Help with a Player's Item

[Sanctaphrax]

Depends on what kind of magic you're facing. If it all targets Athletics, yeah, Footwork would be better...but if some of it targets Endurance, Might, or Discipline...well, then, you've got something handy there. Hell, you can parry mental attacks with it, since it's conceptually a counterspell, parrying the magic itself.

You should probably read the arguments we've had about mental Evocations and Evocations that don't target Athletics.

My (possibly-biased) summaries:

Mental evocations are pretty clearly broken, and the RAW don't unambiguously make them possible.

However, the novels have them. And the rules do imply their existence.

Evocations that can't be defended against with Athletics probably don't exist. There's nothing in the rules that implies them except for one example spell, and the example spells are honestly pretty badly written.

Given that Athletics's defence trapping can be used against explosions and bullets, it's hard to think of a physical Evocation it couldn't apply to. And given how powerful Evocation is, there's no good reason to.

[Deadmanwalking]

You should probably read the arguments we've had about mental Evocations and Evocations that don't target Athletics.

Links? The search function's unreliable at best.

My (possibly-biased) summaries:

Mental evocations are pretty clearly broken, and the RAW don't unambiguously make them possible.

However, the novels have them. And the rules do imply their existence.

You could probably argue the examples in the novels are all Psychomancy not Evocation per se (Kemmlerian Necromancy allows it at Evocation speeds, after all), if you really wanted. But the game pretty clearly intends them to be available, and I think them definitionally breaking the 4th Law makes their use...somewhat limited. I can also definitely see not allowing them for balance reasons, though.

But none of this, including some sort of 'forum consensus' matters at all when giving advice to an actual game. The only rules interpretations that matter in that case are those that apply in that particular game...so advice has to take this sort of thing into account even if you wouldn't allow it in your games.

Evocations that can't be defended against with Athletics probably don't exist. There's nothing in the rules that implies them except for one example spell, and the example spells are honestly pretty badly written.

Given that Athletics's defence trapping can be used against explosions and bullets, it's hard to think of a physical Evocation it couldn't apply to. And given how powerful Evocation is, there's no good reason to.

This I'm skeptical of. The example spells are really clear that this is how they work, and I can think of a dozen other easy examples that don't make sense to defend against with Athletics [such as being frozen in ice (it's a Block, not an attack, but Might's the obvious skill to escape...and Athletics makes no sense at all if the block materializes around you) or being overheated from the inside via an effort of will (Endurance is clearly your defense here...how does moving help?), etc. etc.]

It's clearly intended that other skills can come into play when defending against magic. Anything else is, well, both clearly illogical and against the game's intent. An argument can be made that Athletics is always applicable per the RAW...but an equally strong one can be made that it can't. So...I'm going with logic and intent here.

[Sanctaphrax]

Links? The search function's unreliable at best.

Not off the top of my head. As you say the search is lousy.

You could probably argue the examples in the novels are all Psychomancy not Evocation per se (Kemmlerian Necromancy allows it at Evocation speeds, after all), if you really wanted. But the game pretty clearly intends them to be available, and I think them definitionally breaking the 4th Law makes their use...somewhat limited. I can also definitely see not allowing them for balance reasons, though.

(click to show/hide)

Molly

does some stuff that's hard to describe as anything but mental evocation. But I guess you could call it  a maneuver.

You're wrong about the clear intent, by the way. If it was clear, I'd think it was intended. Which I don't. That's the thing about clarity...if somebody else doesn't see it it's not there.

Also, you should read this because you actually care about intent. One of the Evil Hat guys all but says "mental attacks are thaumaturgy".

The fourth law, incidentally, only applies to humans. And it doesn't cover sleep spells, which some people think of as mental.

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.msg1051139.html#msg1051139But none of this, including some sort of 'forum consensus' matters at all when giving advice to an actual game. The only rules interpretations that matter in that case are those that apply in that particular game...so advice has to take this sort of thing into account even if you wouldn't allow it in your games.[/quote]

The item should of course be adapted to the rules of the user's game.

But I don't know what those are, so I try to write for what I think the rules are objectively. Unfortunately objectivity is hard to find.

This I'm skeptical of. The example spells are really clear that this is how they work, and I can think of a dozen other easy examples that don't make sense to defend against with Athletics [such as being frozen in ice (it's a Block, not an attack, but Might's the obvious skill to escape...and Athletics makes no sense at all if the block materializes around you) or being overheated from the inside via an effort of will (Endurance is clearly your defense here...how does moving help?), etc. etc.]

It's clearly intended that other skills can come into play when defending against magic. Anything else is, well, both clearly illogical and against the game's intent. An argument can be made that Athletics is always applicable per the RAW...but an equally strong one can be made that it can't. So...I'm going with logic and intent here.

All Evocation is aimed manually. It doesn't aim itself. You can't do the symbolic link thing without Thaumaturgy. So if somebody tries to heat up your insides, you can get out of the way and have them miss your insides.

That's not just what I think is mechanically fair, it's also what I think is logical and narratively appropriate. And if I had to guess I'd say it was the intent as well.

So I, too, am going with logic and intent.

PS: There's only one example evocation that implies Athletics can't defend against certain spells. And the examples imply all kinds of silly stuff.

[Deadmanwalking]

Not off the top of my head. As you say the search is lousy.

Darn.

(click to show/hide)

Molly

does some stuff that's hard to describe as anything but mental evocation. But I guess you could call it  a maneuver.

You're wrong about the clear intent, by the way. If it was clear, I'd think it was intended. Which I don't. That's the thing about clarity...if somebody else doesn't see it it's not there.

Also, you should read this because you actually care about intent. One of the Evil Hat guys all but says "mental attacks are thaumaturgy".

Definitive enough for me. And like I said, I'm pretty comfy with that interpretation. The proposed sword would still defend against, say, a Kemmlerian's Evocation-speed Psychomancy though, which was my original point.

The fourth law, incidentally, only applies to humans. And it doesn't cover sleep spells, which some people think of as mental.

True enough.

The item should of course be adapted to the rules of the user's game.

But I don't know what those are, so I try to write for what I think the rules are objectively. Unfortunately objectivity is hard to find.

Yeah. But even if it's wrong, if a lot of people are doing it...it should be taken into consideration when advice is given.

All Evocation is aimed manually. It doesn't aim itself. You can't do the symbolic link thing without Thaumaturgy. So if somebody tries to heat up your insides, you can get out of the way and have them miss your insides.

That's not just what I think is mechanically fair, it's also what I think is logical and narratively appropriate. And if I had to guess I'd say it was the intent as well.

So I, too, am going with logic and intent.

I disagree. Tracking visually can't be dodged by Athletics in most cases, that's clearly mostly Stealth (and would absolutely work to avoid such an attack...though probably not the first round). Finding cover with Athletics might work, too...but only if there's cover to be had, and only if you can pinpoint who the attack's from, so not universally at all. And almost certainly not in time to avoid the first attack (though it'd work on subsequent ones once you had cover...tagging the Cover aspect for effect, probably). But you could do the same to use Athletics vs. someone who needed to see you to use, say, Inflict Emotion. Which clearly isn't how that power normally works...so why should it be for a spell with the same requirements (ie: line of sight)?

PS: There's only one example evocation that implies Athletics can't defend against certain spells. And the examples imply all kinds of silly stuff.

I saw, well, all of them. They have a line for what Skill is used to avoid the spell. Now, most of them, it's Athletics (as it should be)...but if Athletics was actually universal, why the line? And I count three that target other stats (Earth Stomp, Orbius, and Quick Veil), though I guess you could argue that Veils are special. I wouldn't, but you could.

[Theonlyspiral]

I just want to think everyone for their help with this. Both myself and MightyThews are very happy with how this turned out.

[Sanctaphrax]

Definitive enough for me. And like I said, I'm pretty comfy with that interpretation. The proposed sword would still defend against, say, a Kemmlerian's Evocation-speed Psychomancy though, which was my original point.

Yeah, but that's such an edge case. Footwork still makes this look sad.

I disagree. Tracking visually can't be dodged by Athletics in most cases, that's clearly mostly Stealth (and would absolutely work to avoid such an attack...though probably not the first round). Finding cover with Athletics might work, too...but only if there's cover to be had, and only if you can pinpoint who the attack's from, so not universally at all. And almost certainly not in time to avoid the first attack (though it'd work on subsequent ones once you had cover...tagging the Cover aspect for effect, probably). But you could do the same to use Athletics vs. someone who needed to see you to use, say, Inflict Emotion. Which clearly isn't how that power normally works...so why should it be for a spell with the same requirements (ie: line of sight)?

You don't just have to see them, you have to see them and aim. It's like a bullet or a grenade: once it's moving, there's no dodging. But the aim can be dodged.

I saw, well, all of them. They have a line for what Skill is used to avoid the spell. Now, most of them, it's Athletics (as it should be)...but if Athletics was actually universal, why the line? And I count three that target other stats (Earth Stomp, Orbius, and Quick Veil), though I guess you could argue that Veils are special. I wouldn't, but you could.

Athletics can be used to defend against all physical attacks. Blocks are another matter. Orbius and Quick Veil are blocks.

The defensive Skill line is there for maneuvers and for the assistance of newbies, I think. And I'm pretty sure it isn't definitive...if it says use Discipline against this mental attack, that doesn't mean you absolutely can't use Conviction.

Also, @%$# Orbius.

[Deadmanwalking]

Yeah, but that's such an edge case. Footwork still makes this look sad.

Eh, not if it lets you parry blocks or maneuvers as well regardless of what skill they target. Being able to insta-counterspell with Weapons is really pretty cool.

You don't just have to see them, you have to see them and aim. It's like a bullet or a grenade: once it's moving, there's no dodging. But the aim can be dodged.

I disagree. Evocation is often aimed, but by no means always. Sometimes just having line of sight is sufficient depending on circumstances and spell.

Athletics can be used to defend against all physical attacks. Blocks are another matter. Orbius and Quick Veil are blocks.

And I'd say that the Evocation rules break that general rule (as they do many others), allowing the targeting of other skills instead. I mean, poison gas should sure target Endurance, shouldn't it?

The defensive Skill line is there for maneuvers and for the assistance of newbies, I think. And I'm pretty sure it isn't definitive...if it says use Discipline against this mental attack, that doesn't mean you absolutely can't use Conviction.

I don't necessarily disagree on the 'not definitive' bit, and would likely allow Athletics to defend against non-Athletics targeting attacks under the right circumstances (as mentioned in my example last post)...I just think each attack has a particular skill its targets that can always defend with, no justifications needed.

Also, @%$# Orbius.

Heh. That one's a bit wacky, innit?

[Sanctaphrax]

Eh, not if it lets you parry blocks or maneuvers as well regardless of what skill they target. Being able to insta-counterspell with Weapons is really pretty cool.

It doesn't. Says "attacks" right there.

I disagree. Evocation is often aimed, but by no means always. Sometimes just having line of sight is sufficient depending on circumstances and spell.

And I'd say that the Evocation rules break that general rule (as they do many others), allowing the targeting of other skills instead. I mean, poison gas should sure target Endurance, shouldn't it?

Poison gas is Thaumaturgy. You have to alter things on a molecular level to make it. It's not a simple burst of elemental energy.

And Evocation only ignores normal limits when it says it does. Don't you think something like "Evocation can totally bypass the defensive benefits of Speed Powers while cutting most characters' defence skills down by 2 points or so" merits mention in the actual rules?

People say Wizards are broken, often because people break them by changing the rules.

Heh. That one's a bit wacky, innit?

If by "wacky" you mean "terrible", yes.

[Deadmanwalking]

It doesn't. Says "attacks" right there.

That's an awfully limited and mechanistic reading. Attacks is often used to refer to various offensive acts not just the attack action per se.

Poison gas is Thaumaturgy. You have to alter things on a molecular level to make it. It's not a simple burst of elemental energy.

Pulling all the air out of someone'e lungs then. Or cutting off blood to the brain with Water or Spirit.

And Evocation only ignores normal limits when it says it does. Don't you think something like "Evocation can totally bypass the defensive benefits of Speed Powers while cutting most characters' defence skills down by 2 points or so" merits mention in the actual rules?

I'd argue that it says precisely that, in the example section. Examples are an excellent way to demonstrate rules, after all.

People say Wizards are broken, often because people break them by changing the rules.

I've never found them so, all rules I'm using included. They're really scary...very briefly. Then they start getting into trouble.

If by "wacky" you mean "terrible", yes.

Wacky as in unusual and pretty weak, so pretty much, yeah.

[Taran]

before you get into an orbius debate, you might want to do it as PM.

Maybe you can allow the stunt to "cut" through spells as well.  work as a counter-spell using Weapons.  So a firewall designed to block movement could be overcome by swinging the weapon through it...much like a wardens sword.  I think that would balance it if not make it too powerful.  He'll basically get to use weapons against anything magical.

[Tedronai]

I'd argue that it says precisely that, in the example section. Examples are an excellent way to demonstrate rules, after all.

These examples are not demonstrating rules, they're introducing them.  Show a portion of actual (non-example) rules text that so much as strongly implies this capability.

[Deadmanwalking]

before you get into an orbius debate, you might want to do it as PM.

I think we agree on Orbius, actually. 

Maybe you can allow the stunt to "cut" through spells as well.  work as a counter-spell using Weapons.  So a firewall designed to block movement could be overcome by swinging the weapon through it...much like a wardens sword.  I think that would balance it if not make it too powerful.  He'll basically get to use weapons against anything magical.

Seems reasonable to me.

These examples are not demonstrating rules, they're introducing them.  Show a portion of actual (non-example) rules text that so much as strongly implies this capability.

Not the first time a rule's been introduced that way. In fact, if you want to go down this route, I'm not finding anywhere that says Thaumaturgy 'Attacks' can target skills other than Athletics that's not an example. There's a reference on p. 265 outside the examples section, but it's an example (using a spell to make a target sick targeting Endurance) not an actual explicit rules note. And yet, I'm not hearing anyone make this argument for Thaumaturgy...I mean, I guess you can argue it has an example in the text instead of later in the chapter, but that seems like a very arbitrary place to draw the line, and pretty weak, as justifications go.

And the only place that even implies that Athletics can defend against all spells is p. 200...and it's a little iffy. I mean, it lists Athletics as a 'catch all', sure, but other places clearly note exceptions to that, it's clearly not originally intending to be talking about magic, and the whole section's a little suspect given p. 201's utterly neglecting to mention Rapport's use as a defensive skill (while the skill chapter lists it as the default one, even calling it "Athletics for social conflict").

[Mr. Death]

Isn't targeting a skill and defending something with a skill something you can decide on the spot regarding any attack, provided the attacker and/or the defender can justify it?

[Tedronai]

Isn't targeting a skill and defending something with a skill something you can decide on the spot regarding any attack, provided the attacker and/or the defender can justify it?

It's more of 'attacker suggests (providing justification), defender chooses(providing justification)', with all of this being subject to table oversight.

[Sanctaphrax]

That's an awfully limited and mechanistic reading. Attacks is often used to refer to various offensive acts not just the attack action per se.

If you say "attacks", you should not be surprised when people think you're referring to attacks.

Pulling all the air out of someone'e lungs then. Or cutting off blood to the brain with Water or Spirit.

You still need to hit the relevant organ with your magic. If it moves, then you'll miss.

Also, I dunno if I'd allow such fine manipulation with Evocation. I'd probably let it slide for the sake of smooth play, but it seems a bit much to me.

I'd argue that it says precisely that, in the example section. Examples are an excellent way to demonstrate rules, after all.

Thing is, the examples in this game don't always actually follow the rules they are supposedly examples of.

Wacky as in unusual and pretty weak, so pretty much, yeah.

Weak?

You must be reading it differently from me.

Then again, it is pretty vague. Easy to read in multiple different ways.

Not the first time a rule's been introduced that way. In fact, if you want to go down this route, I'm not finding anywhere that says Thaumaturgy 'Attacks' can target skills other than Athletics that's not an example...

And yet, I'm not hearing anyone make this argument for Thaumaturgy...I mean, I guess you can argue it has an example in the text instead of later in the chapter, but that seems like a very arbitrary place to draw the line, and pretty weak, as justifications go...

And the only place that even implies that Athletics can defend against all spells is p. 200...

The text talks about "whatever resisting skill the target may use". And it makes a reference to the maneuver rules, which are generally defended against by whatever skill seems reasonable.

This isn't ironclad, but Thaumaturgy hitting various skills is mechanically fair and it makes sense to me. So I'm not going to contest it. With Evocation, the textual support is shakier, the result is less fair, and the idea makes less sense.

The skill description of Athletics says "You can use Athletics as a defensive skill to respond to physical attacks." No ifs or buts, you can use it. You could even argue that it can be used against Thaumaturgy, though I personally would not.