Stunt idea: Redirect Attack

[Taran]

Not to mention social and mental attacks. I think before working on redirection I should probably go familiarize myself with all the ways to cause stress in the game.

Well, social attacks don't have a weapon value, so it'd kind of be useless
I could see some kind of mental defense power that lets you redirect an attack at someone else - like some kind of jedi mind trick....does that make you a Lawbreaker?    j/k.  Let's not have that discussion.

I do kinda feel like redirection should be limited somehow besides rolls. It sounds cool, but 4 or 5 rolls into a tennis match with one increasingly powerful attack I think the other players will be getting bored with declaring and maneuvering to help one person not get blown into tiny pieces.

He's not suggesting you re-direct it back at the person who attacked you.  That would be riposte.  He's suggesting that you redirect it at a 3rd party.  If that 3rd party had the same stunt, he could re-direct it to someone else, but it wouldn't affect the weapon value at all.  It always uses the same weapon value of the original attack.  And, if everyone is giving up their turn to do this, it can't go on infinitely.

Isn't that kind of how Harry and Ortega's duel worked out?

Yeah, pretty much!

But yeah, redirecting projectiles would be a lot trickier -- the only way I could see it working mundanely is something like if you're standing directly between your attacker and one of his goons, and you duck at just the right moment. Like the Deadly Dodging trope.

Yeah, exactly.

[sdfds68]

Well, social attacks don't have a weapon value, so it'd kind of be useless
I could see some kind of mental defense power that lets you redirect an attack at someone else - like some kind of jedi mind trick....does that make you a Lawbreaker?    j/k.  Let's not have that discussion.

After looking up Incite Emotion and the social skills, I'd have to agree with you on that.

But if redirecting magic nastiness is lawbreaking, then I'm gonna have to go look at Proven Guilty again. I thought it was standard WC practice to bat back incoming bad stuff.

He's not suggesting you re-direct it back at the person who attacked you.  That would be riposte.  He's suggesting that you redirect it at a 3rd party.  If that 3rd party had the same stunt, he could re-direct it to someone else, but it wouldn't affect the weapon value at all.  It always uses the same weapon value of the original attack.  And, if everyone is giving up their turn to do this, it can't go on infinitely.

But if you beat their roll in order to redirect, are you using the original roll or new roll in the final stress count?  Also, why couldn't redirect be the same mechanic as riposte? Is there a difference between them besides target? If there isn't, why differentiate?

And if everyone is giving up their turn, then of course it can go on infinitely. The PCs smack back an attack, the BBEG + flunkies turns it around on them, and the two sides just spend each round doing nothing but sending the attack back where it came from until somebody rolls a -4 and everybody on their team is out of tags. That's a potentially indefinite series of redirects.

[PirateJack]

Redirecting spells does not break any of the Laws, because it's not your magic doing it. The entropy curse in Blood Rites, the phobopages in Proven Guilty and the [CENSORED] in Skin Game all skirt around Lawbreaking by effectively shunting the magic away from its original target. The only danger comes from the original caster because it was their decision to make a spell lethal or non-lethal in the first place.

[Mr. Death]

And if everyone is giving up their turn, then of course it can go on infinitely. The PCs smack back an attack, the BBEG + flunkies turns it around on them, and the two sides just spend each round doing nothing but sending the attack back where it came from until somebody rolls a -4 and everybody on their team is out of tags. That's a potentially indefinite series of redirects.

I'm now imagining like some huge ogre with a hammer being swung in circles for like 20 minutes before someone loses the world's deadliest game of hot potato.

[Taran]

But if redirecting magic nastiness is lawbreaking, then I'm gonna have to go look at Proven Guilty again. I thought it was standard WC practice to bat back incoming bad stuff.

You're probably right but I was just kidding.  Lawbreaking conversations can get a thread widely off topic. 

But if you beat their roll in order to redirect, are you using the original roll or new roll in the final stress count?  Also, why couldn't redirect be the same mechanic as riposte? Is there a difference between them besides target? If there isn't, why differentiate?

And if everyone is giving up their turn, then of course it can go on infinitely. The PCs smack back an attack, the BBEG + flunkies turns it around on them, and the two sides just spend each round doing nothing but sending the attack back where it came from until somebody rolls a -4 and everybody on their team is out of tags. That's a potentially indefinite series of redirects.

With riposte, one guy attacks and another defends.  If the defense beats the attack, the defense becomes an automatic attack on the first attacker.  The amount of success depends on the difference of shifts between those two original rolls.  You don't make any extra rolls.  That makes it hard to include a third person.

That said, you could do as Dragoonbuster suggested and have the 3rd person make a defense against the original defense roll(since that defense roll has become the attack).

With Step into the Blow (which I'm suggesting you use), if you fail to defend, you get an immediate attack against your attacker at +1.

I'm suggesting that, if you dodge, you get an immediate attack against another person in your zone using the attackers weapon value.  You have to give up your next turn to do it.  So you can only do this 1 time every 2 exchanges. 

Example:

Ogre swings club at Bob.

- Bob defends, re-directs club at Alex (Bob rolls an immediate attack and uses the Ogres weapon value)
- Alex can defend.  If Alex also has the stunt, he re-directs at Thomas. (Alex rolls an immediate attack and uses the Ogres weapon value)
- Thomas rolls to dodge.  If Thomas also has the stunt, he re-directs at Bob. (Thomas makes an attack roll and Bob gets to defend.  Bob has already used up his next action, so he can't use the stunt again.  If he successfully dodges, then the attack hits no-one).

This scenario would be coolest (and most like a bugs bunny cartoon) if Thomas re-directs the attack back at the ogre and the ogre smacks himself in the face. 

On the next exchange, Alex, Thomas and Bob can't act.  They've all given up their action for that exchange.  It, therefore, goes straight back to the Ogres turn and the whole process starts again.

[Cadd]

I'm suggesting that, if you dodge, you get an immediate attack against another person in your zone using the attackers weapon value.  You have to give up your next turn to do it.  So you can only do this 1 time every 2 exchanges. 

...

On the next exchange, Alex, Thomas and Bob can't act.  They've all given up their action for that exchange.  It, therefore, goes straight back to the Ogres turn and the whole process starts again.

I don't see how it would be something only doable once per two exchanges. There's nothing stopping everyone from using the stunt again on the Ogres second attack, as it's a new exchange.

Exc 1: Ogre attacks, everyone stunts it around (using up their action for Exc 2) until it's back to someone who already redirected, or someone fails to defend.
Exc 2: Anyone who redirected last exc can't act. Ogre attacks again. Everyone stunts it around (using action for Exc 3), as above.
Exc 3: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

[Taran]

I don't see how it would be something only doable once per two exchanges. There's nothing stopping everyone from using the stunt again on the Ogres second attack, as it's a new exchange.

Exc 1: Ogre attacks, everyone stunts it around (using up their action for Exc 2) until it's back to someone who already redirected, or someone fails to defend.
Exc 2: Anyone who redirected last exc can't act. Ogre attacks again. Everyone stunts it around (using action for Exc 3), as above.
Exc 3: Lather, Rinse, Repeat

That's what my example laid out.  I guess what I mean is you can only attack 1 time per exchange and not twice.  You can only attack on your turn or the ogres turn, not both.

So, if the ogre attacks and you use your redirect, then you get no action in the next exchange if the ogre decides to attack someone else.

We're on the same page, I just said it wrong the first time.

[PirateJack]

Another quick question would be whether you can give up your turn in the next round if you've already had your go in this one.

[dragoonbuster]

Another quick question would be whether you can give up your turn in the next round if you've already had your go in this one.

That's how I run Riposte and Redirected Force. I'd allow it for something like this, too.

After seeing a lot more discussion on this...I think the idea of a stunt letting you use an opponent's weapon rating on your next attack on a successful defense is the "cleanest" approach to the situation. As far as strength stacking, I'd say yes, because strength in Dresden is less about force=ma and more about simple supernatural mojo. Also because it's not really a very good stunt otherwise.

[Taran]

Another quick question would be whether you can give up your turn in the next round if you've already had your go in this one.

That's the whole purpose of giving up your next action.  If you've already gone, you have give up your next on the next round, otherwise you'd get a free extra attack which doesn't happen in this game at all(action economy and all that).

I think the stunt (riposte and Step into the Blow) specifically says, "Your next action".  It doesn't specify what exchange.

[Taran]

I just thought of a good way:

If you successfully dodge, you may apply that same attack against another opponent in the same zone.  They may dodge the attack.

Just simple.  And it means you can't turn a pathetic attack into a hugely damaging attack.

For instance, the way I had it before, If I had a weapon skill of +5 and someone attacked me with a +1 attack, I could take that same attack and redirect it at an opponent with a skill of +5.  Which doesn't make sense to me.

[dragoonbuster]

I just thought of a good way:

If you successfully dodge, you may apply that same attack against another opponent in the same zone.  They may dodge the attack.

Just simple.  And it means you can't turn a pathetic attack into a hugely damaging attack.

For instance, the way I had it before, If I had a weapon skill of +5 and someone attacked me with a +1 attack, I could take that same attack and redirect it at an opponent with a skill of +5.  Which doesn't make sense to me.

Seconded. Though I'm assuming you're still assuming 1 per exchange via sacrificing your next action.

[Taran]

Seconded. Though I'm assuming you're still assuming 1 per exchange via sacrificing your next action.

yes.

[Mr. Death]

I just thought of a good way:

If you successfully dodge, you may apply that same attack against another opponent in the same zone.  They may dodge the attack.

Just simple.  And it means you can't turn a pathetic attack into a hugely damaging attack.

For instance, the way I had it before, If I had a weapon skill of +5 and someone attacked me with a +1 attack, I could take that same attack and redirect it at an opponent with a skill of +5.  Which doesn't make sense to me.

It makes sense to me -- and doing it that way would make the stunt vastly less useful.

Look at it this way -- a really good defense means you have more control over your opponent. You could redirect a terrible, wild swing however you wanted. The stunt is an application of your own skill in redirecting the attack.

And doing it your way makes for an extremely narrow utility -- where it's only useful if your opponent rolls just under your defense roll, but still high enough to hit someone else. It makes little sense and makes it so that a larger difference between your defense roll and the attack roll means nothing, when logically a defensive stunt should be better with a high defense roll. Hell, the book already outright says that it's kind of a ripoff that hugely good defense rolls are basically worthless.

[Taran]

It makes sense to me -- and doing it that way would make the stunt vastly less useful.

Look at it this way -- a really good defense means you have more control over your opponent. You could redirect a terrible, wild swing however you wanted. The stunt is an application of your own skill in redirecting the attack.

And doing it your way makes for an extremely narrow utility -- where it's only useful if your opponent rolls just under your defense roll, but still high enough to hit someone else. It makes little sense and makes it so that a larger difference between your defense roll and the attack roll means nothing, when logically a defensive stunt should be better with a high defense roll. Hell, the book already outright says that it's kind of a ripoff that hugely good defense rolls are basically worthless.

Hmmm...good points.