Ask a simple question...

[Sanctaphrax]

Go on.

[Orladdin]

Also, is there a formula or tool around for calculating the probability of success on any given 4dF roll?

*Ah-hem*  I'll just leave this here.

IIRC, the rules say nothing about what skills are used to defend against Evocation. So you'd normally assume that you use whatever skills have appropriate trappings, which generally means Athletics for attacks and whatever seems reasonable for maneuvers.

(Craftsmanship and other such skills aren't really valid defences by the RAW, but I might allow them in some situations.)

Except that there's this attack spell in the example list, which says that you use Might to defend against it.

I strongly advise you to ignore that spell. It's not remotely fair to let spellcasters choose what skills their opponents use to defend against their attacks.

The spell caster describes his spell.  The defender rationalizes what makes sense to defend against it with.  The GM sanity-checks the whole thing.

The trappings under the skills in the book should not be assumed to be the only thing those skills can ever possibly do.
The Gravitas example makes most sense to defend against with Might.  You're being crushed to the ground by your increased weight.  Someone who is stronger is going to have a much easier time defending against it.

[Mr. Death]

Defensive rote spells would depend on your conviction rating.  Defensive rote spells are limited if they only last for one exchange.  If the player in question only has a conviction of 3, then the rote can only block a power of 2 and last for one additional exchange, not very useful.  But with a conviction of 5, it's a strength 4 with one additional exchange duration.  That is assuming I'm remembering the rules right.  I still feel like I need to read them a 3rd time haha.

Not true. You can make a Rote over your conviction or even discipline. You just have to pay for it in stress and backlash as normal. The main advantage of a rote here is that if your Discipline is 4, a 6-shift rote won't ever do more than 2 shifts of stress.

So, everytime a wizard casts a rote spell, he can change them? A zonewide for a gang of thugs, a spray if he recognises one of the thugs as an undercover cop, or a single target if he just wants one specific thug?

According to the descriptions of Harry's Fuego and shield spells and Morgan's earthquake, yes, how you divide the shifts of a rote spell is up to the wizard at the time of the casting. The write ups give it as an option to make them spray or zone attacks.

[JDK002]

My mistake, I mush be mixing up mechanics.  For some reason I was thinking base power for rotes couldn't be higher than your conviction.  Or maybe I was just transposing that with thinking the practicality of doing so wouldn't make it viable in most games.

[Sanctaphrax]

The spell caster describes his spell.  The defender rationalizes what makes sense to defend against it with.  The GM sanity-checks the whole thing.

This is sensible, but not really RAW unless you're going by that one spell example. The rules for attacks say that skill descriptions explain whether a skill can be used to defend.

And skills like Craftsmanship say no such thing.

PS: Trappings ought to cover every possible use of skills, but realistically there are gonna be holes in the writing. Breaking down every field of human endeavour into simple categories is actually pretty hard.

[Tedronai]

According to the descriptions of Harry's Fuego and shield spells and Morgan's earthquake, yes, how you divide the shifts of a rote spell is up to the wizard at the time of the casting. The write ups give it as an option to make them spray or zone attacks.

If only they didn't thoroughly contradict the rules on the matter, that'd be great.

[UmbraLux]

This is sensible, but not really RAW unless you're going by that one spell example. The rules for attacks say that skill descriptions explain whether a skill can be used to defend.

And skills like Craftsmanship say no such thing.

Orladdin is correct.  The book states "intent precedes mechanics" - you figure out what you want to do then you fit mechanics to it.

Bringing up false dilemmas like using Craftmanship to defend is simply a red herring.

[Orladdin]

Orladdin is correct.  The book states "intent precedes mechanics" - you figure out what you want to do then you fit mechanics to it.

Thanks.

Bringing up false dilemmas like using Craftmanship to defend is simply a red herring.

When Sanc brought it up this time, out of context, it was. 
Though, since I was the one to bring up the corner-case of a craftsmanship defense previously, let me address it once more and show how it made sense in the context in which I brought it up.

This is sensible, but not really RAW unless you're going by that one spell example. The rules for attacks say that skill descriptions explain whether a skill can be used to defend.

And skills like Craftsmanship say no such thing.

Except the discussion about a Craftsmanship defense was when dealing with a spell that targets armor.  An--I think--reasonable and likely thing to have happen.

You're thinking too inside-the-box, I think.  FATE is supposed to be more freeform by design.  Roll a skill that makes sense to attack, roll a skill that makes sense to defend.  It's a lot quicker and has less cognitive dissonance to say the quality of the armor defended than to say "the only way to avoid this spell is to be quick on your feet."  Nevermind that both in traditional fantasy and real-life people wearing armor are generally not quick on their feet.  And what if the person narrating the spell doesn't narrate that it's a beam at all?  What if it just "happens"?  What skill defends then?

But if we can only defend with skills that include defense trappings: The armor itself doesn't have skills in DFRPG.  Does that mean the spell is unopposed?  No.
But Wait: The armor does have skills in DFRPG!  The FATE fractal discusses how everything in a FATE game can be made more or less complex on as-needed basis to model situations more accurately^*. 

Here's another way you might do it given the situation where armor is attacked by utilizing the fractal:
The armor is important enough in this scene to partially stat is as a character.  Therefore, it might have a Durability skill (if that's how we decide how to best represent its ability to resist a rust spell) and that skill might have the Attrition Resistance trapping.  And, it stands to reason, that armor is as good as the person who made it, so that skill might be set based on the original craftsmanship skill of the person who crafted it.  Now, the armor rolls its Durability skill to defend against the spell.

Do you see?  It comes out to the same roll in the end.  The crafter of the armor rolls their craftsmanship as defense.  Do you like this dust-jacket more?  The only difference is that it takes more work and more time to add the more detailed abstraction.

You're supposed to rationalize things out when they aren't explicitly covered in the rules or when the rules are unclear.  DFRPG (as a FATE game) is way more open about this than other games, even.  It specifically tells you in numerous places to "make it up if it doesn't exist." 

PS: Trappings ought to cover every possible use of skills, but realistically there are gonna be holes in the writing. Breaking down every field of human endeavour into simple categories is actually pretty hard.

Actually, it's truly impossible for trappings to cover every possible use of skills.  If you will indulge me in a single ad-absurdum for a moment: The example of the Homemaker skill came up in another thread to cover vacuuming, cleaning, fixing pants, etc.  If we can only perform actions that are covered by existing trappings, does that mean PCs cannot possibly operate a vacuum? 

Common sense, an open mind, and a reasonable demeanor is absolutely necessary to synch simulation to reality.  And being able to do it quickly and without argument at the table keeps the game rolling smoothly.


[Edit:] Wow, I guess I was more passionate about that than I realized.  The thread should probably be renamed "Ask a simple question... get a long-winded answer."  lol


^*_{While the fractal is not included in the book, Fred has discussed how that's how he expect(s/ed) things to be resolved in FATE.  It's the biggest behind-the-curtain reveal in game mechanics today.}

[Mr. Death]

I agree with Orladdin--intent precedes mechanics, and frankly, if it's cool and the player can adequately justify it, I say go ahead.

Hell, in my game last night, a character killed a goblin with an Intimidation roll (with the flavor of goading said goblin into tackling them--while they were wearing iron), specifically because it was cooler than the character just smacking the goblin with the iron instead.

[Sanctaphrax]

Okay.

I was expecting rebuttals, but instead y'all made my points for me. But apparently you thought you were arguing with me...

Let me quote myself here:

(Craftsmanship and other such skills aren't really valid defences by the RAW, but I might allow them in some situations.)

What I'm saying is, the mechanics say that you can't defend with Craftsmanship. But you should feel free to override the mechanics if it suits you. The whole intent precedence thing, etc.

You should know what the mechanics are even if you're going to change them, though.

And the bit about trappings is what I was trying to say as well. The platonic ideal DFRPG would have trappings that cover everything, but it's not gonna happen in real life.

The only part I object to is this:

When Sanc brought it up this time, out of context, it was.

I didn't bring it up. I was continuing my rebuttal to your earlier statement, using the example that you so considerately provided.

When you call a direct answer to what you said a red herring, it makes it difficult to take anything else you say seriously.

[Orladdin]

Well, I wasn't the only one who (mis?)interpretted it that way, but all the same: sorry for name-calling. 


I don't think you're right saying that it's not supported by RAW, though.  The spell in-question, for one; but also (and I'll need remember to check my books when I get home to find the section on it) but I'm pretty sure it talks somewhere about negotiating the skill used for defense and actually uses a similar example to my armor one. 

Until I can back it up with a quote from the text I'm fine ceding the point though, since we're in agreement on the (much more important) point of being flexible to player suggestions.

[JDK002]

Not to derail the current line of discussion, but I have a question about speed powers.  Does the "free" zone movement of something like Inhuman Speed count as your supplemental action?  Or can you move one zone at no penalty, then move a second zone at a -1 penalty to your action?

[Becq]

Not to derail the current line of discussion, but I have a question about speed powers.  Does the "free" zone movement of something like Inhuman Speed count as your supplemental action?  Or can you move one zone at no penalty, then move a second zone at a -1 penalty to your action?

Here's my take.  The rules state:

Whenever moving as part of another physical activity, you may move one zone without taking the –1 penalty for a supplemental action (page 213).

To my mind, the key premise is that you are moving as part of another physical activity, which means you are moving as a supplemental action.  The effect of the power is to remove the penalty when doing this, but it doesn't seem to change doing so into a free action.

[Sanctaphrax]

Wait, are characters limited to one supplemental action per turn?

I always figured that limitation was only for movement. So if I wanted to move a zone, draw my gun, and load that gun, then shoot someone, I could do that all in one turn. Albeit at a -3 penalty for the shot.

That aside, I agree with Becq. One zone only.

[Locnil]

The wording on YS213 seems to indicate that you get just one main action and one supplemental action per exchange. It doesn't actually come out and say only one suplemental action, though.