Putting a Sufficating aspect on someone with a evocation maneuver

[Taustealthsuit]

Let's say you want to do a water evocation maneuver that simply covers someone's mouth and nose with water.  It seems pretty straight forward.  If you succeed then you target is subject to the aspect, suffocating!  Sure I get a tag and I get a +2 the next round to punch him (or what ever else I want to do to him), as he struggles against the water pouring into his lungs. 

But what else happens, magical water is filling up his lungs, have I just found sure fire way to kill someone (who needs oxygen to breath). It might take a while for him him to die, he might even get a few shots off,  but I can pretty much just move on to his friends, and leve him to die a terrible slow death.

I guess the game mechanics question I have hear, is what sort of compels can I expect from this magical maneuver, I bet you would even be willing to spend the fate point to compel your opponent to drown.

This may sound like I am trying to abuse something here, but I can imagine this sort of situation to be pretty common in magical combat.  I mean why bother throwing attack spells back and forth if toucan just put a debilitating (or lethal) aspect on someone.

Even if PC's never do something like this I can imagine the first time they run into a really powerful wizard an NPC might try this.

[EdgeOfDreams]

One possible response from a GM:

"Sorry, that's not a maneuver, that's an attack.  The target will defend with endurance, and you'll deal stress/consequences as usual."

In other words, you can't kill someone with a maneuver.  Maneuvers are for temporary conditions that affect the flow of conflict.  Actually taking someone out of the fight requires an attack.

(or grapple, but I REALLY don't want to get into the magical grapple debate right now)

[sinker]

Let's say you want to do a water evocation maneuver that simply covers someone's mouth and nose with water.  It seems pretty straight forward.  If you succeed then you target is subject to the aspect, suffocating!  Sure I get a tag and I get a +2 the next round to punch him (or what ever else I want to do to him), as he struggles against the water pouring into his lungs. 

But what else happens, magical water is filling up his lungs, have I just found sure fire way to kill someone (who needs oxygen to breath). It might take a while for him him to die, he might even get a few shots off,  but I can pretty much just move on to his friends, and leve him to die a terrible slow death.

A RAW way to do this (though everyone else will hate me for bringing it up) is to actually model this after the Orbius spell. It's basically a magic grapple that slowly inflicts stress.

I guess the game mechanics question I have hear, is what sort of compels can I expect from this magical maneuver, I bet you would even be willing to spend the fate point to compel your opponent to drown.

It's basically the GM's job here to say "No, that is a weak compel that does not add to the game." Even if you don't believe that the GM is the only one who can compel, it is clear in the RAW that all compels must run through the GM. A GM is well within their rights to simply refuse the compel.

[Taustealthsuit]

Sure I can totally see the GM not allowing a maneuver that can drown someone because it is too powerful, but not really because it doesn't add to the game.  It is totally the sort of thing a DF caster could be able to do.  I actually think something like this happens in one of the novels.

I know I could do this with an attack, but for some reason, that just doesn't feel right to me.

[InFerrumVeritas]

How is this different from Orbius?

Okay, I'll play.  There's actually something very similar to this in the book in the Claws power.

Venomous [–2]. Your claws are venomous. Make a Fists maneuver; if successful, the target gains a Poisoned aspect. In each subsequent exchange, the target must roll Endurance to defend against an attack from the poison equal to your Fists score. Once the target concedes or is taken out (falling unconscious), the attacks stop (see page 203 for guidelines on being taken out). However, the damage is already done; without proper medical attention, a taken out victim will die soon (within a few hours, perhaps less), though not immediately. Proper medical attention will remove the aspect and end the effect. This is an opposed roll—you can roll Fists (since that was the skill for the original attack) to set the difficulty to mitigate the poison.

So basically, I'd charge you one shift of power for each exchange you want the spell to last, set the difficulty as the power of the maneuver. Which I think is broken.

Or I'd say that this is basically a magical grapple and have you run it like the Orbius spell on YS294-295.  This is what I'd really do.

On a side note: for save or suck type effects, I allow them as maneuvers with a simple caveat.  They last one round.  If you want to stun an enemy, you can for a round.  After that, they're acting normally unless a: the aspect is sticky and b: you invoke it in subsequent rounds.  So, given this I'd allow it the first way if you invoked the aspect each round.

[polkaneverdies]

Would it feel right to you for your gm to put a few shifts of effect into a maneuver  and then have his npc give you the aspect "cut throat" or "choking on his own blood"?

Placing a "drowning" aspect that is treated as an auto kill is the same mechanics with different fluff.

Additionally unless they could easily follow shagnasty's example and throw up a circle so I don't think I would be moving on to the next bad guy if I were you.

[sinker]

Tau, Let me clarify what I meant by "adds to the game." It's the GM's job to make sure that aspects, compels and invokes benefit the game in one of two ways, the story or the overall fun.

Does this benefit the story? I'll give you a little on that one, it certainly adds a flair to the story, but it actually takes away from the drama/tension as I will explain in a moment, and tension is necessary for any story.

Does it add to the fun of the game? The first time, definitely. The players feel the rush of power, something interesting happens. That can be great. The twentieth time? No, by then it will be agonizing as the wizards handwave whole armies to death and every other player sits on the sidelines until they happen to be able to pull off something similar.

And now we get back to my earlier point about tension. When the players can instantly kill any enemy with a single roll there's no challenge, no tension or drama. These are the things that pull us, that make us want to move forward. Without them what is the point? Why would we continue to look under rocks if we don't care what's under them?

That is what I mean when I say that a compel like this doesn't add to the game (furthermore it detracts from it).

[computerking]

The target can also remove your Aspect with a successful roll, just like he can remove a mundane aspect. (Oh, Water around my nose and mouth? I roll Athletics to wipe it away quickly) Or, with GM and Table permission, and perhaps a related Aspect invoke, prevent the damage for a time. ("Water on my face! Good thing I've got Seal Training!" **Successful Endurance Roll +2 for Invoke** "I can keep fighting for a good long while!")

Also, they can create an aspect that counters yours. (I'm Drowning! Good thing I have... **Fate Point Declaration** "A Long Straw in my Pocket" to breathe through!)
Others can help. ("Oh, My, that Man Can't Breath Water!" "Don't worry, I'm a Doctor" **Successful Scholarship Maneuver** "Whew! Fast work, but this Tracheotomy should allow him to survive!")

Not such a problem, that Evocation.

[toturi]

I agree that some degree of tension is necessary for any story. But even if the players can instantly kill any enemy with a single roll, I think that it only reduces the amount of the tension or drama, afterall there is still the possiblity of the roll not succeeding. If the story is epic, interesting and exciting, reducing or even eliminating the challenge entirely does not detract from it.

[UmbraLux]

As computerking points out, maneuver created aspects aren't all that difficult to remove.  Unless you roll poorly, you'll probably end up similar to InFerrumVeritas' one round rule.

That said, I do prefer to avoid potential "takeout by aspect" situations.  Consequently I'd probably go with an imperfect attack - the spell causes problems but not death...at least not by itself.

[Taustealthsuit]

Thank you all, this was very helpful, especially pointing out the orbits spell on page 249.  I knew there had to be more to than just putting a really nasty aspect on someone, and then spending fate points until they were dead, but nasty spells should exist in this world, I just needed to understand how they interact with the rules.

I get that it would suck to simply have a petrified aspect put on you and then you are a statue, but I needed more than, "dude hat sucks, you can't do that."

[noclue]

I guess the game mechanics question I have hear, is what sort of compels can I expect from this magical maneuver, I bet you would even be willing to spend the fate point to compel your opponent to drown.

Well, if your oponent is a mook NPC, I'd just take the Fate point and give you the death as. Tag for effect (specially if I get to put a Lawbreaker on you). But if it's someone with plot immunity, I'd just declare that not a compel and wait to see what cool stuff you do with your +2 from a free tag.

This may sound like I am trying to abuse something here, but I can imagine this sort of situation to be pretty common in magical combat.  I mean why bother throwing attack spells back and forth if toucan just put a debilitating (or lethal) aspect on someone.

It's just an aspect, it's not debilitating aspect. It's not like we haven't all had a drowning aspect come up in play.

Even if PC's never do something like this I can imagine the first time they run into a really powerful wizard an NPC might try this.

And he'd get a +2 or a reroll for his maneuver.

[UmbraLux]

I get that it would suck to simply have a petrified aspect put on you and then you are a statue, but I needed more than, "dude hat sucks, you can't do that."

One thing about compels which seems to be forgotten all too often:  compels are negotiated.  (YS100 & YS103)

When the compel seems anticlimactic, inappropriate, or simply boring, offer a counter.  Instead of drowning, maybe the character loses a round and gains the moderate consequence "Water in his Lungs".  Or perhaps the spell barely succeeded and you think a minor consequence of "Coughing up Water" is more appropriate. 

Point is, it shouldn't be an either / or question of compel and die or just invoke.

[Tedronai]

Consequences from Maneuvers are just a slippery slope to take-outs, imho.
Losing a round clearing the water from their lungs after they remove the original aspect, and being able to pursue only that removal until then, would seem a more reasonable compel.

If you want to cause a Consequence, model it as an Attack.

[UmbraLux]

Then negotiate it to cause no consequences...or to cause the same number which would have been taken if the spell had been an attack.  What your table negotiates to isn't my point - the negotiation process itself is.