((worried I am placing this wrong)) Need assistance in balancing some potions

[ARedthorn]

That would work if the GM is generous.    I generally require at least one shift of power in weapon / damage for a spell to cause damage.  But I tend to think spellcasters have enough advantages. 

No generosity needed.... YS326, special-effect attacks covers this exactly. It's pretty well defined, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to do with magic.

For the rest... yeah. Don't overcomplicate anything- you've got a lot of good ideas here... no need to split a potion's effect into 3 unrelated (rules-wise) effects... when it can do one thing under a slightly different rule heading that covers all your bases.

That said- I'd treat the parkour like the escape potion (ie, a single-round athletics supplement)... with GM permission (if he thinks skill-subs can be extended in duration), then that would be even better, but yeah.

[UmbraLux]

No generosity needed.... YS326, special-effect attacks covers this exactly. It's pretty well defined, and I don't see any reason why it wouldn't be possible to do with magic.

Well, that section specifically mentions weapons and refers to weapon ratings on YS202 - so I think significant generosity is needed to expand it to magic. 

There's also the way magic works, specifically it "is the focus of will to create effect".  If the effect you're creating with the spell is non-damaging, having the skill roll cause damage is both counter intuitive and subverts the purpose of the spell...a can of worms I'd rather not open.  (You'd have to start asking yourself just when a manuever spell will cause damage and when it won't...can it accidentally cause damage?  Big can o'worms!)  Mechanically, spells are either attacks, blocks, counterspells, hexes, or maneuvers.  (See YS251-253 for what you can do with evocation and YS262-264 for thaumaturgy.)  You can combine types or otherwise split power if you have enough shifts, but it's not a weapon...unless you make it one. 

[ARedthorn]

I consider special-effects attacks a subset of attacks, and as such, part of evocation's standard powers. You interpret the association differently. *shrug* All good.

As for the other- if it's non-damaging, it's a maneuver. If it's damaging, it's an attack. If it's something that reasonably does both, with the player intention that it do both... that satisifies my worms. I've been meaning to let them out for a walk anyway.

[Becq]

That would work if the GM is generous.    I generally require at least one shift of power in weapon / damage for a spell to cause damage.  But I tend to think spellcasters have enough advantages. 

It looks to me as though he did just this.  He specified Weapons:Lore (in this case w:4), and presumeably this would translate to a w:0 special attack inflicting an aspect with an extra round of stickiness.  Seems entirely reasonable and in line with the rules.