Focus Items -- For Non-Combat Evocation?

[JDK002]

That would be one of those context dependant situations.  If it was a maneuver to place aspect "giant smouldering hole in the wall" then useing Feugo would be againts the rules.  If it was framed like a conflict where the wall was given a stress track and the aspect was gven as a consequence via using Feugo, then it's legit.

[Tedronai]

When, narratively, it is preceisely the same spell.
Thus, the narrative justification for the strictness of the Rote rules is void.

[Silverblaze]

This one is really going to depend on a group by group basis.

If my group as a whole thinks a rule is stupid or doesn't work in a certain situation we toss it..or at the very least ignore it for the situtation at hand.

Cantrips: never need a focus item.
Non-combat evocation is a misnomer: attacking anything is a conflict.  That is why this system has rules for social "combat" (which I hate by the way).  The next logical step is to assume any conflict is considered a form of combat just maybe without exchanges and initiative.  Placing aspects/maneuvers/blocks even out of combat is still creating conflict to solve a problem.  Therefore focus items should work fine.

The question we as a forum seem to be having is defensive vs offensive yes?  Easy cop out answer: GM judgement call + player debating his or her case.  Then the conflict should resolve normally with or without focus item bonuses.

[UmbraLux]

That would be one of those context dependant situations. 

I don't interpret it that way.  I go with defensive unless opposed in the case of maneuvers. 

The resulting aspect may get used defensively, offensively, or as a utility boost but the spell itself only becomes "offensive" if someone has to resist it.  In other words, self and scene maneuvers are defensive while putting an aspect on anyone else is offensive.

[Haru]

I can readily imagine a skilled earth mage making a quick manipulation of gravity, or, if they're wearing enough ferrous metal, magnetics, that the result sees them to the ground gently and safely.

Sure, but It would just be a short pull of force against the fall, not an actual slow fall.

At least that's my separation between evocation and thaumaturgy. Evocation can only create very short bursts of energy. It is good for a fight, where you need the quick stuff, but it is rather limited in it's application. Thaumaturgy is much more versatile, but it takes a lot longer to cast.

In the example above, I would see evocation more as a quick burst of kinetic energy canceling out part of your own. Thaumaturgy on the other hand would stop you from ever gathering too much momentum in the first place. I would let the evocation spell either be a block against fall damage or a maneuver to tag on the athletics roll against the fall damage. The same situation with a thaumaturgy spell could be resolved with a 3 shift maneuver spell and a tag for effect. But that is not really practical, when you are chased by someone, and you just have to jump.

[UmbraLux]

In the example above, I would see evocation more as a quick burst of kinetic energy canceling out part of your own. Thaumaturgy on the other hand would stop you from ever gathering too much momentum in the first place. I would let the evocation spell either be a block against fall damage or a maneuver to tag on the athletics roll against the fall damage. The same situation with a thaumaturgy spell could be resolved with a 3 shift maneuver spell and a tag for effect. But that is not really practical, when you are chased by someone, and you just have to jump.

I mostly agree with you...but your post struck a thought.  What if you set up a block against movement to slow or stop a fall? 

[Haru]

I mostly agree with you...but your post struck a thought.  What if you set up a block against movement to slow or stop a fall?

In the example above, I would see evocation more as a quick burst of kinetic energy canceling out part of your own. Thaumaturgy on the other hand would stop you from ever gathering too much momentum in the first place. I would let the evocation spell either be a block against fall damage or a maneuver to tag on the athletics roll against the fall damage. The same situation with a thaumaturgy spell could be resolved with a 3 shift maneuver spell and a tag for effect. But that is not really practical, when you are chased by someone, and you just have to jump.

Unless you mean something entirely different, I think I covered that already. I would never let somebody actually fly using evocation, even if the block against movement they put up is high enough to withstand the fall. Though I could see an evocation spell creating a sort of invisible stepping stone to close the gap between two buildings that are too far away to jump across.

[Tedronai]

Fly using a single casting of evocation?
Not without some funky evothaum.

Hurl yourself into the sky with one spell, and then use subsequent spells to either propel yourself further or to change direction mid-'flight'?  If you're insane enough, sure.

[UmbraLux]

Unless you mean something entirely different, I think I covered that already.

I meant a block against movement, not against damage.  Different but perhaps similar results. 

[Mr. Death]

I think the best you can do against fall damage is to create armor, not a block--in which case it'd be 1/2 however many shifts you can put in it, just like an Athletics roll against falling.

[Haru]

I meant a block against movement, not against damage.  Different but perhaps similar results.

Can you give me an example? As far as I understand you now is, that gravity will pull you down with an effort measured in shifts, and if you can beat that effort with a block, you will not fall down. Which seems kind of silly to me. Things like Gravity are pretty much matter of fact in my book. If you don't have anything supporting you, you'll fall down. You can protect yourself from that in a number of ways, but the effect itself does not have a number value to roll against.

[Mr. Death]

Can you give me an example? As far as I understand you now is, that gravity will pull you down with an effort measured in shifts, and if you can beat that effort with a block, you will not fall down. Which seems kind of silly to me. Things like Gravity are pretty much matter of fact in my book. If you don't have anything supporting you, you'll fall down. You can protect yourself from that in a number of ways, but the effect itself does not have a number value to roll against.

Going by the book, falling damage is always going to cause damage. All you can do to mitigate it is create armor of some sort (the book says by rolling Athletics), but once you're falling, you're going to take some kind of damage.

[Silverblaze]

Fly using a single casting of evocation?
Not without some funky evothaum.

Hurl yourself into the sky with one spell, and then use subsequent spells to either propel yourself further or to change direction mid-'flight'?  If you're insane enough, sure.

Done it!  Totally worth it!

Can you give me an example? As far as I understand you now is, that gravity will pull you down with an effort measured in shifts, and if you can beat that effort with a block, you will not fall down. Which seems kind of silly to me. Things like Gravity are pretty much matter of fact in my book. If you don't have anything supporting you, you'll fall down. You can protect yourself from that in a number of ways, but the effect itself does not have a number value to roll against.

Think Feather Fall in D&D or slow fall abilities Monk classes get in various RPGs and MMORPGs.  Mitigate damage not actually stop falling.  Fall...slower.

[Haru]

Going by the book, falling damage is always going to cause damage. All you can do to mitigate it is create armor of some sort (the book says by rolling Athletics), but once you're falling, you're going to take some kind of damage.

A block would do, creating the spell as armor is not necessary, I think. My confusion was mainly the distinction between a block against movement vs a block against fall damage.

Think Feather Fall in D&D or slow fall abilities Monk classes get in various RPGs and MMORPGs.  Mitigate damage not actually stop falling.  Fall...slower.

See above. The mitigate damage spell would, for me, be a block against damage from falling (however it plays out narratively), and I have a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of a block against movement in this circumstance, as UmbraLux put it.

And again, an actual feather fall spell for me would be thaumaturgy. In most cases, you'll end up with 0 stress after the fall anyway, sure. But it plays out in different ways.

[Mr. Death]

A block would do, creating the spell as armor is not necessary, I think. My confusion was mainly the distinction between a block against movement vs a block against fall damage.

That's the actual RAW about falling damage, though--you can't block, only create armor.

Gravity is an implacable foe, and falls are its
method of attack. The ground makes the attack
on the victim—and it never misses. It’s an especially
nasty weapon, its blows hitting particularly
hard.
The hit is equal to 5 stress for every 10 full
feet a character falls, so a character falling from
the top of the third floor (or around 30 feet) will
face a 15-stress hit.
Most kinds of mundane protection simply
don’t work against stress taken from a fall. That
leaves stress boxes, consequences, and supernatural
powers to absorb the effects. Armor from
supernatural toughness powers (page 184) applies
(unless the Catch says otherwise), as does armor
from shielding spells (page 252) constructed to
absorb falling impact.
The player may roll Athletics to try to reduce
this somewhat, but usually only for short falls.
The target is Mediocre; for every two shifts
gained on the roll, gain one point of armor
against the falling damage. So a Great (+4)
Athletics roll would take 2 stress away from the
fall’s stress value.