses for every single attack and defense in the vast, vast majority of their fight scenes.

Quote
You keep talking about how things are supposed to be. But for the life of me I can't imagine how you know how things "should" be.

The rules say that you get weapon 3 for your average big weapon and that +2 stress is one of the standard stunt bonuses. Those rules don't make weapon 5 all that special.

They just don't.
Mostly I know from, you know, reading the book, where it says that Weapon:4 is equivalent to battlefield explosives, Weapon:5 is equivalent to being hit with a small car, etc. Weapon:3 is large weapons--hard to conceal if not impossible, things you typically need two hands to swing. +2 to anything is supposed to be the most that a stunt gives, under relatively rare circumstances. "Every time the character swings the weapon that's central to his fighting ability" is not in any way "rare," in fact, it's going to be the vast majority.

Quote
Murphy wins all kinds of head-to-head fights.
Point of fact, she doesn't. In all the books, I can think of one time she wins a physical fight with something with supernatural powers, and she does that by making the fight as indirect as she can manage--after fighting directly, skill vs. skill and strength vs. strength, gets her arm broken. And she's supposed to be the series' prime example of a pure mortal physical fighter.

Quote
A straight Pure Mortal combatant is a legal character and totally appropriate to the fiction. I can't work out why you don't think they should be balanced against other characters at the same level.
As I said, it's the inflation. Effectively, a character is swinging more accurately than Michael, with more power than one of Harry's normal fire spells, for free every single round, and defending on par with Shiro, who's built up to be one of the best swordsmen in the entire setting, a "Mozart with a blade," against whom even 2000-year-old Knight-killer Nicodemus pauses.

Quote
Um, no.

See, a PC who's designed to be a badass fighter will have 5s and 6s all over.

But such a PC is a badass among badasses. Even at Feet In The Water level.

I, personally, probably have 10-15 skill points and 4-6 Refresh after the Pure Mortal bonus. And I'm a pretty competent person.

It is normal and appropriate for PCs to be way more competent than most people.
Way more competent than most people, yes. And most people are going to have 1s and maybe 2s in their physical stats. This kind of inflation makes every PC more physically able and competent than just about every creature listed in Our World.

For all her badassery, the only time Murphy's been able to stand toe-to-toe with supernatural creatures and win as easily as all these skill and stress bonuses would imply is in Changes, when she apparently had an Archangel riding shotgun.

Quote
If you have two characters, equivalent except for the fact that one has Weapon Specialization or Defend My Tribe or something, then both will be able to contribute. One will be somewhat stronger, but not crushingly so.
That's just it, though. If I'm playing alongside a character who's never swinging anything less than a Weapon:5 sword at 6, the GM is going to balance encounters to make it a challenge for him. If I'm sitting there swinging Weapon:3 at 4 or 5, I'm just not going to be able to keep up.

To paraphrase you when talking about Shields and the Rune Magic power not terribly long ago: Why would anyone ever not take these stunts, if they make a character inherently and objectively better than one without?

Quote
That generally isn't possible, if we're talking combat wizards here.
Again: Per the descriptions in the book, Weapon:4 and above are supposed to be either massively destructive (grenades), or difficult to use and acquire (prohibitively huge melee weapons and guns that Rambo would need a little help moving around). Wizards, however, can toss that kind of power around, but only by taking stress, and always with the risk of backlash.

Quote
What? No.

That just does not happen. Trust me, I've built characters of all types. And with these stunts, mortals don't come out ahead of equal-level supernaturals. Especially since supernaturals can take the same stunts...and maybe even the more-powerful canon stunts if the GM is feeling permissive.
With those stunts, every mortal will not only be outperforming, but overwhelmingly outperforming every non-named, non-Nobility-level monster in Our World.

Whereas in the fiction, Murphy treads lightly when facing anything supernatural in combat, defaults to her guns, and never engages in straight up fist fighting them if she can possibly avoid it, and when she does, she ends up with a broken limb. The fiction, and the write-up in Your Story, are pretty clear on this: Mortals can't compete with the supernatural one-on-one in a physical sense, they have to gain an advantage through maneuvering, finding weaknesses, and preparation.

These stunts go counter to all that. There's no need to maneuver when you've already got a +3 advantage on the enemy. There's no need to find weaknesses when you're getting Weapon:5 on every attack without any penalty. There's no need to take any defensive action if your defenses are +3 against any attack the enemy's going to throw at you.

It turns the Pure Mortal from a character type revolving around ingenuity and maneuvering to a character type that can just bash its way through fights doing nothing but attack attack attack.
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 Haru

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 5520
  • Mentally unstable like a fox.
    • View Profile
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #42 on: March 20, 2013, 05:09:52 PM »
Hmm, that's true. I actually hadn't factored in all those additional circumstances. Heck, here in Ireland, where the average house is probably at least 30-50 years old and has seen several generations of families live in it, you'd be looking at +6 being a low threshold.
Remember that there can be circumstances that will lower a threshold, too. Some families might not really be that close, or they just sleep in a house, without really living in it. There might be a secret that is tarnishing the threshold. I think wherever you are, +6 is still pretty rare.

Rereading Bless this House, I realized the weird thing that as the "True" Threshold rating raises, its effective rating (including inhabitants BtH-boost) could actually drop when it hits the inhabitants Conviction score.

Michael and Charity visit someones home with a threshold rating of 4. Their prescens boosts the effective rating to 8 (+2 from each).
However, their own home most likely has 5 or 6 as threshold, thus not allowing their BtH to boost it.

What would you say to "If Conviction > Threshold, then +2; if Conviction =< Threshold, then +1"? That gives it an actual effect no matter how high the threshold is.
I'd probably do it a bit different in the first place:
You have a threshold of 4, Charity enters and raises it to 6. Michael follows and his conviction is now lower than the threshold, so it stays at 6. So the power would not raise the threshold into oblivion, but it can still raise a low threshold pretty good, if multiple believers are in a house.
“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: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #43 on: March 20, 2013, 11:00:29 PM »
FATE, thankfully, is all about story and narrative. It's actually quite difficult to create a character who has no way to contribute to the story.

People say this a lot. I don't know why.

What is it about FATE that makes it more story-oriented than, say, GURPS?

And so far as I can tell, optimization is universal. But it's only really a problem in unbalanced games.

It's true. Having access to a good threshold is one of the equalizers available to mortals.

How so?

So far as I can tell Wizards and the like are allowed to have good thresholds as good as mortals'.

My main issue with Bless This House is that situations where you can use it just aren't the common. The facts that you can boost your home threshold for free and that you can't use it on the thresholds you'd most want to use it on are just extra.

Can I ask a related question ? 

Is higher discipline always the best way to go?

No. Sometimes the other casting stats are better.

Actually, they have everything to do with prep time. It takes time and effort to fabricate them, and the wizard has to think ahead and bring them--if he doesn't have them, he isn't prepared, and he's in trouble.

It doesn't actually take in-session time to make items. Item dependency is a gear issue, not a prep time issue.

Granted. I will say, though, that it makes a lot more sense to me that being hit with a second sword causes more damage. And it would have to be a very unusual situation for someone to be swinging something Weapon:5 on their offhand weapon. I can't even think of what kind of weapon would have that, except that it would be prohibitively huge for anything smaller than your average house.

Why wouldn't specializing in a single weapon make as much sense as learning to use two at once?

Anyway, the weapon 5+ offhand thing generally comes up with enchanted items. Especially the Warden sword, since dual-wielding Warden swords is just plain cool. People who know nothing about the game's mechanics can find that concept appealing, so this isn't some kind of theoretical optimization thing.

I'll have to check this one before I can get back to you. But on this, and Way of the AK, I seem to remember someone going on at length about how the stunts and powers in Our World aren't balanced and shouldn't be taken as good examples.

That may have been me.

Honestly, I think Way Of The AK is overpowered. That's why Weapon Focus is significantly weaker than it.

Your later comments about a mortal with these stunts being able to thrash most of OW are accurate, by the way. (Though you ignore the fact that it won't be every mortal, just every focused mortal combatant. The talky and thinky types are another matter.)

But that's an issue with OW.

A Feet In The Water Focused Practitioner can beat almost all of OW to death.

A Feet In The Water Changeling can beat almost all of OW to death.

A Feet In The Water mortal with no stunts can beat almost all of OW to death.

OW characters are not tough.

That's a trapping replacement, not a stress booster.

It's a trapping replacement that works exactly like a stress booster. Weird, huh?

I
think this is where we differ. How is it that Weapon Focus won't apply 99% of the time? It's entirely in the player's control unless the GM tosses a compel of some kind at them--they're going to be using those bonuses for every single attack and defense in the vast, vast majority of their fight scenes.

Mostly for the same reason that a Wizard can't necessarily use their foci all the time. Also because sometimes your weapon isn't suited to the situation.

Someone who gets +2 stress with their tiny weapon 1 knife has no combat advantage over someone with no stunt and a broadsword, but someone who gets +2 stress with a broadsword will frequently have to use something less flashy. And they'll both have to set aside their bonus if they want to make ranged attacks.

(Also Weapon Focus doesn't boost defence rolls.)

Mostly I know from, you know, reading the book, where it says that Weapon:4 is equivalent to battlefield explosives, Weapon:5 is equivalent to being hit with a small car, etc. Weapon:3 is large weapons--hard to conceal if not impossible, things you typically need two hands to swing. +2 to anything is supposed to be the most that a stunt gives, under relatively rare circumstances. "Every time the character swings the weapon that's central to his fighting ability" is not in any way "rare," in fact, it's going to be the vast majority.

It's not the most a stunt can give. It's listed as a standard bonus. And there are canon stunts that give more.

Anyway, a sword wielded by a master can be as deadly as explosives wielded by an amateur. At least, in fantasy stories.

Point of fact, she doesn't. In all the books, I can think of one time she wins a physical fight with something with supernatural powers, and she does that by making the fight as indirect as she can manage--after fighting directly, skill vs. skill and strength vs. strength, gets her arm broken. And she's supposed to be the series' prime example of a pure mortal physical fighter.

You and I remember the books quite differently.

That's just it, though. If I'm playing alongside a character who's never swinging anything less than a Weapon:5 sword at 6, the GM is going to balance encounters to make it a challenge for him. If I'm sitting there swinging Weapon:3 at 4 or 5, I'm just not going to be able to keep up.

2 stress just isn't that big a deal. It's well within the system's tolerances. It's nowhere near the combat-skill disparity between a social character and a killy one.

To paraphrase you when talking about Shields and the Rune Magic power not terribly long ago: Why would anyone ever not take these stunts, if they make a character inherently and objectively better than one without?

Because there are other stunts and Powers that are competitively valuable.

Would you prefer Defend My Tribe (for Weapons) or Greataxe Specialization? I think that one's a toss-up.

It turns the Pure Mortal from a character type revolving around ingenuity and maneuvering to a character type that can just bash its way through fights doing nothing but attack attack attack.

The Pure Mortal is not a character type revolving around ingenuity. Its mechanics don't promote ingenuity any more than those of, say, Werewolves.

Ingenuity is for anyone who's outmatched. Not just mortals.

And if you're not outmatched, you can just bash away.

The basic point here is that two characters at the same level should be at the same level. Regardless of template. So if your mortal is designed purely for murder, he should be about as capable as a Wizard designed purely for murder.

And believe it or not, this game is actually pretty well-balanced under that assumption.
« Last Edit: March 21, 2013, 02:29:37 AM by Sanctaphrax »

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Making effective PCs that aren't wizards?
« Reply #44 on: March 20, 2013, 11:25:21 PM »
I mentionned this above but probably missed.  Regarding the argument for wizards needing prep and having enchanted items:

The OP made a wizard with all his foci slots toward control.  For this reason he won't have enchanted items and will therefore lack a lot of the "prep" stuff that a more rounded wizard would have - like having a one-shot block item to make up for low Athletics for instance.