Are attack Rotes worth it?

[Biff Dyskolos]

You can have a rote that will allow you to safely cast a Weapon:X attack for the low, low price of 1 stress but is it worth it?

The first time you cast it, with a clear stress track, it is definitely worth it. But the second time your 1st stress box is already filled and you take 2 stress. You might as well cast a Weapon:(Conviction+1) attack for 2 stress, unless you have serious control issues.

[luminos]

It just depends on how good your control is.  If your control, after bonuses, is two or three ranks higher than your power, then rotes are of limited use.  If your control is close to your power, rotes make sure you don't have backlash, and make it worth it.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, Attack Rotes have the advantage of never blowing up in your face, same as any other Rote. That's nothing to sneeze at.

[JustinS]

You can have a rote that will allow you to safely cast a Weapon:X attack for the low, low price of 1 stress but is it worth it?

The first time you cast it, with a clear stress track, it is definitely worth it. But the second time your 1st stress box is already filled and you take 2 stress. You might as well cast a Weapon:(Conviction+1) attack for 2 stress, unless you have serious control issues.

Well, if you have the conviction, you can always do a rote for more then that (X+3) so the last spell you can pull off without taking consequences does not do something unpredictable.

[Biff Dyskolos]

...unless you have serious control issues.

Yup, got that covered.

So, control issues aside, I don't see the advantage of an attack rote. Defencive rotes on the other hand I can totally see the advantage. Unless your block gets penetrated (and you can always convert it to armour on the fly to prevent that) or you get counterspelled, you only need to cast that rote the first time - then you can just keep extending the duration. But attacks are different.

[Deadmanwalking]

You're making the (extremely unfounded) assumption that all spellcasters have much better Control than Power. Being able to cast a spell at your full Discipline plus Focus Items with no chance of it blowing up in your face is an extemely nice benefit for someone with effectively equal Control and Power.

[Biff Dyskolos]

You're making the (extremely unfounded) assumption that all spellcasters have much better Control than Power. Being able to cast a spell at your full Discipline plus Focus Items with no chance of it blowing up in your face is an extemely nice benefit for someone with effectively equal Control and Power.

I wasn't assuming that control was never an issue, I just wanted to consider the case where control was not an issue. In the context of attack evocations, extra control never goes to waste because the shifts above your target's defence roll go into damage anyway.

But just to cover the bases (this considers skills already adjusted by specialisation/focus bonuses)

• Discipline > Conviction

In this case you either waste your control advantage or you take extra stress. You can control up to Discipline shifts of power but you have to pay the extra stress for exceeding you conviction or just summon less power that you are able to get the guaranteed control

• Conviction<Discipline

Here you have to summon less power than you are able because if you summon power greater than your discipline then it does not qualify as a rote.

• Conviction=Discipline

Here is where the rote is most efficient. You can summon all all the power you are able to (for 1 stress) and you have the guaranteed control.

The Discipline > Conviction case may be advantageous if you summon power equal to your discipline because you are still guaranteed the control even though you are paying extra stress.

However, if we only consider the stress cost of a rote (I assume 1 stress for the sake of argument) you will always have to mark of the second stress box if that first box is already full. At this point it would be better to summon an extra shift of power because you will have to mark that second stress box either way. And a rote does not allow you the flexibility of varying the power.

[Deadmanwalking]

Well, yes. But would you rather do 1 more stress of damage (by channeling an extra shift) or never need to worry about backlash and fallout?

In the case of Discipline > Conviction, or the two being equal, unless your Discipline is much higher than your Conviction backlash and fallout are going to be an issue...particularly if you start exceeding your Conviction in channeled power.

Or, in the case of Conviction > Discipline, you'll need to spend a Fate point or risk major badness to go over your Discipline anyway, so you save doing that for the really important times. Other times, you probably want to play it safe, and that's what Rotes are for.

Rotes aren't intended to always be your best option, they're intended to be your safest. They're for run of the mill fights where you don't want to risk any more than you have to, not the giant all-consuming fight at the end.

[Biff Dyskolos]

Okay, I wanted to put this in a separate topic but since it keeps coming up I guess here is a good a place as any. The reason I was hoping that someone could justify taking an attack rote without invoking the control issue is because it seems to me that post Enchanted Items Patch - Important, holy crap! an enchanted item blows the crap out of the rote.

A rote is a balancing act between Conviction and Discipline. The enchanted item is all Lore. With a rote your specialisations are split between Power and Control and foci bonuses are further split into offence and defence. The enchanted item is all Strength. Yes, Frequency is still there but the patch lets you trade strength for frequency which makes frequency redundant until your strength bonus start to run up against limits. The column limit for specialisation and the Lore limit on foci.

The enchanted item has the drawbacks of limited uses and that it can be taken away. But Lenny removed the use issue when he said you could activate further uses by paying 1 stress. It all depends on if that rule was official or if he was still in brainstorming mode.

That one rule there makes an enchanted item superior to a rote. You get the guaranteed control of the rote and power equal to Lore + Strength and a minimum of 1 free use per session.

[Deadmanwalking]

You're forgetting something very important: Control is your attack roll. Including Foci bonuses. Which very much do not apply to Enchanted Item attacks, those are a raw skill.

So, either you can have a much higher attack roll (up to a base of 8 fairly readily...and I can build one that goes to 10 or 11 if I'm trying) with your Rote OR if there are no Foci involved, the ability to use it can't be taken away (unlike an Enchanted Item).

This doesn't apply to Defensive items and Rotes of course, but there's already the advantage there that defensive spells can be extended, items can't.

Can you build an Enchanter with deadly items who's on par with a spellcaster...yeah, sure. Are they inherently better? Not so much.

[Biff Dyskolos]

You're forgetting something very important: Control is your attack roll. Including Foci bonuses.

That is a very good point thanks. However, that puts you back where I was at the top of the post "making the (extremely unfounded) assumption that all spellcasters have much better Control than Power."

... the ability to use it can't be taken away (unlike an Enchanted Item).

Yup, mentioned that. And when if and when it gets taken away, you can still fall back to the rote or an evocation.

[Deadmanwalking]

That is a very good point thanks. However, that puts you back where I was at the top of the post "making the (extremely unfounded) assumption that all spellcasters have much better Control than Power."

Who said anything about one being vastly higher? I can make starting character with 8s in both. His Rotes are scary.

Yup, mentioned that. And when if and when it gets taken away, you can still fall back to the rote or an evocation.

True, but, well, Evocations are just better. At least, for a dedicated combat Wizard.

[Biff Dyskolos]

Who said anything about one being vastly higher? I can make starting character with 8s in both. His Rotes are scary.

If you get there with specialisations then you have a point; but if you are using foci then you could be disarmed just like the guy with an enchanted item. Except, if your rote depends on that focus then use can't cast the rote.

[Deadmanwalking]

If you get there with specialisations then you have a point; but if you are using foci then you could be disarmed just like the guy with an enchanted item. Except, if your rote depends on that focus then use can't cast the rote.

Sure, sure. But I'm talking two entirely separate advantages over Items that every Rote has at least one of (assuming equal degrees of specialization):

1. Better attack numbers.

2. Can't be disarmed.

Rotes relying on Foci have more of the first, but lack the second entirely. See what I'm saying?

Here, here's a graphic example of both versions:

Looking at it, the best you can get with items as a starting character with one slot is a Weapon: 7 attack at a Skill of 5. I can get a higher Weapon rating with enough item slots thrown in (up to Weapon 10 at most), but the skill never goes up. With, admittedly, a larger investment, I can get the same Weapon: 7 attack at skill 10 as an Evocation with a Focus. Without a Focus, I'm reduced to Weapon: 6 at skill 7. Now, those are specialist numbers...but so's the Weapon 7-10 item.

[Biff Dyskolos]

Sure, sure. But I'm talking two entirely separate advantages over Items that every Rote has at least one of (assuming equal degrees of specialization):

1. Better attack numbers.

2. Can't be disarmed.

Can't argue with better attack numbers; but you only get that if you accept the same disarming drawback as the item. To eliminate the disarming problem you have to accept the same attack numbers as the item. But the item also has the advantage of at least 1 stress free use.

There are trade-offs to each approach; it comes down to personal preference.