Telarus wrote: ↑
Personally, I'm not trying to reverse engineer the clarification. It doesn't hold up to scrutiny for me. But I'm also not debating it's value - it is what it is. I'd rather just consider it oddly named than try to twist the metaphysics for justification.Sat Nov 04, 2017 11:28 pm
A person's current clothing (and other "worn" objects) are incorporated into their Pattern on the astral. The talent targets the Pattern (Mystic Defense), and shows the adept the best way to deliver damage to the target. Yes, even if it's Named Threaded Armor. *Shrug* That's how the mechanic works, and with ED it's best to try to see the fiction and mechanics as reinforcing each other.There is a weird interaction between worn/wielded/carried things and the creature's Pattern, though, that is true. Targeting said things are creature's MD or it's own, whichever is higher.
"Worn" things being incorporated into the pattern doesn't really hold water to me, though. Both Heat Armor and Slow Weapon target the item, not the wielder. When either is dropped, the effect continues. This requires the thing to be distinct despite being wielded (worn). One would also assume that they would need to be visible for targeting purposes ("I assume you have a hidden weapon on you, so I shall cast Slow Weapon on it" doesn't make sense to be). This would mean that worn gear is sufficient to conceal a thing from targeting.
However, I'm approach all of this in a "what seems reasonable" vector. Ignore that "Slow Weapon" has a description and I tell you there is a spell called "Slow Weapon." What would you assume? If I am going to slow a weapon, I assume I can see the weapon. Furthermore, I assume I am slowing the weapon, not the wielder's arm.
Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Sun Nov 05, 2017 1:22 am
]]>
]]>
]]>
I will note, though, that "this is magical" is not really a justification to suggest a constraint doesn't exist in ED (example, "this is magic, so visibility of armor doesn't matter"). ALL Talents in ED are magical, and ALL spells in ED are magical, and yet they all have constraints (some bigger than another's). If something targets "a thing you can see," then inability to see it (inside a house, behind a while, cover by a tablecloth) means you cannot target it, even though magic is involved. Again, I'm not debating whether Spot Armor Flaw requires site of armor, we know 100% now that it does not, BUT if something says/implies "you must see it," then yes, you have to see it.
Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:44 pm
]]>
The Undying wrote: ↑
3) Does the talent work against non-equipped armor? Most specifically, natural armor?
4) If something has stacked armor, can Spot Armor Flaw be used against the creature multiple times (once per armor)?
I figured it would be fun to reply to the different questions on their merits rather than via appeal to authority. Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:46 am
2) Does the armor have to be visible? I.e., if the Adept attempting to use Spot Armor Flaw cannot see the armor, can the talent be used against that creature?3) Does the talent work against non-equipped armor? Most specifically, natural armor?
4) If something has stacked armor, can Spot Armor Flaw be used against the creature multiple times (once per armor)?
Spot Armor Flaw is a magical Talent. Wearing a simple robe is not enough to hide your armor flaws from the magic of this talent.
As has been pointed out, armor does not have to be manufactured in order to have flaws. It will spot flaws in natural armor.
Spot Armor Flaw can be used as often as you want, but you only get the bonus from your best current success. This dynamic does not change for stacked armor. Example: The first use of Spot Armor flaw determines that the skin is not as tough at the back of the Obsidiman targets knees. The talent can only be used once per round, regardless of the number of opponents faced or how much armor they wear. The next round a test upon the same Obsidiman shows that the Living Crystal Armor does not cover the Obsidiman targets head. These are both flaws in the targets armor. One in his natural armor, and one in his worn armor. However since you can't strike a blow that takes advantage of the weakness of the worn armor on the head, and the natural armor on the knees, only one of these armor flaws can actually be used per strike. A high enough result on a SAF test might show some overlapping flaws, but this would be the result of one really excellent test, not two mediocre tests. Only the highest current test counts at all.
Statistics:Posted by ChrisDDickey — Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:59 pm
]]>
https://youtu.be/fjtVsYqAR3s
LOB-STER STICKS TO MAG-NET (yah yah yah)
Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Fri Nov 03, 2017 7:09 am
]]>
Now all my human adept needs to do is get a friend to distract the Steelman and I can tag him with spot armor flaw before jumping in with my great leap to crushing blow, down strike, surprise strike with my claw-shape...
Statistics:Posted by Purplefixer — Fri Nov 03, 2017 5:24 am
]]>
Lys wrote: ↑
Yeah, I think this is ultimately the core.Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:19 pm
Though it probably should have been named Spot Weak Point or something like that, it's not a big deal.Is it confusing that a Talent named "Spot Armor Flaw" has nothing to do what Joe 6-pack gamer likely knows about "armor" (mass media generally tells us it's something worn, the system tells us it's something worn or natural)? We have empirical evidence that says yes (multiple people have asked it across both old and new forums).
Is it a big deal that the Talent is intended to be "Test vs TMD, get +2 Damage for each success for Rank rounds"? No, not at all! (I think it's unfortunate, given the flavorful name, but definitely not a big deal)
Is it a horrible black mark against the system? Nope, every system has rough spots!
For me, the question ultimately comes down to "since it keeps getting asked, and we now have an official FAQ/Clarification/Eratta, is there value in putting the information there?" I think so, but that's my perspective.
I'm not implying you disagree or anything. I just thought your sentence was a nice alternate wrap-up sentence.
Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:01 pm
]]>
It is simply "how to I send damage to the most vulnerable parts of my target". Those vulnerable parts may change as a namegiver wears different external armor. The game rates "armor" as the difference from a civilian namegiver (human, lets say) of average build and willpower, but my Silat (Indonesian martial arts school) teaches that even us monkeys are armored.
The angles of the skull and the outside of the fore-arms are large armored areas that can take hits, the soft underside of the skull/throat and the soft muscles on the inside of the fore-arms are the 'armor flaw' spots. Similarly, it depends on the context of the attack. If I am striking with a blade in practice, I am envisioning soft fleshy targets to lacerate or cut through to disable the opponent's musculature. If I have a stick or axe (bludgeoning weapons) va an unarmored target, I am envisioning strikes to hard bony areas like the temple, wrist, forearm, elbow, shoulder, ribs, hip, knee, etc in order to BREAK something and destroy the opponent's structure.
Statistics:Posted by Telarus — Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:57 pm
]]>
]]>
]]>
The Undying wrote: ↑
I feel like this happens a lot. You say "Power X needs to tell me what to do in Circumstance Y" without ever really considering the possibility that the Developers did not consider Y important enough to design, playtest, and devote page space to create special rules dealing with Circumstance Y that players and GMs will then have to remember exists and then either memorize or look up every time Circumstance Y might possibly occur. Power X tells you exactly what to do in Circumstance Y - the same thing you do in every other Circumstance.Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:15 am
I would personally recommend some official clarification on this since the title and some of the text feels like it very needlessly suggests something not intended, thereby leading to these questions (asked on both the old and current forum).Spot Armor Flaw was probably intended specifically to allow Archers to shoot Dragons in the weak point in their hide. The possibility that it lets them bypass plate mail was probably considered a fringe benefit at the time. I get that you like rules that deal with fiddly situations, but I think the most straightforward reading here is that the Developers thought the old rules proved too fiddly so the cornercases were simply elided in the new edition. I think there can be nothing more official than "the new edition is worded differently", which sends a pretty clear signal to me that the Developers considered and rejected special rules that deal with special circumstances.
Would it break the game if Power X handled Circumstance Y no differently than Circumstance Z?
Statistics:Posted by etherial — Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:02 pm
]]>
Here's the relevant text from Panda:
Fairly disappointing to me, but there you have it. It is, indeed, "Empower Strike: test against target MD to receive +2 bonus per success for a number of rounds equal to Rank." One older edition's version did work by reducing Physical Armor, thereby limiting its use against low armor or unarmored opponents, but that is neither here nor there, we are in ED4, let ED4 be ED4.Here is how the talent is intended to work:
It grants a bonus to damage regardless of if the target is wearing armor. It does not work with effect tests.
I would personally recommend some official clarification on this since the title and some of the text feels like it very needlessly suggests something not intended, thereby leading to these questions (asked on both the old and current forum).
Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Thu Nov 02, 2017 7:15 am
]]>
If you chose to ignore the text as-written, hey, more power to you, play your way!
Ignoring that the Talent specifically focuses on armor, though, basically turns this into "Generic Damage Bonus #52: roll to determine bonus," which I very sincerely doubt is the intent. Otherwise, it would just be something like "Empower Strike: test against target MD to receive +2 bonus per success for a number of rounds equal to Rank."Statistics:Posted by The Undying — Thu Nov 02, 2017 6:54 am
]]>
The Undying wrote: ↑
Here's the talent text (last line removed as it's about duration):
"The adept detects weaknesses in a character’s armor by making a Spot Armor Flaw test against the higher of the target’s or his armor’s Mystic Defense. If successful, the adept sees any flaws in the armor and gains a +2 bonus to his Damage tests against the target for each success scored on the Spot Armor Flaw test."
1) Does it require armor? I.e., can you use this to receive a damage bump on someone without armor of some kinda?
2) Does the armor have to be visible? I.e., if the Adept attempting to use Spot Armor Flaw cannot see the armor, can the talent be used against that creature?
3) Does the talent work against non-equipped armor? Most specifically, natural armor?
4) If something has stacked armor, can Spot Armor Flaw be used against the creature multiple times (once per armor)?
5) [Bonus question] Should Spot Armor Flaw provide a bonus that is more than the armor rating of the target?
Yes, we are talking past each other. The Talent doesn't say to take any of those things into account and therefore it doesn't. Nor do I think anything would improve if it did because Combat has been redesigned so that Damage Buffs are how you combat Armored and Unarmored foes alike and this is a simple Damage Buff. If you prefer, the simplest solution is to replace the word "armor" with "defense" or "tactics" in the Talent Name and Effect Text.Thu Nov 02, 2017 2:46 am
We may be talking past each other as you seem to be talking orthogonality. As far as I can tell, you aren't responding to my points and I'm not seeing where your points connect to mine.Here's the talent text (last line removed as it's about duration):
"The adept detects weaknesses in a character’s armor by making a Spot Armor Flaw test against the higher of the target’s or his armor’s Mystic Defense. If successful, the adept sees any flaws in the armor and gains a +2 bonus to his Damage tests against the target for each success scored on the Spot Armor Flaw test."
1) Does it require armor? I.e., can you use this to receive a damage bump on someone without armor of some kinda?
2) Does the armor have to be visible? I.e., if the Adept attempting to use Spot Armor Flaw cannot see the armor, can the talent be used against that creature?
3) Does the talent work against non-equipped armor? Most specifically, natural armor?
4) If something has stacked armor, can Spot Armor Flaw be used against the creature multiple times (once per armor)?
5) [Bonus question] Should Spot Armor Flaw provide a bonus that is more than the armor rating of the target?
Statistics:Posted by etherial — Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:21 am
]]>