Question about stress system

[JesterOC]

I've been reading and rereading the rules and I would like some feedback on the following scenario.

A wizard wants to cast a shift 5 evocation using earth as the element (Tossing metal at the target). He has a conviction of 5 so it only costs him mental 1 stress. He then marks the 1st bubble on his sheet. He then rolls to control the spell so he takes his discipline of 4 and rolls a -2 for a total of 2 which is 3 less than he needs to control it.

He decides that he wants the full strength of the spell to come out and so he takes the failure as backlash, Since he is nearly physically beat he decides to take it as mental stress. So he marks the third bubble on his character sheet.

The spell goes off as a  Superb (+5) spell which the enemy must dodge it with athletics. He has fair (+2) athletics and rolls a 0. He has no armor so he takes 5-2=3 physical stress. Since he only can take 2 physical stress he takes a minor consequence of "cut up hands" as he used his hands to defend himself against the attack. And still takes a stress of one.

So how does all that sound? Do the mechanics work?

Follow up questions. The wizard can tag the aspect "Cut up hands" on his next attack to gain a +2. If that fails, the aspect cut up hands can't be used unless a FATE point is used right?

OK thanks in advance to all who have read all of this and commented.

JesterOC

[wyvern]

Right... up until the calculation of what it does to the enemy.

Spells get a weapon rating equal to their power, and the control roll doubles as the attack roll.  So, in your example, the attack goes off at fair (+2), that being his control result, and exactly hits - 0 stress from accuracy.  But it's a weapon 5 attack, so that's a 5 stress hit, and the enemy has to take a moderate consequence (something like, say "cuts all over") - and still has to mark off his first stress box.  For a mook level opponent, this'd probably go straight into concession territory; perhaps he gets knocked out by the attack; perhaps he takes his moderate consequence and flees in terror; up to standard concession negotiation (and what the GM wants to offer).

By contrast, if the enemy had rolled a mere +1, he'd have dodged the attack entirely - no hit, no consequence, no stress.

Follow up question: Correct.  Or the wizard could pass that free tag to one of his allies if he wanted to - but that's up to the wizard's player.

[JesterOC]

Ahh OK.  So the spell goes off at full power but the wizard still controlled it poorly. And I forgot that the shift of the spell = the weapon power.  OK that all makes sense.

JesterOC

[Deadmanwalking]

Actually, he's wrong. With Backlash, the spell still goes off as if you'd made the roll, so the poor victim will take 5+5-2, or 8 Physical Stress. He'd need to roll a 6 total to avoid it.

Everything else is correct however.

[Kordeth]

Actually, he's wrong. With Backlash, the spell still goes off as if you'd made the roll, so the poor victim will take 5+5-2, or 8 Physical Stress. He'd need to roll a 6 total to avoid it.

Everything else is correct however.

No, he's right. The spell goes off as if you'd made the control roll--i.e. you don't lose any shifts of power the way you do with fallout. That doesn't change the fact that the aiming roll came out as Fair (+2). The fact that the control roll and the aiming roll are the same dice pool doesn't change that. It's much like a rote spell in that respect: with a rote, the control roll for the spell is assumed to be +0, but that doesn't mean your attack roll with it is automatically +0.

[Deadmanwalking]

Hmmm. I don't think so. Re-read the section on backlash and fallout on p. 257. Neither of the examples refer to this specifically, but this one seems to indicate that Backlash would keep the targetting roll up there equal to the Power channeled:

"Because Harry lost 5 shifts to fallout, the
GM rules that Harry’s attack is only a single
target Weapon:2 attack at Fair. The one opponent
Harry is still able to target dodges that
easily."

It implies that the attack is only reduced to Fair because he took Fallout, not Backlash.

Also note, that everything in the section references the 'Effect' of the spell, not the 'Power' of the spell.


There's not a definitive answer either way, but I'm pretty sure the intent was for it to work the way I'm thinking of, and the text has some support for that.

[Kordeth]

Hmmm. I don't think so. Re-read the section on backlash and fallout on p. 257. Neither of the examples refer to this specifically, but this one seems to indicate that Backlash would keep the targetting roll up there equal to the Power channeled:

"Because Harry lost 5 shifts to fallout, the
GM rules that Harry’s attack is only a single
target Weapon:2 attack at Fair. The one opponent
Harry is still able to target dodges that
easily."

It implies that the attack is only reduced to Fair because he took Fallout, not Backlash.

No, the attack isn't reduced to Fair at all: it's Fair because Harry rolled Fair on the control/aiming roll. The power is reduced from Epic (+7) to Fair (+2) because of Fallout. That in turn reduces the effect of the spell from a whole-zone Weapon:5 attack to a single-target Weapon:2 effect.

Also note, that everything in the section references the 'Effect' of the spell, not the 'Power' of the spell.

Right, and the effect of a spell is, for example, "a whole-zone Weapon:5 attack" or "a maneuver that lasts four exchanges" or "an Epic (+7) block for one exchange." All of those are examples of the effects of 7 shifts of power. Taking backlash doesn't reduce the effect of the spell: it's still a whole-zone Weapon:5 attack, it's just a whole-zone Weapon:5 attack with an attack roll of Fair, exactly as if you tossed a Weapon:5 grenade into the room and rolled a +2 on the Athletics attack roll.

[Deadmanwalking]

Nowhere is "effect" defined the way you say it is. And the example implies that the attack could've been higher than Fair if he didn't take Fallout (as opposed to Backlash).

Neither of our interpretations are actually directly laid out in the book as gospel, so we're basically not going to be able to get a definitive answer unless the developers pop in with one.



However, I still think in the spirit of Backlash being nasty and making the spell actually be useful, it should raise the attack roll as well.

[Kordeth]

Nowhere is "effect" defined the way you say it is. And the example implies that the attack could've been higher than Fair if he didn't take Fallout (as opposed to Backlash).

What, then, is your opinion on rote spells? The book is clear that you have to make an attack roll with a rote spell, even though the control roll is assumed to be 0 + modifiers. If I design a rote that "overchannels" my Conviction by, say, 1 shift, can I then turn, say, an attack roll of -4 into an attack roll of (my Conviction + 1) just by eating another point of mental stress? That would be the logical outgrowth of your "taking Backlash increases your attack roll" rule.

However, I still think in the spirit of Backlash being nasty and making the spell actually be useful, it should raise the attack roll as well.

Taking backlash doesn't increase anything, it just prevents the shifts of power you used for the spell from being reduced. The result of the attack roll is not one of the things you devote shifts to: the Weapon rating, zone effects, etc. are.

[Deadmanwalking]

On Rotes: You explicitly can't create Rotes that exceed your Control. Why would Backlash raising the effective attack roll change that?

On your other point: Doesn't it? The book seems unclear on that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the book doesn't give an answer one way or the other, and the circumstantial stuff supports me, I think.

[luminos]

On Rotes: You explicitly can't create Rotes that exceed your Control. Why would Backlash raising the effective attack roll change that?

Can you give me the page number for that?

[Kordeth]

On Rotes: You explicitly can't create Rotes that exceed your Control. Why would Backlash raising the effective attack roll change that?

You absolutely can, YS258, last paragraph before "Other Parameters."

On your other point: Doesn't it? The book seems unclear on that. I'm not saying you're wrong, but the book doesn't give an answer one way or the other, and the circumstantial stuff supports me, I think.

The book says nothing about taking backlash raising your roll or counting as any kind of bonus. It says "Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains a part of the spell and does not reduce its effect. Fallout is different: every shift of fallout reduces the effect of the spell."

The power remains a part of the spell, that's all. The attack roll isn't part of the spell's power, any more than the attack roll with a gun is part of the gun's Weapon damage.

[Deadmanwalking]

You absolutely can, YS258, last paragraph before "Other Parameters."

You're quite correct. My bad. How is taking a 2 stress mental hit per spell for a theoretical +1 to hit unbalancing again?

The book says nothing about taking backlash raising your roll or counting as any kind of bonus. It says "Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains a part of the spell and does not reduce its effect. Fallout is different: every shift of fallout reduces the effect of the spell."

The power remains a part of the spell, that's all. The attack roll isn't part of the spell's power, any more than the attack roll with a gun is part of the gun's Weapon damage.

Hmmm, that's the one reference you've found that would seem to support your point. The other references still seem to bring some support for mine, though. I still say we need the developer's answer to have anything definitive.

[luminos]

Deadman, please show me these references that support your point, because so far, its just your say so that they do.

[TheMouse]

My reading of the rules matches Kordeth's.