Rote thaumaturgy spells?

[Michael Sandy]

Thaumaturgy is very vulnerable to the Random Number generator, and the fallout from a failed roll late in the process is pretty huge, so can you have rote thaumaturgy spells?

Instead of a 5 discipline caster slowly building 1 power a turn to avoid failure, they could pump 4 or even 5 power a turn with no chance of failure (barring interruptions.)

So you could have a rote Ward spell or a rote tracking spell perhaps.  Or even a rote voodoo spell.  You would still need to gather the symbolic links and stuff, and if you achieved the complexity of the spell by ritual purification and other navel gazing maneuvers, you would still need to do them for the rote spell.

A rote thaumaturgical veil could be pretty cool.  Or a rote portal spell.

I would strongly suggest that the maximum complexity for a rote thaumaturgical spell would be limited to what could be achieved from navel gazing maneuvers from each of the skills of the caster above great (+4) plus their lore.  Or around 13 for a submerged wizard.  Any higher than that would be too difficult to justify as being "routine".

So, overpowered?  Takes too much away from the "story of the spell"?  A way to move stuff away from extreme evocation specialization?

[crusher_bob]

Remember that you can also take control specialization and control related foci for thaumaturgy.  That's what you do if you want to pull things off faster.

[Belial666]

Evocation overspecialization does not happen due to lack of thaumaturgy rotes. It happens because Thaumaturgy is not direct combat and many roleplayers tend to focus in combat ability rather than anything else. And no, I am not talking munchkinism here. Suppose a roleplayer wants to play a socially powerful character. Who do they normally play, the charming diplomat/noble/politician that, through direct interaction, can convince people on anything or the extremely competent merchant/economist/noble that just buys their way through obstacles?


Making thaumaturgy even less like combat will probably make it less appealing.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Honestly, if you want to move things from extreme evocation specialization make combat less important.  

[EdgeOfDreams]

Don't forget one of the most important rules of Dresden Files - "If failure isn't interesting, don't make the player roll."  I think most groups apply that to Thaumaturgy in the sense that if you're pulling off a fairly routine ritual, have plenty of time to do it, and there's no threat of interruption, you can just assume the character succeeds.

[Becq]

A couple of thoughts:

First, it seems as though if you introduced Rotes into Thaumaturgy, you'd need to play by rules similar to Evocation Rotes.  That is, the Rote would be limited to the character's Lore, since anything higher than that would be dependant on assets that the character can't be assured access to.  (Unless you simply asserted that the Rote takes an enormous amount of time, applying the 'free' +1 per scene bonus as many times as necessary.

Second, for fairly simple Thaumaturgy, you can probably get away with some risk, as long as you have a couple of Fate and appropriate Aspects held in reserve.  Say I have the 5 discipline caster you used as an example and wanted to draw 5 power in a turn.  Assuming I have only two Fate (and two aspects that are as yet unused for the casting), then there is zero chance of failing my roll.  All I'm doing when I roll is finding out whether I spend zero, one, or two of my Fate points.  Most of the time, I'll succeed anyway, and only rarely will a 'failure' cost me more than one Fate to avert.

If the spell is more complex, then I can draw five on the first exchange, then adjust based on remaining resources.  If the first roll cost me no Fate, then I can go for 5 again the second exchange.  If I had to spend a Fate on the first exchange, then the next exchange I draw only 3, again with guaranteed safety.  And so on.