Question about stress system

[Deadmanwalking]

All from p. 256-257.

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.

Referring to Effect, not Power.

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.

Implies that if he'd taken Backlash instead of Fallout he might've had a harder to dodge attack.

As we hinted above, it should be noted that
backlash is a kind of safety mechanism for the
wizard—if he chooses to absorb it all himself,
his spell should still go off as intended because
he was willing to pay the extra cost.

Which again, seems to imply that the spell still does what you want it to do...which includes having a reasonable chance to hit.


I can see (and don't necessarily even disagree per se) with it working the other way, but there's not really definitive evidence one way or the other.

[luminos]

Alright, I understand what you are saying, but I just don't see it the way you do.  All of those to me seem to point out Kordeth's interpretation of being correct.  It never indicates that you get a bonus on your targeting roll by taking backlash, just that the spell itself stays as it was.  The effect of the spell does not equal the result of casting the spell.

[Kordeth]

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

It's not. What is inherently unbalancing is the following scenario:

Barry Fresden, hypothetical wizard, has, after all is said and done, a +6 for channeling power and a +3 for controlling it. He designs a rote that is a 7-shift fire attack, call it Weapon:7 against a lone target. He automatically rolls an effective +6 to control the power, but let's say he flubs the attack roll and ends up with a +1. By your "backlash raises the attack roll to the control roll" reading, one extra mental stress hit gives him a +6 to his attack roll.

Under your scenario, it's actually more beneficial to slightly overpower your rotes, as a single mental stress hit could give you a potentially massive boost of attack accuracy.

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.

I'm really not seeing anything that supports your interpretation at all. If there were a mixed example of fallout and backlash where the attack roll was treated as the difference between the backlash and the fallout , maybe, but all you've cited is an attack spell being treated as an attack with a number of shifts equal to the attack roll, and that really doesn't support any kind of attack roll boosting with backlash.

Put another way, backlash keeps the power of your spell from going haywire. It doesn't do jack to help you actually hit. That's why shifts of power give evocations a Weapon:X rating, not a flat boost to attack rolls.

[Deadmanwalking]

It's not. What is inherently unbalancing is the following scenario:

Barry Fresden, hypothetical wizard, has, after all is said and done, a +6 for channeling power and a +3 for controlling it. He designs a rote that is a 7-shift fire attack, call it Weapon:7 against a lone target. He automatically rolls an effective +6 to control the power,

Huh? Why does he automatically get a +6?

but let's say he flubs the attack roll and ends up with a +1. By your "backlash raises the attack roll to the control roll" reading, one extra mental stress hit gives him a +6 to his attack roll.

No, it couldn't. With my ruling, if he rolls a +1 to hit and takes a single point of Backlash, that only makes his attack Fair. He'd need to take six points of backlash to get a & on the attack roll just like normal.

Under your scenario, it's actually more beneficial to slightly overpower your rotes, as a single mental stress hit could give you a potentially massive boost of attack accuracy.

No, that's...really not how I'm saying it works, at all. Each point of Backlash grants +1 to the Control (and thus attack) roll, up to the base power of the original attack. That's it.

I'm really not seeing anything that supports your interpretation at all. If there were a mixed example of fallout and backlash where the attack roll was treated as the difference between the backlash and the fallout , maybe, but all you've cited is an attack spell being treated as an attack with a number of shifts equal to the attack roll, and that really doesn't support any kind of attack roll boosting with backlash.

Put another way, backlash keeps the power of your spell from going haywire. It doesn't do jack to help you actually hit. That's why shifts of power give evocations a Weapon:X rating, not a flat boost to attack rolls.

Backlash burns out your brain or body to make the spell do what you want. Magic is entirely an exercise in will, it makes logical sense for it to work that way. Now, whether it does or not is another matter entirely.

[Kordeth]

Huh? Why does he automatically get a +6?

Because we're talking about a rote spell. The roll is treated as 0, meaning the result is +6.

No, it couldn't. With my ruling, if he rolls a +1 to hit and takes a single point of Backlash, that only makes his attack Fair. He'd need to take six points of backlash to get a & on the attack roll just like normal.

No, that's...really not how I'm saying it works, at all. Each point of Backlash grants +1 to the Control (and thus attack) roll, up to the base power of the original attack. That's it.

But in the case of a rote spell, the control and attack roll are two separate things. You're saying they should be the same (i.e. backlash increases the attack result to the same value as the control roll, since by your definition the attack result is part of the spell's effect). With a rote spell, it's very easy to end up with a situation where you only need to take one stress of backlash to fully control the spell energy but your attack roll is significantly lower than that. What I'm saying is that your interpretation either leads to the scenario I just described, or you have to create an additional rule to cover rote spells. Such a rule is nowhere in evidence in the book.

Backlash burns out your brain or body to make the spell do what you want. Magic is entirely an exercise in will, it makes logical sense for it to work that way. Now, whether it does or not is another matter entirely.

All the control of power in the world doesn't help you put the spell where you want it to go. If it did, wizards wouldn't have trouble nailing superhumanly-fast Red Court vampires with fire blasts. Whether or not an evocation actually hits what you're aiming at (as opposed to the energy coming out with the power, focus, and effect you want it to) is entirely the subject of your ability to point your hand/staff/blasting rod/whatever at the guy you're trying to smoke and releasing the power at the right moment. Again, that's why the attack power of an evocation attack is represented as a Weapon rating, not just a +X to the attack roll.

[luminos]

Your example is useful Kordeth, but it is wrong.  The wizard you describe had +3 in control, so the rotes are assumed to be at an automatic +3 of control.  Now if you had said that the control was +6, and the targeting roll for the 7 shift rote was a horrible +2, then your example works, because by Deadmans logic a single point of backlash would bring the targeting up by 5.

[Kordeth]

Your example is useful Kordeth, but it is wrong.  The wizard you describe had +3 in control, so the rotes are assumed to be at an automatic +3 of control.  Now if you had said that the control was +6, and the targeting roll for the 7 shift rote was a horrible +2, then your example works, because by Deadmans logic a single point of backlash would bring the targeting up by 5.

Crap, you're right, I switched those numbers in my head when I was writing that example up.

[Deadmanwalking]

Because we're talking about a rote spell. The roll is treated as 0, meaning the result is +6.

As luminos says...huh?

But in the case of a rote spell, the control and attack roll are two separate things. You're saying they should be the same (i.e. backlash increases the attack result to the same value as the control roll, since by your definition the attack result is part of the spell's effect). With a rote spell, it's very easy to end up with a situation where you only need to take one stress of backlash to fully control the spell energy but your attack roll is significantly lower than that. What I'm saying is that your interpretation either leads to the scenario I just described, or you have to create an additional rule to cover rote spells. Such a rule is nowhere in evidence in the book.

Not much of one: Backlash adds the same amount to the attack roll as to the control roll. Since the two are usually synonymous, it would only come up in Rotes.

In fact, your version requires regarding the two as separate rolls even when they aren't which is at least as counterintuitive and almost as much of a new rule.

All the control of power in the world doesn't help you put the spell where you want it to go. If it did, wizards wouldn't have trouble nailing superhumanly-fast Red Court vampires with fire blasts. Whether or not an evocation actually hits what you're aiming at (as opposed to the energy coming out with the power, focus, and effect you want it to) is entirely the subject of your ability to point your hand/staff/blasting rod/whatever at the guy you're trying to smoke and releasing the power at the right moment. Again, that's why the attack power of an evocation attack is represented as a Weapon rating, not just a +X to the attack roll.

Aiming, for a Wizard, is a matter of pure mental focus (hence the use of Discipline), burning out your body or brain to do it better makes perfect logical sense.

Your example is useful Kordeth, but it is wrong.  The wizard you describe had +3 in control, so the rotes are assumed to be at an automatic +3 of control.  Now if you had said that the control was +6, and the targeting roll for the 7 shift rote was a horrible +2, then your example works, because by Deadmans logic a single point of backlash would bring the targeting up by 5.

No, it wouldn't. It would bring it to 3. It improves the Attack by the same amount it improves the Control: One Shift.

[luminos]

Not much of one: Backlash adds the same amount to the attack roll as to the control roll. Since the two are usually synonymous, it would only come up in Rotes.

I think this is the source of the confusion.  Since the control roll frequently double as the attack roll, its easy to believe that the control is the same as the attack.  But here is why I think you get it reversed:  In rotes, the control and the attack are very clearly separate things, so they should be treated as conceptually separate in all cases, even where the roll serves both purposes.

[Deadmanwalking]

I'm not confused per se, it just seems to me that by the spirit of the rules, a spell where you take Backlash is supposed to be as effective as if you'd succeeded on the roll, and for everything but attacks it is. The letter of the rules is a bit unclear on whether it also works that way on attacks (and may well even slightly favor it not working that way), but going by the spirit, I think it should work that way.

[void]

To me, it really seems like the intent really is that the Discipline role serves two completely distinct purposes. One is to control the power, the other is for targeting. The Backlash option to maintain power is only for the power; targeting should be unaffected.

Just because the SPELL works as intended doesn't mean you AIMED it all that well; in fact I'd argue that the stress of botching the control would speak poorly of the wizard's ability to direct it as precisely as they intended.

Besides, the offered purpose of backlash is not to ensure the spell WORKS correctly so much as to ensure you don't screw over nearby people or environment.

[CMEast]

Besides, the offered purpose of backlash is not to ensure the spell WORKS correctly so much as to ensure you don't screw over nearby people or environment.

I agree with you totally, but I wonder why missing your target with a fireball doesn't affect the environment?

[void]

The results of THAT failure are a completely different question.

The short answer is: It only doesn't if it makes sense for the story for it not to. Otherwise, yes, whiffing a burst of flame will catch SOMETHING on fire.

[Kordeth]

I agree with you totally, but I wonder why missing your target with a fireball doesn't affect the environment?

It does, see YS260, "Property Damage Without Fallout."

[CMEast]

Ah of course, thank you Kordeth. I remember reading that now