Rote Spell Questions

[VVolf]

As I understand it, having a spell as a rote allows you to forgo rolling to control the spell and eliminate negative effects from low rolls when made to target spells. My question(s) are in regard to using rote spells with supplemental actions.

Example: Gregory when casting fire magic has Superb conviction and discipline (5 each). 

Case 1: Gregory wants to cast a rote fire shield (block) and use a supplemental action to advance one zone.

Case 2: Gregory wants to use a supplemental action to advance one zone and cast a rote fire attack rolls discipline to and aim gets (+ - - []: -1).

As the block is not targeting anything Greg's player doesn't need to roll, however if he had rolled, the supplemental action would have added a -1 to the roll.

Which is correct?

A. Case 1 is unaffected by the supplemental action as there is no roll with the rote spell, Case 2 the targeting roll suffers the -1 penalty for the supplemental action, bringing the attack to 3 targeting of the weapon 5 spell.

B. The rote still suffers as though there was a -1 penalty, in Case 1 the block is only 4 strength block, and in case 2 the attack is a targeting 3 of a weapon 5 spell

C. Adding the supplement action changes the parameters so the rote can not be using unless it was designed to account for a -1 penalty for a supplemental action.

D. Something else that I'm not seeing or accounting for... 

[sinker]

My inclination would be A or C, but definitely A over C. It's a weird hitch in the rules, but as far as I can tell it's RAW.

Edit: I reread everything and I'm definitely thinking A

[Haru]

Well, you still kind of have a roll, it's just that it is assumed to be a roll of 0 plus discipline on the power gathering side, so you will never accidentally have too low a roll on a spell you've done hundreds of times.
Since by the RAW it is possible to create rote spells that are higher than your discipline skill, and those rote spells automatically produce backlash, I would say that is the case here as well. So instead of 0, the roll would be treated as -1 if you do a supplemental action, and you would either have to take the backlash or invoke an aspect to offset the difference.

[Sanctaphrax]

What Haru said sounds right to me, but I'd like to point out that you could also take fallout.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

Agreed.  The no-roll on a rote doesn't give you a zero on attack rolls but on controlling the summoned power, so take backlash/fallout or invoke to cover it.

[Becq]

Interesting question, the rules contradict themselves on this point:

"The big benefit of knowing a rote spell is that
you don’t have to roll Discipline to control it. It’s
assumed that you can control the spell energy at
a level equal to your Discipline score, allowing
you to act as if you’d rolled a zero on the dice
every time."

The first sentence basically says that you don't need to worry about the control roll at all; the second sentence, taken literally, would imply that if you take a supplemental action your final result would count as missing by 1.  I think I'm going to have to agree with Haru.  You can still cast the spell, but the extra parameter throws an extra -1 into the final result.

I think, though, that in this case I'd probably houserule this to allow the caster to take advantage of his actual roll, if it was enough to control the spell with the penalty added.  That is, if his attack roll was at least +1, then his control roll would have succeeded, so I'd let the caster count that as his control roll, too.  If not, then the default '0' would stand, and he'd have to deal with backlash/fallout or invoke an aspect to make up the difference.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

That's not really a contradiction.  The roll can be assumed to be physically zero but the overall total suffering from a negative.  It depends on where you picture the negative being applied.

Not a bad house rule but I think I'll stick with making them deal with the -1.  Give them that little extra incentive to rack up some FP.

[Tsunami]

I'd go with option A.

The Spell is always controlled. If the Spell requires a targeting roll, this roll is affected normally.

It's the simplest solution. And imho in concert with the spirit of the rules.
That Spirit being that if you cast a rote it succeeds, no questions asked.