Fixing Recovery powers.

[Sanctaphrax]

Belial, your example is misleading for three major reasons.

First, it assumes Recovery guy and Speed guy aren't wearing armour. They should really be wearing armour.

Second, it's all about a large number of attacks. When you're faced with a lot of trash attacks, Speed is awesome and Recovery is weak. When you're faced with a single ridiculous alpha-strike, Recovery is awesome and Speed is weak. Toughness is always pretty good.

Third, it uses Mythics. Recovery is kinda front-loaded...from nothing to Inhuman is huge, but from Supernatural to Mythic is a bit underwhelming. If I was gonna monkey with Recovery, I'd focus on the Mythic tier.

[narphoenix]

For once I'm in total agreement with Sanctaphrax.

Oh great, now I have to worry about Armageddon. Thanks a lot. Anyone know any nearby predicted end of the world dates?

 

[Belial666]

@Large numbers of attacks:
The first combat is against a group of thugs. 6 thugs which can be taken out with 1 attack each, more or less. About 20 attacks is pretty much how it ends up.
The second combat is against a duo of mid-power guys that could be taken out in about 3 attacks each. 9-10 attacks by the time you win is pretty much how it ends up.
The fourth combat with the wizard is how many offensive spells the NPC wizard would have available for offense.
Several fights in the books are way bigger and uglier than that as far as opponent numbers go.

@maneuvers;
The guy with the speed is assumed to succeed in the maneuvers he needs because he rolls athletics at Legendary. The other guys will not be successful all of the time. And if you spend an exchange for 1 maneuver you might not succeed in, more numerous opponents can do the same - and they get more chances to succeed.

@alpha strike;
You can't alpha-strike a speedster. He goes first. He can take as many turns as he wants moving 3 zones and around a corner and then doing an athletics-related maneuver at his Legendary athletics. He'll be committing to the attack only when he has you "Outflanked", "Outmaneuvered", and when he's "In Perfect Balance", has a "Running Start" and he's "Attacking From Behind", so either his first defense is a whopping +18 and you'll miss or his first attack will be sufficiently boosted to hit you with a couple consequences.

@no armor:
If you want an armor that would work vs all attack types and doesn't get destroyed after stopping a few blows, you need either Toughness or an Item of Power that happens to be armor. Normal armor won't work in all cases and it can easily be broken.
That said, normal armor only skews the results in comparison to toughness.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm not saying the attack number is unrealistic, just that it gives the wrong idea of how good the Powers in question are.

And yes, you can't get universal armour. But you can get pretty broad armour. And if you don't have Toughness, you really should.

As for the going first and maneuvering plan, there are four issues with it. The first is that the other guy can maneuver too. So you really aren't profiting that much, tag-wise. You might even fall behind, if you're out-numbered or out-skilled. The second is that you won't always have a convenient corner available. Even when you do, the other guy might be able to hit you through it. The third is that you won't always go first. There are always ambushes and landmines and other such things. And the fourth is that if you hoard your tags too long, they go away. So it's a situational plan at best.

[Wordmaker]

I don't know if this has been considered, but as regards whether to pick Recovery powers or Toughness, etc, not every character concept suits Toughness, just like not every character concept suits Recovery. Sometimes the choice is more than mechanical benefit.

[Locnil]

I don't know if this has been considered, but as regards whether to pick Recovery powers or Toughness, etc, not every character concept suits Toughness, just like not every character concept suits Recovery. Sometimes the choice is more than mechanical benefit.

Actually, that's what it all boils down to. Game balance is ultimately done with the intention that no one be penalised for roleplay choices when building their characters.

[Wordmaker]

Fate is one of the few systems I know where, even though characters will have different strengths and weaknesses, it's very hard to build a character that's penalised for roleplay-related character creation choices. There are just so many ways to tackle a given challenge or threat within the rules, that focusing on combat ability can leave every problem looking like a nail.

Even so, some abilities are simply "better" mechanically than others. Channeling (Fire) is frequently a solid bet if you want strong offensive abilities, because fire hurts most things. But it doesn't fit every character.

[Belial666]

Actually, it's still pretty easy for roleplaying to penalize character ability. Prime example is the early Harry Dresden; his high conviction but low discipline coupled with his total lack of diplomacy amounted for 90% of all problems in his early carreer. All his problems that this caused were very entertaining to read in a book, in which they were part of the plot. They would have been far less entertaining and more frustrating to play in a game though.

Think of it this way; a purely roleplaying drawback in the game warrants a Fate Point every time it comes up. Having poor discipline so that your spells are only Power/Control 4 whereas a different build would have given you Power/Control 7-8 doesn't warrant a Fate Point - even though the skill choice in the first place was a roleplaying issue.

That's why mechanical equivalence of choices in character creation must exist.

[Wordmaker]

If you find you've got a shortcoming in your skills or abilities, take an aspect that reflects it as part of your nature, and self-compel so that you do get Fate Points for them. Low Discipline and high Conviction? Give yourself the aspect "Loose Cannon, Fully Loaded" and let rip. No Rapport to speak of? Take "Social Bulldozer" and cause all kinds of problems when tact and civility are called for.

Maybe I'm unusual in this, but the kind of rollercoaster ride that Harry goes through in the books is exactly what I want from a game. Whether as a player or a GM, seeing the PCs always at an advantage gets really dull.

[Sanctaphrax]

But Harry has Listening and First Lawbreaker, both of which he basically never uses. He doesn't get to self-Compel a WASTED ONE REFRESH ON LISTENING Aspect, he just has one less Refresh.

And he'd get more out of Great Lore and Good Endurance than he does out of Good Lore and Great Endurance. But his skills are what they are.

That's what gimping yourself in DFRPG looks like. It's not as bad as gimping yourself in some other systems, I'm happy to say.

Low Discipline and high Conviction? Give yourself the aspect "Loose Cannon, Fully Loaded" and let rip.

You'd be better off doing this with high Discipline. After all, Discipline is important for doing damage. And it's not like self-controlled people can't be loose cannons.

[PatchR]

Harry actually concedes ... a lot. He runs away, everytime he runs from a fight? It's a concession. When he passes out, and wakes up a prisoner? That's a concession. When he passes out, out of combat, it's a compel on his consequences.

[Taran]

Harry actually concedes ... a lot. He runs away, everytime he runs from a fight? It's a concession. When he passes out, and wakes up a prisoner? That's a concession. When he passes out, out of combat, it's a compel on his consequences.

hmmm...maybe I need to be tougher on my players....

[Wordmaker]

But Harry has Listening and First Lawbreaker, both of which he basically never uses. He doesn't get to self-Compel a WASTED ONE REFRESH ON LISTENING Aspect, he just has one less Refresh.

And he'd get more out of Great Lore and Good Endurance than he does out of Good Lore and Great Endurance. But his skills are what they are.

Of course, I'm just giving examples of ways to turn apparent weaknesses in a character build into a narrative-building part of the character.

I mean when you get right down to it, there's almost no reason anyone would want to take a Lawbreaker stunt, unless you're planning to go all-out in breaking that particular law. Though even with that, the more you take it, the more you have to change your aspects to reflect its effect on you. So it's clearly in keeping with the spirit of the rules to take aspects that reflect how your skills and stunts/powers define your character.

You'd be better off doing this with high Discipline. After all, Discipline is important for doing damage. And it's not like self-controlled people can't be loose cannons.

Certainly! It's all up to the player. It all adds to the character and their own personal story. A self-controlled loose cannon can be someone who has utterly rational and carefully-planned reasons for breaking the rules. A very nice twist on the typical "maverick cop" stereotype.

Harry actually concedes ... a lot. He runs away, everytime he runs from a fight? It's a concession. When he passes out, and wakes up a prisoner? That's a concession. When he passes out, out of combat, it's a compel on his consequences.

Yep, this exactly! I try to encourage my players to focus on their aspects over their abilities. Aspects are far more important for seeing how the story goes.

[Mr. Death]

But Harry has Listening and First Lawbreaker, both of which he basically never uses. He doesn't get to self-Compel a WASTED ONE REFRESH ON LISTENING Aspect, he just has one less Refresh.

I wouldn't say he never uses them. He Listens all the time, especially in the early books. He uses it in Skin Game.

As for First Lawbreaker, I'd have to read it again, but is the +1 bonus specific to breaking the law again, or to attacking with intent to kill? Because Harry does the latter all the time, and a loose interpretation would let him use that bonus frequently.

[Taran]

As for First Lawbreaker, I'd have to read it again, but is the +1 bonus specific to breaking the law again, or to attacking with intent to kill? Because Harry does the latter all the time, and a loose interpretation would let him use that bonus frequently.

This is how I GM Lawbreaker:

You can use it ANY time you like against whomever you like.  The caveat is if you Take Someone Out, the victim suffers the full effects of the Law-breaking spell.

Example:  If you have the Lawbreaker Power that gives +1 to kill, and you Take Someone out whilst using it, they die.  You may not dictate the outcome of the attack as "they are now unconscious".

Then the player gets to choose when/where they use the bonus and they are accepting the risk of breaking the law again.  It puts the Onus on the player.

Edit:  Sorry...that last comment is very off-topic.