Cloak of Shadows

[Taran]

Yeah, I like the idea of stealth(and veils for that matter) as a block against stuff like attacks after they've been detected.

[Sanctaphrax]

Thinking on that led me to re-reading the Cloak of Shadows entry and brought me one important question. Does being able to see in the dark mean you can pierce the cloak's protection?

Dunno. The text seems kinda vague to me.

Up to the GM, I'd say.

PS: I too am curious about how Cloak Of Shadows is being abused.

[Haru]

Yeah, I like the idea of stealth(and veils for that matter) as a block against stuff like attacks after they've been detected.

"After they've been detected" kind of implies, that the block has already been penetrated by an alertness or investigation roll, and a block is removed once it is penetrated.

[PirateJack]

Dunno. The text seems kinda vague to me.

Up to the GM, I'd say.

PS: I too am curious about how Cloak Of Shadows is being abused.

Well, not so much abused as it is that the PC has built his entire character around stealth and supernatural strength. Part of it is my fault for letting him basically bump himself up to a higher level than the game was intended to be (newbie GM, still learning the ropes), but the effect of it has been to make him nigh undetectable in combat.

Since stealth rolls count as a block against detection it means that unless someone passes an alertness/investigation check the PC can basically do anything he likes without fear of being caught. Part of that is because he's rolling better than me (you have no idea how many vampires have died to crappy rolls in this game) and part of it is because of his combat-focused character (he has pretty much 0 social skills and he's the type of gamer that will opt out of a social situation via throwing minions at the opponent... and breaking her spine).

I just need a way to counter his stealth that doesn't feel like cheating. It's getting to the point where I'm considering bringing Tiny the Gruff and a band of minions with Great Alertness + stunts just to stop him from wiping out the competition.

[Tedronai]

"After they've been detected" kind of implies, that the block has already been penetrated by an alertness or investigation roll, and a block is removed once it is penetrated.

The Sight doesn't overcome blocks vs perception, it bypasses them.
You don't get to overcome a ward against tresspassing just because you can whistle.

[Haru]

Since stealth rolls count as a block against detection it means that unless someone passes an alertness/investigation check the PC can basically do anything he likes without fear of being caught. Part of that is because he's rolling better than me (you have no idea how many vampires have died to crappy rolls in this game) and part of it is because of his combat-focused character (he has pretty much 0 social skills and he's the type of gamer that will opt out of a social situation via throwing minions at the opponent... and breaking her spine).

So he kills everything from the shadows and his stealth block stays intact the whole time? I am always going off the assumption, that you are becoming visible, when you attack someone. It is a common enough trope, and it just makes sense, if your target is standing in the light. Especially, since a block usually lasts exactly one exchange if the character doesn't renew it.
If there are two or more targets, he can't kill them all with one strike, and the other ones will surely notice what is happening. I would have him drop the stealth block for an attack, and if he wants to retreat into the shadows, he'd have to reroll the stealth block in the next exchange. While the opponents have all the time to act, and he'd only have his athletics to dodge, not the block. And even if he returns into the shadows, they know he is there. They would no longer be surprised by his attacks. They could do some sort of scene attack, throw a grenade, cover the scene with fire, things like that. People do crazy things when they are frightened. Those wouldn't have to be attacks, btw. A hail of bullets as a block or a grenade as a maneuver would be just as viable in this case. Light will kill the shadows, as I said before, and he just would not be able to do a stealth roll in the first place. Don't let your NPCs act too dumb.

Usually, you'd sneak to avoid being seen, not to kill everything. Killing people will be noticed sooner or later, and whereever he is sneaking is at heightened alert, he'll have a pretty hard time.

The Sight doesn't overcome blocks vs perception, it bypasses them.

That seems strange to me. If you have a way to overcome the block, you've overcome the block. In this case, the block would still be active, so other people wouldn't be able to see you, but the wizard would be ready to rain hell down on you. See Harry vs. Ariana.

You don't get to overcome a ward against tresspassing just because you can whistle.

That doesn't make sense at all. It would be more like being invited to overcome the ward. You are no longer affected by it, others certainly will be.

[Tedronai]

That seems strange to me. If you have a way to overcome the block, you've overcome the block. In this case, the block would still be active, so other people wouldn't be able to see you, but the wizard would be ready to rain hell down on you. See Harry vs. Ariana.

You haven't overcome the block.  The block did not affect your use of the Sight.  There's a difference.

That doesn't make sense at all. It would be more like being invited to overcome the ward. You are no longer affected by it, others certainly will be.

You're right, that is the better analogy.  Except that it's missing a piece (because the argument I was opposing suggested that the block would remain 'overcome' even after the Sight was closed).
So it'd be like being allowed to pass through a ward, leaving, and then somehow claiming that the ward no longer affects you because you bypassed it earlier under conditions that do not apply to the present.

[InFerrumVeritas]

YS210

Typically, a block action lasts until the player who initiated the block takes his next turn.

If you're using stealth as a block vs. perception, it only lasts until your next turn.  At the very least, it's going to be a supplemental action to maintain, if you're trying to stay hidden. 

They way we play is: If your action does not directly affect another character (like attacks, maneuvers against them, etc) then you can do it as a supplemental action.  If your action does directly affect another character, then your block is gone.  You may re-roll it your next turn.

One of the players has a "Sniper's Camouflage" stunt that lets him maintain a block using Stealth as a supplemental action when making an attack from at least one zone away. 

He also wrote up an "Assassin's Cut" stunt that allows a melee attack to be made while maintaining the block as a supplemental action.

When veils are used, we require additional shifts to be spent on duration if the caster is going to make an action directly affecting another character. 

[Haru]

You haven't overcome the block.  The block did not affect your use of the Sight.  There's a difference.

True, and I thought I'd addressed that. If the block had been overcome, it would have vanished. It didn't, but for the wizard, it is just as if the block had been overcome, since it doesn't apply to him anymore.

You're right, that is the better analogy.  Except that it's missing a piece (because the argument I was opposing suggested that the block would remain 'overcome' even after the Sight was closed).
So it'd be like being allowed to pass through a ward, leaving, and then somehow claiming that the ward no longer affects you because you bypassed it earlier under conditions that do not apply to the present.

Yes, but you could still make declarations about the interior, based on what you have seen. Granted, the more time passes, the higher the chances they would be wrong, but in this case, we are talking about split seconds on a target that has to move carefully, thus slowly.
Also, I don't think there is a reason for the wizard to not cast with his sight active. Other things might be negatively affected by the sight, but his own spells? I don't think so. I might increase the intensity he has to defend against when closing his sight, but not block his magic because of it.

@InFerrumVeritas
I like the supplemental action idea and the stunts to allow it.

[Taran]

Also, I don't think there is a reason for the wizard to not cast with his sight active. Other things might be negatively affected by the sight, but his own spells? I don't think so. I might increase the intensity he has to defend against when closing his sight, but not block his magic because of it.

See my post above.  Using the Sight, Why should it be easier for him to taget someone who is stealthed while having to deal with a block if the person isn't stealthed.  The block has nothing to do with the kind of attack (whether it be guns or evocation) it has to do with actually performing the action while being distracted.

[Haru]

See my post above.  Using the Sight, Why should it be easier for him to taget someone who is stealthed while having to deal with a block if the person isn't stealthed.  The block has nothing to do with the kind of attack (whether it be guns or evocation) it has to do with actually performing the action while being distracted.

If you want to set up a block against all actions when using the sight, be my guest. I'd rather treat that as a compel (setting the desired skill to 0), or in some cases just a GM-veto, if the player in question is proposing something too ludicrous. But even if I were to set it up as a block, I would not have it block magical attacks. Not for any rules or anything, I admit, it just wouldn't feel right to me.

[polkaneverdies]

In this case i would just consider Harry's description in the books of how distracting it is to simply turn it on and look at the city streets. It seems to be a dubious proposition to me that you are going to have the concentration to wield the energies of creation while doing it.

[sqlcowboy]

By that ruling, Harry would not have had the presence of mind to unravel the spell on Murphy's fellow officer in Grave Peril, because he would be too distracted by what he was seeing.  I don't see any reason why, used properly, you'd block all actions while using the Sight.  It's got to have some leeway for using it for things like targeting veiled or illusion-bearing beings, or Harry wouldn't say it's such a good tool for piercing veils and illusions.

Now, if there was a Skinwalker nearby, you'd be fully within your rights as a GM to block all actions. 

[Taran]

By that ruling, Harry would not have had the presence of mind to unravel the spell on Murphy's fellow officer in Grave Peril, because he would be too distracted by what he was seeing.  I don't see any reason why, used properly, you'd block all actions while using the Sight.  It's got to have some leeway for using it for things like targeting veiled or illusion-bearing beings, or Harry wouldn't say it's such a good tool for piercing veils and illusions.

Now, if there was a Skinwalker nearby, you'd be fully within your rights as a GM to block all actions. 

This is the EXACT example they give in YS.  The reason it worked so well is because he would have been UNABLE to counter the magic without opening the sight.  Hence the explanation in in YS how the Sight is a scalpel

[Sanctaphrax]

Since stealth rolls count as a block against detection it means that unless someone passes an alertness/investigation check the PC can basically do anything he likes without fear of being caught.

I suspect that your stealth rules may have more to do with the problem than Cloak Of Shadows does.

You may want to change them, though obviously you'd have to discuss that with the player. Does he agree that there's a problem?