|
Yawgmoth posted:I am going off the assumption that spells are going to have a resistance stat of some sort in the same manner that every single other power in every other game that directly targets someone has a resistance stat of some kind. If this isn't the case then it is one hell of a paradigm shift in the way powers function on both a general and specific level. I refer the honorable gentleman to Demon: The Descent.
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
One time I made an Acanthus who majored in Fate and minored in Forces because he hustled pool and while the lucky shot is the best kind of shot sometimes you need to put a little extra English on the ball Okay that's my story
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Dave Brookshaw posted:I refer the honorable gentleman to Demon: The Descent. Demon foregoes resistance rolls for attempts to read someone's aura or even steal their possessions, but not to actually impair or harm them. It wouldn't be untenable or even necessarily unbalanced for even stupendously lethal supernal spells to make no reference to their targets' stats or other properties whatsoever, but I don't know how much fun it'd be for either party. On one hand, being Awakened definitely entails playing with all the cheat codes enabled. On the other hand, a spell isn't actually supposed to trump a discipline or a numen or something, and the less a given power cares about the high stats of a hypothetical supernatural target, the less that same power can get away with completely owning hapless 2s-in-everything normies.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
Strontosaurus posted:Ogre Truefriend is the best 2E Changeling. Sorry, chumps. Where the Wyld Things Are.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 09:32
|
|
|
Darklings are up.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 10:26
|
|
|
I'm batman
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:05
|
|
|
I actually like darklings and do like that write up. But "I'm willing to make the hard choices others won't" sounds like an arrow/batman kinda line
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:07
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:I actually like darklings and do like that write up. But "I'm willing to make the hard choices others won't" sounds like an arrow/batman kinda line It's a very WoD archetype.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:18
|
|
|
Pope Guilty posted:It's a very WoD archetype. What splat could one not make parallels to Batman with?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:22
|
|
|
Pooka. No, wait, they're both furries.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:36
|
|
|
In my experience of gaming the hard choice tends to be being more moral, not less.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:38
|
|
|
The tone these seeming write-ups are written in is intensely aggravating.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:32
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:In my experience of gaming the hard choice tends to be being more moral, not less. This is also why Mummy: the Resurrection was poo poo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:35
|
|
|
I haven't read Vampire or Werewolf 2e. Do chapters or descriptions sometimes still start with: "Short descriptive phrase. Other descriptive phrase. The noun is adjective [and/or] verb, [additional modifying phrase]." Somehow I feel like this is embedded into White Wolf/Onyx Path writing even when it probably isn't actually as common as I think it is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:53
|
|
|
quote:That forgotten martial arts? Look how truly effective it is, you’re bright fancy kung fu is poo poo. What's really missing from the Darkling writeup, in this goon's opinion, is the idea that what makes "the hard choice" a thing at all is the therapeutic effect making such a choice had/has on the Darkling rather than any actual concern of strategy or effectiveness. Read properly, Darklings exult in thinking of themselves as tough and cool, and proving this to themselves by shocking or even hurting others - and that's a good thing, and certainly puts them in line with Beasts, Ogres, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:54
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:In my experience of gaming the hard choice tends to be being more moral, not less. There's a difference between hard choices and Hard Choices.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
In my opinion they should have led off with Darklings: of all the options they were the least well defined as a Seeming and most defined by their specific Kiths. Even the 2e preview for Kiths distilled the options down to long fingers, goblin/Nosferatu features, and Burton-esque creepiness. The preview delivered a pathos, or at least a few of them: abandonment, betrayal of trust or faith, and obsession with the what others forget, the classic Hard Man Making Hard Choices WoD theme. Four is better than zero, at least. I'm still going to ignore and revise the rules regarding Clarity, as they aren't impressive and counter to what I see work in the games I play.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:31
|
|
|
We haven't even seen the complete rules for Clarity yet; we can make a couple of educated guesses, but we're still missing a bunch of details.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:43
|
|
|
I'm looking forward to a seeming preview for some concept besides AAA Video Game Protagonist, myself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:52
|
|
|
Crion posted:I'm looking forward to a seeming preview for some concept besides AAA Video Game Protagonist, myself. Wait for the Wizened then, or maybe the Fairest with a little luck.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
Wizened supergenius carefully screws a scope onto Darkling vigilante's rifle.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:16
|
|
|
Wizened are going to very explicitly be Tyrion Lannister.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:14
|
|
|
From what the Kith section has been saying, I think Wizened are going to be people who used their faestuff/magic/skills to give themselves the power to escape or do whatever. Sort of like fairy transhumanists. Something that's really impressed me so far though, is how they've been presenting Seemings overall. I was honestly expecting them to be much more of a mark of defiance or pride and while they can become a badge of honor, like many scars, they are still scars first and foremost. So now we have a system where Kiths are the scars of things that were done to you and Seemings are the scars of the things you did. It winds up supporting the shift in metaphors really well, and I'm honestly pretty optimistic about some of the other stuff now. Some of the flufftext is a little goofy but honestly that's pretty minor, all things considered. What matters to me is it looks like they're going to be able to pull off the change in metaphor without losing the tone of the game. Doesn't mean they can't botch it, but so far things are looking surprisingly good imo.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:30
|
|
|
Direct attack spells dealing (bashing/lethal/agg) (successes) or (arcanum+successes) damage vs. incidental effects like a car hitting your enemy dealing a DM-fiat type and amount of damage seems like the system working as designed to me.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:11
|
|
|
Well the entire category of "direct attack spell" sounds like fodder for deletion, is the thing. From the sounds of it it covers barely anything and exists chiefly to serve as an obvious enough newbie trap that a plurality of people feel good about spotting it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
Whats wrong with them?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
Well,Dave Brookshaw posted:The Bashing at 3, Lethal / Agg at 4 is for Direct Attack Spells, which are when a mage looks at someone and thinks "you there, take 3 bashing damage" as her imago. If you make their car crash, or the building collapse on them, or make electricity arc out of the walls onto them, or superheat the air around them, or curse them with luck so terrible a safe falls on their head, they will take whatever damage is appropriate, no matter which dot of which Arcanum you used to set them up for a fall. What on earth's even left to be a "direct" attack spell, and why would it work significantly differently from any of the above? The only thing I can think of is using one of the deconstructive Practices directly on something in that Arcanum's purview, i.e. using Unraveling Spirit to cast a spell titled "Unravel Spirit", but at that point you might as well just specify the damage that pattern-shredding does and be done with it. Separately, you'd still need actual resolution guidelines rather than raw ST fiat to determine just how fiercely you can heat the air or how eerily on the mark the falling safe is.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Well the entire category of "direct attack spell" sounds like fodder for deletion, is the thing. From the sounds of it it covers barely anything and exists chiefly to serve as an obvious enough newbie trap that a plurality of people feel good about spotting it. Let the record show that Ferrinus is against things that allow people to feel good and, by extension, the concept of joy itself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 21:07
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:Let the record show that Ferrinus is against things that allow people to feel good and, by extension, the concept of joy itself.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 21:12
|
|
|
Chernobyl Peace Prize posted:If it's the death of fun on one side and you and loose, lumpy wannabestorygamingexceptignoreourcrazyelaboratecombatrules on the other, well. RIP fun Because I'm picking a hill to die on here, and not just poking fun at Ferrinus.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
Cabbit posted:Because I'm picking a hill to die on here, and not just poking fun at Ferrinus.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Hunter
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Well, I would interpret a "direct attack spell" as any spell that when cast has to declare an npc/pc as its target rather than the environment around him. I would also include their worn possessions and whatnot. So attacking Vampire Joe with a lightning bolt from your hand is direct, whereas causing the roof above him to crumble would not be. The key difference being that you're forcing your imago on a living (or undead) being's pattern in the one instance.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:04
|
|
|
But you're not forcing your imago on a living being's pattern in either case. You're causing a real, physical hazard to present itself and strike your victim. Your magic is not actually working on your victim; your magic is working on, and through, the lightning. Calling the lightning bolt "direct" makes it look like the actual bolt of actual lightning is, like, a hazy and arbitrary special effect applied post hoc to a spell whose real effect is "10 bashing". But it shouldn't be! That's terrible!
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
beasttheprimordial.jpg
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 08:40
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:But you're not forcing your imago on a living being's pattern in either case. You're causing a real, physical hazard to present itself and strike your victim. Your magic is not actually working on your victim; your magic is working on, and through, the lightning. What about if the distinction is that direct spells have a set, low damage but automatically hit (or are only resisted by Stamina, Resolve or whatever) while indirect spells still need to connect with the target's defense but are less vulgar/ easier to pull off?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:02
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:But you're not forcing your imago on a living being's pattern in either case. You're causing a real, physical hazard to present itself and strike your victim. Your magic is not actually working on your victim; your magic is working on, and through, the lightning. Right, but the physical hazard is created and guided by magic that will contact a person's pattern, or at least that's how I see it. It is not a wholly natural phenomenon, even though it mimics one. I mean, its been a while since I played Mage but I've always seen it as working that way. A better example would have perhaps been reaching inside someone's body and transmuting their heart to a potato or something, I dunno.  Ferrinus posted:Calling the lightning bolt "direct" makes it look like the actual bolt of actual lightning is, like, a hazy and arbitrary special effect applied post hoc to a spell whose real effect is "10 bashing". But it shouldn't be! That's terrible! Why is it terrible? I mean, pretty much every game mechanic every boils down to something that simple, (damage, conditions, etc) and its all window dressing in the end. To me, the distinction is simple. Direct attacks target a person, and standard attacks target an area.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 09:18
|
|
|
One of the things I always like about Awakening is that it didn't make arbitrary distinctions between effects due to in-world logic. Damage spells work like this was a good standard to have. As a hypothetical, would you make a distinction between a spell that directly targets a character with fire (such as, I don't know, internal combustion) versus a spell that lights their clothing on fire? If, I think you've illustrated why that's a bad idea. To put it another way the last thing I want out of a magic system is splitting hairs at the table to get the desired mechanized output. Spells shouldn't be divided along world-logic lines, they should divided based on their roughly desired mechanized output, should one exist, since the system is the only arbitrary point of reference. Having a half dozen resolution systems for "I hit him with the Arcana" is a lot of extra work on the user. Also I don't like the idea of some damaging spells getting around any kind of contest/resistance because that's pretty much always going to be better, and it's annoying to divide what does or does not have a defense applied to along the lines of in-setting logic. That leads to play in which players will literally attempt to argue around one another's defenses. This makes for great metaphorical representation of Mages in the Fallen World but I'm not sure that's actually enjoyable.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
The direct/indirect attack spell distinction just strikes me as something carrying on in the Storytelling System tradition of acting like it's a fluffy story game with loose, freewheeling mechanical interactions until combat begins and suddenly the rules snap into intense granularity. It's just, Mage flirts with both halves of the system is weird ways: wanna turn vibrations into fire and make a guy's throat burn out when he talks? Sure, same dice roll as turning a floor into a Slip 'n Slide. Consequences of throatfire? Well gently caress, better consult your Like, yes, getting Ferrinus to talk about Mage is the platonic ideal of being cornered at a party by the guy who's really into brewing in his garage but he's 100% correct here, there's nothing to be lost by saying "ok an effect at this level would do this much or this type, full stop" and then moving on with your session and your day.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 13:56 |
|
|
Flavivirus posted:What about if the distinction is that direct spells have a set, low damage but automatically hit (or are only resisted by Stamina, Resolve or whatever) while indirect spells still need to connect with the target's defense but are less vulgar/ easier to pull off? I don't see the appeal over a unified mechanic. Intuitively, some hazards oppose Defense while some oppose Stamina or Resolve or Composure or nothing; some repect armor and some don't. Why would there be an extra "did this come out of the caster's hands or not" layer? Hipster Occultist posted:Right, but the physical hazard is created and guided by magic that will contact a person's pattern, or at least that's how I see it. It is not a wholly natural phenomenon, even though it mimics one. I mean, its been a while since I played Mage but I've always seen it as working that way. A missing heart is just as real a problem as a lightning bolt. The point is that what kills you is the fact of being electrocuted or of having nothing to pump your blood around - not abstract "damage" which may or may not have some SFX attached. Like, we've just seen a list of non-"direct" attack spells that clearly targrt a single guy the same way a gun or knife does.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2015 17:01
|
|