A few seconds ahead - How strong is it?

[Tedronai]

The dodge-to-guns stunt discussed as an example in the stunt creation section, and Footwork found in the Fists section of the example stunts (wherein the limitation is the fact that Fists already provides a significant, if inferior, physical defense trapping of its own).


edit: thought of a 3rd comparable stunt:
'It takes one to know one', found in the Deceit section of the example stunts, allows Deceit to defend against a very limited form of social attack

[Llayne]

True this power would only shine in certain builds, but the same could be said for just about any power. That alone doesn't mean it's balanced.

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but are there any powers in the YS that manipulate the skill point economy like this? (replacing or moving trappings to another skill?) Or is that limited to stunts? I'm not saying that you CAN'T do it with a power, I'm just curious to see if anybody knows.

[Mr. Death]

Yes, but those are both stunts instead of powers. Powers are explicitly more powerful than stunts, and one way they're more powerful is they don't have the restrictions that stunts usually do--compare Sex Appeal (target has to be attracted to you anyway) to Incite Emotion for Lust (Works on everybody and is a skill replacement).

As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting AFSA to just physical defense.

I guess we have different rubrics for what's unbalanced or overpowered. To my thinking, the best that AFSA can do is move defense to the skill cap--while there are other stunts and powers that would instead let you defend past the skill cap. And if you're getting the biggest boost out of AFSA, that means you're not very good on offensive options, so your abilities are inherently limited. On those characters, it just means it's harder to beat you, but you can't really beat back.

I can't think of any off the top of my head, but are there any powers in the YS that manipulate the skill point economy like this? (replacing or moving trappings to another skill?) Or is that limited to stunts? I'm not saying that you CAN'T do it with a power, I'm just curious to see if anybody knows.

Kind of. Incite Emotion, for example, can lump seduction rolls (usually Rapport) into Deceit. It also moves mental attacks into skills that don't normally have them.

The True Faith powers tend to let you use Conviction for a lot of things it doesn't normally do.

[Tedronai]

As I've said before, I'm in favor of limiting AFSA to just physical defense.

You're 'in favour of' cutting it's power by more than half, but you're arguing that it's probably not overpowered?
Am I just confused, here, or is this as ridiculous as it sounds?

[Mr. Death]

You're 'in favour of' cutting it's power by more than half, but you're arguing that it's probably not overpowered?
Am I just confused, here, or is this as ridiculous as it sounds?

I'm in favor of cutting the bit about social conflict because it doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm arguing that it's probably not overpowered because even with the social defense, I don't think it's overpowered, for the reasons I've said--the best it's going to do is bring defense on par with others, with a high probability of still leaving offense way below par.

Your main objection to it seems to be not that it replaces defense, but that it replaces defense for too many kinds of things, so I figured dropping the one that makes the least sense to me would be an acceptable compromise.

[Tedronai]

When 4 is reasonably balanced, <2 is probably underpowered.

[Mr. Death]

When 4 is reasonably balanced, <2 is probably underpowered.

Actually, that's the problem here. I keep forgetting to factor in the "or maneuvers" part.

[Lavecki121]

The dodge-to-guns stunt discussed as an example in the stunt creation section,

This is the example for why it may need to be limited for certain skills. It is hard to justify defending with guns when you dont have a gun

Footwork found in the Fists section of the example stunts (wherein the limitation is the fact that Fists already provides a significant, if inferior, physical defense trapping of its own).

Thats not really a limitation on the stunt though, its more about fists.

'It takes one to know one', found in the Deceit section of the example stunts, allows Deceit to defend against a very limited form of social attack

This isnt really a defense; its knowing that they have lied. Rapport is ussually used for defense. Though I still agree that AFSA is odd to give you a bonus against social.


I do like the suggestion made earlier (not sure who and I am not looking back right now) about having it apply when one on one as opposed to in group conflicts.

[cold_breaker]

I think we're mainly comparing apples to oranges here anyways. This is a power, not a stunt. Powers come with a hidden -2 tax attached, plus in this case I'd say an aspect would be required as well. I'd say compare this to other powers, like refinements and such.

To be fair, stunts seem a bit underpowered compared to powers. It's one thing that always irked me about the system.

[Theonlyspiral]

You do get +2 Refresh for not getting powers though. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[Tedronai]

This is the example for why it may need to be limited for certain skills. It is hard to justify defending with guns when you dont have a gun

Thats not really a limitation on the stunt though, its more about fists.

Precisely the same effect applied to any skill other than Athletics, Fists, or Weapons would read as something along the lines of 'may use [X skill] for the Dodge trapping of Athletics in any case where the Close-Combat Defense trapping of Fists would not normally apply.'
The stunt provides only the portion of the Dodge trapping that is not already encompassed by Close-Combat Defense.  This is not meaningfully distinguishable from having a limitation.  The two are effectively synonymous.

This isnt really a defense; its knowing that they have lied. Rapport is ussually used for defense. Though I still agree that AFSA is odd to give you a bonus against social.

It is a defense against lie-based attacks and maneuvers.



If you think that the current state of something is balanced, chances are that any meaningful reduction in its power will cause it to be un-balanced.
For those arguing both that the current state is balanced AND that the stunt should be reduced in power, you must demonstrate why this is not the case for your particular suggested changes, or be arguing against yourselves.

[Lavecki121]

For those arguing both that the current state is balanced AND that the stunt should be reduced in power, you must demonstrate why this is not the case for your particular suggested changes, or be arguing against yourselves.

I feel the power is balanced though it doesnt make narrative sense. This is the reason I would change it. I can argue both ways and still be making valid points for both arguments. Doesnt really matter if I am arguing against myself because you are going to rule how you like. So if you like my suggestion on why it should be reduced over why it is balanced that is what you are going to go with in your game and Vice-Versa. There should be no reason for you to limit how my argument goes.

Proposed stunt; "See it Comming" You may defend against physical attacks with alertness

Is that one unbalanced? What about these?

"Honeyed Words" You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts.

"Acrobat" You may use performance to defend against physical attacks.

These stunts may have a caveat such as "As long as you narrate it whatever" but thats not hard. These are all acceptable stunts per rules.

[Mr. Death]

I've already explained exactly why I'm arguing the way I'm arguing, so there is nothing I "must" demonstrate.

[Tedronai]

I feel the power is balanced though it doesnt make narrative sense. This is the reason I would change it. I can argue both ways and still be making valid points for both arguments. Doesnt really matter if I am arguing against myself because you are going to rule how you like. So if you like my suggestion on why it should be reduced over why it is balanced that is what you are going to go with in your game and Vice-Versa. There should be no reason for you to limit how my argument goes.

I'm not limiting how your argument goes.  I'm stating that your two simultaneous arguments are mutually exclusive.

Proposed stunt; "See it Comming" You may defend against physical attacks with alertness

Is that one unbalanced? What about these?

"Honeyed Words" You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts.

"Acrobat" You may use performance to defend against physical attacks.

These stunts may have a caveat such as "As long as you narrate it whatever" but thats not hard. These are all acceptable stunts per rules.

Each and every one of them is probably overpowered as a stunt, judging from the collected examples and guidelines.

[Lavecki121]

Each and every one of them is probably overpowered as a stunt, judging from the collected examples and guidelines.

Well here are the rules/ guidelines. I would like to know how those didnt follow them:

The first possible use for a stunt is to broaden a skill by giving it a new trapping. Often this is a trapping that’s “transplanted” from one skill to another. Sometimes this trapping may need to be modified, or made more circumstantial, in order to fit its new skill

EDIT: Here is how my full write up of those stunts would look:

"See it Comming" You are good at predicting what people are about to do. You may defend against physical attacks with alertness as long as you can see them

"Honeyed Words" Most of your conversations lead people to believe you are honest. You may use deceit as a defense in social conflicts when incorporating lies into your conversation.

"Acrobat" You are skilled at moving your body in ways people dont expect. You may use performance to defend against physical attacks as long as you narate it colorfully.

I believe the Italicized portions are your issue with the power since it doesnt have that, but the nature of the power is to litterally see the future so they dont really need a caveat such as the ones I have stated.