Jump to content
Jon D

Paralyzing Curse Not as Advertised

Recommended Posts

Why doesn't a Curse spell with the paralyzing upgrade stop a target from taking maneuvers? Great, I stopped you from killing me, but you can just walk away faster than I can chase you since I have to burn a maneuver on holding the spell. 

 

Also, so it break if I or another PC take the opportunity to bash the target's brains in while they're supposedly helpless?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing is Genesys is written in stone, including spells. Feel free to modify Curse or any spell. Ultimately Curse is the spell for inflicting inconvenience on others. Remember RAW says change things to match your vision or setting. In this case, this can be done narratively or by adding effects to spells. 

  • Perhaps Add an effect that adds the Immobilized condition (perhaps called ROOTED) that adds several difficulty and therefore requires an implement if used with paralyzed.
  • Apply Curse to Athletics since this also covers contested movement. This way, if the the target gets no successes, they aren't going anywhere. You could also rule that if X# of successes, advantages, or a Triumph are achieved when cursing Athletics, the target effectively loses their ability to move or perhaps take movement based maneuvers. 

Ultimately, Effect names are just that, names. They represent general concepts. Paralyzed could represent an ice effect, plants entangling the target, a ball of tar, etc depending on your caster. The ultimate result of how Curse or Paralyze might affect the target should be based on the special effect of the spell not just the skill being cursed. Dont get caught up in the name (fortunately, this is not D&D), focus on the desired effect and add effects, affects, or narrative solutions to achieve what is appropriate.

Edited by lyinggod
too many words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jon D said:

Also, so it break if I or another PC take the opportunity to bash the target's brains in while they're supposedly helpless?

There are two ways that concentration spells end:

  1. The dispel spell is cast, ending the spell
  2. The caster 'looses' concentration, which can be either not being able to perform the concentration manoeuvre or by the GM spending H.png (per the table on page 104)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paralyze isn't an "i win button" in combat, nor should it be, but it's pretty damned close. You've implied a condition that REMOVES their actions, and their ability to take actions. This means they cannot drop an action to a maneuver, and they cannot use actions to fight back. You've traded 1 of your maneuvers for their action, this is huge.

Sure they can take a second maneuver to run away, at the cost of 2 strain. But while they are running away at 2 strain per round, you are one maneuver behind them with an action. One thing you could do would be to throw an ice attack spell at them, or anything else that has the ensnare quality to remove their ability to use maneuvers at all. Meaning they can't take actions or maneuvers. You can even do this is in same round with the T4 talent "Conduit" from RoT, allowing you to cast a spell as a maneuver 1/encounter.

Removing someone's ability to take actions is huge, it's combat winning huge. This is only multiplied when you factor in the fact that the examples above are for the caster by themselves. Now imagine you have a party memeber or ally with the T2 (i think it's t2, might be t1) talent "Hamstring Shot" from the CRB, which also limits movement, or some other way to apply ensare (of which there are plenty).

Paralyze, and curse in general, is an amazing force multiplier. Most likely one of the strongest skillsets in the game for taking down a dangerous adversary. It's kinda stupid good.

Edited by Wisconsen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, c__beck said:

There are two ways that concentration spells end:

  1. The dispel spell is cast, ending the spell
  2. The caster 'looses' concentration, which can be either not being able to perform the concentration manoeuvre or by the GM spending H.png (per the table on page 104)

The devs replied to a question about removing concentration for a single threat. Someone posted what they said here

On 7/23/2018 at 12:38 PM, xaisoft said:

A single threat seems a bit low for that effect; however the final arbitrator of whether that is possible is the GM.

 

Edited by arMedBeta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could add to the paralysis effect:

“Whilst paralysed the target may not perform the Move manoeuvre.”

or if that’s too powerful 

“Spend 2 Advantage to also Immobilise the target for the duration of the spell”

and if that’s still too powerful 

“Spend a Triumph to also Immobilise the target for the duration of the spell”

Edited by Richardbuxton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, arMedBeta said:

The devs replied to a question about removing concentration for a single threat. Someone posted what they said here

 

If you want to change it that’s fine. But nothing in that reply says that’s not how it works, they just said they think it’s a bit low. And her GM is always final arbitrator, so nothing new there, either.

If you want it to cost 2 or even 3 threat that’s cool. But one devs opinion does not invalidate the existing rule.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, c__beck said:

If you want to change it that’s fine. But nothing in that reply says that’s not how it works, they just said they think it’s a bit low. And her GM is always final arbitrator, so nothing new there, either.

If you want it to cost 2 or even 3 threat that’s cool. But one devs opinion does not invalidate the existing rule.

If a character looses the benefits of cover, or falls prone, or slips back down a flight of stairs, then to regain those benefits they simply need to spend another manoeuvre. But if a character looses the benefits of Concentrate then to regain the benefits they need to perform an action and succeed at a skill check. So in effect that single threat has actually lost the character the benefits of an action, which is definitely not the intention of the rule.

Now I’m not saying it’s not something that a group could agree is possible, but it definitely is a very harsh penalty. It’s something worth discussing as a group before it comes up in play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...