A bit frustrated

[Taran]

I'm trying to make some spells and after reading posts, there's a few things I'm not sure of.  The mechanics of spellcasting I'm fairly good with, it's just the nuances of maneuvers and such.

Let's say I want to stun someone and prevent them from acting.

I use a power 8 rote, I could:

1. Do a Strength 8 Block against all actions against a target that lasts one round - or more rounds if I pump more shifts into it (but then it's not a rote).  So the target would have to try to do an endurance or something each round to get out of it.

2.  Just try to do enough damage and if he takes enough he can take the "stunned" consequence

3. Do a Stregth 8 maneuver to give him the "stunned" aspect, which I can tag for free once and again for fate points.

What is the best option?  I'm confused with aspects.  If one of my players is "stunned" because of a maneuver, can they act normally or can I say, "sorry, you can't do anything until you remove the maneuver" or is that a compel on the maneuver aspect?

Lastly, with evocation, can I do a classic D&D style sonic blast where the spell does damage and stuns at the same time (not including my above option 2) or is multiple effects the realm of Thaumaturgy?

[BumblingBear]

I'm trying to make some spells and after reading posts, there's a few things I'm not sure of.  The mechanics of spellcasting I'm fairly good with, it's just the nuances of maneuvers and such.

Let's say I want to stun someone and prevent them from acting.

I use a power 8 rote, I could:

1. Do a Strength 8 Block against all actions against a target that lasts one round - or more rounds if I pump more shifts into it (but then it's not a rote).  So the target would have to try to do an endurance or something each round to get out of it.

2.  Just try to do enough damage and if he takes enough he can take the "stunned" consequence

3. Do a Stregth 8 maneuver to give him the "stunned" aspect, which I can tag for free once and again for fate points.

What is the best option?  I'm confused with aspects.  If one of my players is "stunned" because of a maneuver, can they act normally or can I say, "sorry, you can't do anything until you remove the maneuver" or is that a compel on the maneuver aspect?

Lastly, with evocation, can I do a classic D&D style sonic blast where the spell does damage and stuns at the same time (not including my above option 2) or is multiple effects the realm of Thaumaturgy?

Wow.  8 shifts of power.

You could do a maneuver and then tag for effect too.

Like, if you are using air, you could do a maneuver for the aspect, "Blown away".  Then you could tag that aspect for effect.

As GM, I would rule that the enemy flies back at least 5 zones, taking damage from anything behind it in it's way (whatever is thematically appropriate.  Drywall won't do much to a character with supernatural toughness).

Anyway, depending on how that plays out (like if you were smart and maneuvered yourself to made the badguy slam into a brick wall) I would give the enemy various consequences as well.

8 shifts is pretty hefty.  An intelligent 8 shift maneuver would probably kill a ghoul.

Sort of like just hacking at a critter with a sword is not always the way to go.  It it usually better to stack up aspects and then do a maneuver like, "slicing the neck", with an impressive roll.

If a player invoked that for effect, I would rule the monster d-e-d dead, unless it is not thematically appropriate.

-IF YOU JUST WANT TO STUN THEM-

You can use spirit to take someone out in their stress track, or more easily (and not skirting the laws of magic), apply a maneuver with spirit, "knocked out".

In my game, as long as you win by 2+ shifts, I'd let you invoke that maneuver to effect and the perp would be knocked out.

If appropriate, I'd let the perp start rolling endurance to try "coming to" after about 2 rounds.

However, if your attack was 8 shifts, I doubt they will be able to make an endurance roll for that anytime soon.

[WillH]

I'm trying to make some spells and after reading posts, there's a few things I'm not sure of.  The mechanics of spellcasting I'm fairly good with, it's just the nuances of maneuvers and such.

Let's say I want to stun someone and prevent them from acting.

I use a power 8 rote, I could:

All three options are viable and halve their advantages and disadvantages.

1. Do a Strength 8 Block against all actions against a target that lasts one round - or more rounds if I pump more shifts into it (but then it's not a rote).  So the target would have to try to do an endurance or something each round to get out of it.

On the plus side an 8 shift block will put a stop to a lot of stuff. If you need more than one round you can always put more shifts into it next turn, even if it's a rote. But, unless you're tagging or invoking a relevant aspect it will not be a grapple and you will need to be specific about what it is you're blocking.

2.  Just try to do enough damage and if he takes enough he can take the "stunned" consequence

The advantage here is you are doing stress. The downside is you don't get to choose what the consequence is, so there is no guarantee the target will be "stunned." Clearly communicating intent can help mitigate this issue.

3. Do a Stregth 8 maneuver to give him the "stunned" aspect, which I can tag for free once and again for fate points.

The problem is you cannot get a free compel by tagging an aspect. If you want to compel the target to be stunned, you must pay a fate point every time (disregard if you're using a common drift that allows tags to be used for compels). It's still a viable option because the person controlling the character can and should self compel the character to inaction to generate a fate point.

Lastly, with evocation, can I do a classic D&D style sonic blast where the spell does damage and stuns at the same time (not including my above option 2) or is multiple effects the realm of Thaumaturgy?

You could put three shifts into a maneuver and the rest into a straight weapon rating, effectively making it a special effect attack combined a standard weapon. I don't think this is 100% kosher by the rules, but I don't see any real problem with it.

[Taran]

Wow.  8 shifts of power.

It's powerful, but I'm playing in a game where the wizard has power 7 rotes.  I'll be taking over the dming soon, so I want good opposition.  We're a 10 refresh group and he has +5 conviction along with foci.
That's why I used power 8, but the number was intented to be a bit arbitrary.

You could do a maneuver and then tag for effect too.

Like, if you are using air, you could do a maneuver for the aspect, "Blown away".  Then you could tag that aspect for effect.

As GM, I would rule that the enemy flies back at least 5 zones, taking damage from anything behind it in it's way (whatever is thematically appropriate.  Drywall won't do much to a character with supernatural toughness).

Anyway, depending on how that plays out (like if you were smart and maneuvered yourself to made the badguy slam into a brick wall) I would give the enemy various consequences as well.

8 shifts is pretty hefty.  An intelligent 8 shift maneuver would probably kill a ghoul.

Sort of like just hacking at a critter with a sword is not always the way to go.  It it usually better to stack up aspects and then do a maneuver like, "slicing the neck", with an impressive roll.

If a player invoked that for effect, I would rule the monster d-e-d dead, unless it is not thematically appropriate.

-IF YOU JUST WANT TO STUN THEM-

You can use spirit to take someone out in their stress track, or more easily (and not skirting the laws of magic), apply a maneuver with spirit, "knocked out".

In my game, as long as you win by 2+ shifts, I'd let you invoke that maneuver to effect and the perp would be knocked out.

If appropriate, I'd let the perp start rolling endurance to try "coming to" after about 2 rounds.

However, if your attack was 8 shifts, I doubt they will be able to make an endurance roll for that anytime soon.

Tag to effect...I've seen it in one of the example spells...the "grasping branches" spell YS,pg294.  

To get this straight, your guidlines are that if you succeed by 2 shifts you can tag to effect?  Officially, are there any guidlines for this?  When you say "invoke for effect", are you giving the perp a fate point?

Also, how can you kill something with a maneuver?  I thought the purpose of a maneuver was to set-up killing blows and fancy moves.

If I did a maneuver to knock someone out, what's the difference if it's 8 shifts of power vs 4?  If the the perp fails, he faces the concequenses.
It also seems a bit powerful to be a maneuver.  Wouldn't you have to just do piles of damage until they conceeded and said "they're knocked out"?

[Taran]

The problem is you cannot get a free compel by tagging an aspect. If you want to compel the target to be stunned, you must pay a fate point every time (disregard if you're using a common drift that allows tags to be used for compels). It's still a viable option because the person controlling the character can and should self compel the character to inaction to generate a fate point.

I just meant that if someone wanted to attack him or something, they could get a free tag from the "stunned" aspect to get a +2

You could put three shifts into a maneuver and the rest into a straight weapon rating, effectively making it a special effect attack combined a standard weapon. I don't think this is 100% kosher by the rules, but I don't see any real problem with it.

cool

[WillH]

I just meant that if someone wanted to attack him or something, they could get a free tag from the "stunned" aspect to get a +2

I was assuming you wanted stun to mean they can't do anything, but simply tagging for a +2 is totally appropriate.

[Taran]

I was assuming you wanted stun to mean they can't do anything, but simply tagging for a +2 is totally appropriate.

Yeah.  You answered my question, but I was just clarifying the meaning of that sentence.  If I do a maneuver, anyone can tag the aspect for free once or with a fate point thereafter, but if I want the PC to "Do nothing for one round" because he's stunned, I have to offer him a compel and pay him a fate point if (s)he agrees.  I think that's what you were telling me.

[evileeyore]

...disregard if you're using a common drift that allows tags to be used for compels...

A what now?  What do you mean by "using a common drift"?

[BumblingBear]

It's powerful, but I'm playing in a game where the wizard has power 7 rotes.  I'll be taking over the dming soon, so I want good opposition.  We're a 10 refresh group and he has +5 conviction along with foci.
That's why I used power 8, but the number was intented to be a bit arbitrary.

Understood.

Tag to effect...I've seen it in one of the example spells...the "grasping branches" spell YS,pg294.

I suggest checking out these forums and looking for the discussion threads where Fred gives the official answer on stuff like this.  Basically, tagging for effect means that instead of using a fate point to invoke for effect, the PC is using their free tag from a maneuver... for effect.

To get this straight, your guidlines are that if you succeed by 2 shifts you can tag to effect?  Officially, are there any guidlines for this?  When you say "invoke for effect", are you giving the perp a fate point?

If the PC were invoking an aspect for effect, the perp would get a fate point.  If the pc is tagging for effect, no fate point is spent so no fate point is received.

The 2 shift thing is just an example.  Tags and invokes for effect, just like spell fallout, are in the hands of the GM.  My own personal rule is that the thematic effect of a tag for effect is going to scale appropriately depending on how many shifts the maneuver succeeded by.

If a fate point is used to invoke for effect, I am generous - especially since the perp gets a fate point out of it.

Also, how can you kill something with a maneuver?  I thought the purpose of a maneuver was to set-up killing blows and fancy moves.

If I did a maneuver to knock someone out, what's the difference if it's 8 shifts of power vs 4?  If the the perp fails, he faces the concequenses.
It also seems a bit powerful to be a maneuver.  Wouldn't you have to just do piles of damage until they conceeded and said "they're knocked out"?

Maneuvers kill when appropriate.  Look at the books.  Harry does not get into huge firefights with RCVs.  One shot and they're dead.  Why?  Because he's making evocations like, "Fire to the gut" then invoking for effect.  This does not happen with named enemies, just mooks.

As for the 8 shifts vs 4, 8 shifts is a battle tank's cannon vs 4 shifts of a .50 bmg.

As an astral bolt to knock someone out, these are two vastly different power levels.

The way I would model it is that tagging "knocked out" for effect would knock a perp out for one round, but each round after they they would roll endurance to be conscious again.

If they become conscious again, it would count as a supplemental action and they'd be able to act that round.

I'd give them +2 to their endurance roll for every time they took damage while unconscious.

So you can see, trying to beat an 8 shift spell would be a lot harder than a 4 shift spell.

To beat an 8 shift spell, they'd probably have to stack aspects while unconscious, taking at least several rounds to come to. (or use fate points).

To beat a 4 shift spell, they'd only have to roll endurance once.

[WillH]

A what now?  What do you mean by "using a common drift"?

Just replace drift with house rule. I wasn't paying attention to my audience there.

[WillH]

Maneuvers kill when appropriate.  Look at the books.  Harry does not get into huge firefights with RCVs.  One shot and they're dead.  Why?  Because he's making evocations like, "Fire to the gut" then invoking for effect.  This does not happen with named enemies, just mooks.

Actually, the way that example is modeled in the game is Harry blast an RCV in the gut with fire, does more stress than the RCV can take, and the GM doesn't bother with consequences, because they're just mooks, and the RCV is taken out..

[BumblingBear]

Actually, the way that example is modeled in the game is Harry blast an RCV in the gut with fire, does more stress than the RCV can take, and the GM doesn't bother with consequences, because they're just mooks, and the RCV is taken out..

It can be done either way.

And as for the GM not bothering with consequences, that is a slippery slope.

With a normal vanilla mortal - absolutely.  But a RCV is an 8 refresh monster at least I think.  I have a hard time believing they would just lay down and die when all they'd have to do is take a conseuence of "lightly singed"

[Taran]

I suggest checking out these forums and looking for the discussion threads where Fred gives the official answer on stuff like this.  Basically, tagging for effect means that instead of using a fate point to invoke for effect, the PC is using their free tag from a maneuver... for effect.

I've been looking at various threads...Any helpful links would be appreciated!

[sinker]

The problem is you cannot get a free compel by tagging an aspect.

This is actually wrong. In a thread a month or two ago Fred/Iago made his thoughts known on this. His words were to the effect of someone may tag an aspect for effect which triggers a compel that is negotiated between the GM and the compelee. In other words I tag an aspect for effect, and then the GM compels the target (offering him a fate point from the general pool), giving him the chance to buy it off, at which point the GM could up the stakes if so desired, etc. Once I invoke for effect (regardless of whether I'm tagging or spending a Fate point) my part is finished and the whole rest of the process is between the GM and the target.

Here's his specific statement: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205

As for maneuvering and then tagging that to take someone out, one must consider that a maneuver can not create an aspect that can't be removed. Just as someone can maneuver to place an aspect so can anyone maneuver to remove it. If you're placing aspects like "sliced neck" then how is someone supposed to remove that? And yet they can by RAW. I would suggest you look for better aspects (something like "off-balance") and then tagging it to cause something greater (using the same example falling from a great hight).

Finally the way I run it is that someone is compelled until they take steps to be no longer compelled. So if you compel someone to be "stunned" then they will stay out of the fray until they (or someone else) removes the aspect, or until an appropriate amount of time has lapsed to assume that the aspect is no longer applicable. I don't know if this is RAW, however it seems appropriate considering the value of fate points and the alternative of people running around with "blinded" or similar with no effect.

[WillH]

Here's his specific statement: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205

I stand corrected. Thanks for showing this to me. To add to your point this post from Fred makes the matter even clearer than the detailed explanation you pointed to.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022188.html#msg1022188

Finally the way I run it is that someone is compelled until they take steps to be no longer compelled. So if you compel someone to be "stunned" then they will stay out of the fray until they (or someone else) removes the aspect, or until an appropriate amount of time has lapsed to assume that the aspect is no longer applicable. I don't know if this is RAW, however it seems appropriate considering the value of fate points and the alternative of people running around with "blinded" or similar with no effect.

I see some potential problems here. Like with the stun example we're dealing with in this thread. If someone is compelled to be stunned they can't act to remove it, admittedly this is an edge case. Compels complicate a characters life, so they should last until their life is sufficiently complicated.