What makes a Rote? (official ruling requested)

[Mal_Luck]

Right now what we're concerned with is, can a split attack be part of a Rote?

Now that I think about it, I'm thinking no. Because if they can be, then why not have EVERY attack Rote be a split attack?

[Falar]

Because 5 Fair (+2) Weapon:1 evocations against a person who rolls Good (+3) on their defense would make you look like an idiot?

I mean, I'm not terribly sure that's how it would work - in fact I'm not terribly sure how a split attack being turned into a single attack would work, but the most obvious and I would think most correct manner wouldn't make it useful at all. If the split attack becomes an equally powerful single attack, then every rote should be split, yes - however, if the rote behaves as five or so separate casts that they resist separately ... well ... good luck hitting anything or having any appreciable power behind the hit. It would be good against a couple of mooks, but not much else.

ETA: Well, I guess a forked or maybe three pronged rote would still be okay, but anything higher than that and I think you'd be really cramping yourself for when the going gets tough. But then again, you might want to design your rotes to clear mooks instead of taking down bosses - as that's when you pour on your full overcast.

[feliscon]

I think that looking at this from a purely rules perspective is not the best way to solve it...

As the developers keep repeating 'intent precedes system'. You say 'I want to do X' and then work out how to best model X using the rules. I think that the implication of this for Rotes is that a Rote always has exactly the same 'intent' component, which you adapt the system to depending on context. For example, Harry's 'Fuego' Rote is always a cohesive bolt/bar of flame which he uses to directly damage enemies. He sometimes aims straight at a single enemy, and sometimes sweeps across multiple targets. Therefore I think that the system says that the Rote is an X shift attack, but whether it's single, multi or indeed zone targeted is flexible (so long as the zone targeting is consistant with 'sweeping across an area' and not, say a radial explosion). When he uses 'fuego' with a different intent (ie. sucking heat out of water and redirecting it to freeze the water) then it is no longer the Rote version.

Obviously, this approach requires more discretion on the part of GMs and players, which may not give the clarity the OP was looking for, but I think it is the most fitting approach to the spirit of the rules.

So a Quick Veil Rote is always a block vs. perception with total shifts constant (power and duration combined), but I don't think it needs to specified whether it's on the caster or some external target. Am I making sense here?

[Deadmanwalking]

Indeed. I'm fairly sure that's not quite what the authors intended, but it's an awesome idea, and might well be even better, now that I think on it.

[Ihadris]

Am I making sense here?

You most certainly are and I like what you've suggested. It's a simple suggestion and seems to me like it would work well.

[feliscon]

Well, thank you both for the complimentary replies 

@Deadmanwalking: I am particularly please by your comment, as you seem to have a pervasive,  (and more importantly) creative and sensible presence on the RPG forum, and I have read many threads where I feel your posts have been very constructive and useful. If you wouldn't mind, do you think you could look at the other rules thought I had here?

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18174.0.html

[Deadmanwalking]

Thank you.  It's nice to hear I'm thought well of.

And I'll post in the thread in question giving you my opinion shortly.

[iago]

First off: There's nothing saying the example evocation spells are rotes, unless that's explicit in the spell's description.

What's the official ruling on what constitutes a rote? Whatever your GM is comfortable with allowing as a rote.

Sorry to disappoint, there. But we expect everyone to make decisions for their games based on what they want to see in their games.

At minimum, based on chats I had with Lenny during the development cycle, the choice of whether a block rote manifests as armor or as a block is not considered a change of parameters.  At the time I didn't expect that, honestly.

But as I thought about it, it started to make sense to me. Harry clearly has some favored, go-to spells that he does regularly, but which manifest with some variations to it. His shield spell -- almost certainly a rote -- is the poster-child for that.

So for me, at my table, in my game, I'd say that defensive rotes that maintain the same amount of power can play around with whether it's armor or block, whether it's set up to last a few extra exchanges or is just a one-timer.  In this, Deadmanwalking and I have some pretty similar perspectives on what the guidelines would be for what is or is not a change of parameters.

As far as the whole maneuver-aspect thing, man, maneuvers are such a lightweight action I'd definitely want to preserve a little flexibility there.  I'd assert that the aspect inflicted needs to remain in the same thematic spirit, but I'd allow some change of specifics. Let's say my maneuver-rote is "Tip the Balance" in its theme -- the point is to knock people off-balance, flat on their asses, whatever.  I can't then use that rote to inflict the aspect "Morose and Contemplating the Essential Futility of Life", but I sure as hell can and should be allowed to inflict "Off Balance", "On The Ground", "Two Left Feet", etc -- all playing with the theme that I'm using a little kinetic force to mess up the target's ability to take graceful action.

[exploding_brain]

Thanks Fred.   

Would the same guidelines apply at your table for effects generated by enchanted items?

[iago]

Would the same guidelines apply at your table for effects generated by enchanted items?

Generally, yes.