Help with a Player's Item

[Deadmanwalking]

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

True enough, though it should be noted that I didn't originally write that one.

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

I still say that depends on context.

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.

Eh. Force choking plus some medical knowledge isn't really that subtle, IMO.

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

Such as? I mean, aside from the spells section.

Weak?

You must be reading it differently from me.

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

Well, as listed, it's just not that spectacular. If you jack it up significantly and spend two rounds doing it (the second on duration) it can be pretty scary...but then with that much investment it should be, and it's still probably not as good as a direct attack most ways.

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.

Yeah, but the maneuver reference is in with the use of Thaumaturgy to do maneuvers, not the section on using it as an attack, and the "whatever resisting skill the target may use" isn't inj that specific section either. The only actual evidence that Thaumaturgy attacks work that way is two examples (one from the example section at the end of the chapter).

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.

Basically, I disagree with those latter two points. And don't think the support is nearly as much shakier as you do.

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.

Indeed, you could, by an overly literal reading of the rules. Which is sorta what I was talking about, really. Any defense available needs to make sense.

[Sanctaphrax]

Eh. Force choking plus some medical knowledge isn't really that subtle, IMO.

Blood vessels are tiny. Blocking them requires needle-like precision. Unless you're just grabbing the neck and squeezing, but that's clearly dodge-able.

Such as? I mean, aside from the spells section.

Off the top of my head, the stunt rules say that stunts can only give +1 to attacks. But there are plenty of examples which give +2 to social/mental attacks. It's not clear where the error is...either the +1 limit was only supposed to be for physical attacks, or the example stunts are wonky. Or both.

I could come up with more examples, given time and effort.

Well, as listed, it's just not that spectacular. If you jack it up significantly and spend two rounds doing it (the second on duration) it can be pretty scary...but then with that much investment it should be, and it's still probably not as good as a direct attack most ways.

Since it says it's adjudicated as a grapple, I generally assume that it incapacitates its target like any other grapple.

Not gonna argue this one again though.

Yeah, but the maneuver reference is in with the use of Thaumaturgy to do maneuvers, not the section on using it as an attack, and the "whatever resisting skill the target may use" isn't inj that specific section either.

Yes it is. Those exact words are right there, starting (by my count) at word 30 of the Contests And Conflicts section on page 265.

Immediately afterwards that section says "This is like the maneuver-equivalent spells above,...".

The only actual evidence that Thaumaturgy attacks work that way is two examples (one from the example section at the end of the chapter).

...

Basically, I disagree with those latter two points. And don't think the support is nearly as much shakier as you do.

...

Indeed, you could, by an overly literal reading of the rules. Which is sorta what I was talking about, really. Any defense available needs to make sense.

The rules are not terribly tightly written, and you can argue for all sorts of things. But some things have strong cases and others have weak ones. Evocation attacks against which Athletics cannot be used have a weak one.

[Deadmanwalking]

Blood vessels are tiny. Blocking them requires needle-like precision. Unless you're just grabbing the neck and squeezing, but that's clearly dodge-able.

Not really, some varieties of martial arts train you to choke someone out via cutting off blood to the brain. It's not that hard in absolute terms, you just press on the right part of the neck. Such an attack might well be dodge-able  but it also might not depending on circumstances.

Off the top of my head, the stunt rules say that stunts can only give +1 to attacks. But there are plenty of examples which give +2 to social/mental attacks. It's not clear where the error is...either the +1 limit was only supposed to be for physical attacks, or the example stunts are wonky. Or both.

I could come up with more examples, given time and effort.

I'm not finding any of those actually. It's a bit hard to tell because the line between what's an attack and what's not is a bit weird on social skills, but the only one that gives a +2 and actually says you can attack with it is Infuriate and that has a rather large disadvantage on it that might explain why it trumps the general rule.

Since it says it's adjudicated as a grapple, I generally assume that it incapacitates its target like any other grapple.

Sure, but as a spell-based Block if it's broken it's gone...all it requires is one good roll (or a couple of Fate Points) and you're free as a bird.

Not gonna argue this one again though.

Seems reasonable.

Yes it is. Those exact words are right there, starting (by my count) at word 30 of the Contests And Conflicts section on page 265.

Immediately afterwards that section says "This is like the maneuver-equivalent spells above,...".

Huh, you're right. Missed that somehow. I'll freely admit that that makes the case there a bit stronger...but it's still hardly definitive sans examples.

The rules are not terribly tightly written, and you can argue for all sorts of things. But some things have strong cases and others have weak ones. Evocation attacks against which Athletics cannot be used have a weak one.

I obviously disagree. I don't think either of us are gonna change our minds on this one, so let's agree to disagree and move on, eh?

[Tedronai]

Not really, some varieties of martial arts train you to choke someone out via cutting off blood to the brain. It's not that hard in absolute terms, you just press on the right part of the neck. Such an attack might well be dodge-able  but it also might not depending on circumstances.

Once a bullet is in motion, if you are in it's path, it will be hitting you.  And yet, for some reason, you don't seem to be arguing that athletics should be ineffective at dodging firearms attacks.  Why is that?

it's still hardly definitive sans examples.

Examples are not the foundation upon which the strength of a rule is built.

[Deadmanwalking]

Once a bullet is in motion, if you are in it's path, it will be hitting you.  And yet, for some reason, you don't seem to be arguing that athletics should be ineffective at dodging firearms attacks.  Why is that?

Because that's not what Athletics does? It lets you move out of the line of effect, the same way it lets you dodge many spells. Indeed, if you assume all Evocation has a line of effect Athletics should work on all of it. It's my opinion that some Evocation doesn't actually have line of effect (though it does require line of sight, a somewhat different thing) and can thus effect people with an effort of will without needing to travel through the intervening space. You conjure water in their lungs or  ice surrounding them or whatever. Harry doesn't use that kind of thing a lot, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (I'd argue he does it a few times in Cold Days with Infrigia...but they're potentially iffy, I admit).

If you don't think that kind of thing can be done, then stick with your current ruling. As long as there's line of effect you can use Athletics. But, IMO, sometimes there isn't.

Examples are not the foundation upon which the strength of a rule is built.

Not on their own. Wasn't saying they were. I was arguing there's very little more to support Thaumaturgy working to target non-Athletics skills than Evocation (and was, admittedly, partially wrong). That's all.

[Sanctaphrax]

Not really, some varieties of martial arts train you to choke someone out via cutting off blood to the brain. It's not that hard in absolute terms, you just press on the right part of the neck. Such an attack might well be dodge-able  but it also might not depending on circumstances.

Pressing on the right part of the neck requires precision.

I'm not finding any of those actually. It's a bit hard to tell because the line between what's an attack and what's not is a bit weird on social skills, but the only one that gives a +2 and actually says you can attack with it is Infuriate and that has a rather large disadvantage on it that might explain why it trumps the general rule.

Infuriate, Honest Lies, and Sex Appeal. Infuriate's drawback is pretty minimal on attacks since your target can pick their consequences anyway.

I obviously disagree. I don't think either of us are gonna change our minds on this one, so let's agree to disagree and move on, eh?

No.

Agreeing to disagree is a silly concept.

[Deadmanwalking]

Pressing on the right part of the neck requires precision.

Yeah, but not a whole lot of it. Certainly no more than Luccio's finger-thin whip of fire, which is a demonstrated Evocation effect.

Infuriate, Honest Lies, and Sex Appeal. Infuriate's drawback is pretty minimal on attacks since your target can pick their consequences anyway.

Honest Lies and Sex Appeal are clearly not primarily intended as attack stunts. They're primarily for non-attack uses of the skills in question. Heck, it could be argued they shouldn't (or even couldn't) be used for that purpose. I'm not sure if I'd argue that (though the more I think on it the more tempted I am by it) but it seems a valid explanation.

No.

Agreeing to disagree is a silly concept.

How so? You acknowledge that the other person isn't likely to agree with you, so arguing this particular issue is pointless, and start talking about some more productive topic or topics instead.

[Tedronai]

Because that's not what Athletics does? It lets you move out of the line of effect, the same way it lets you dodge many spells. Indeed, if you assume all Evocation has a line of effect Athletics should work on all of it. It's my opinion that some Evocation doesn't actually have line of effect (though it does require line of sight, a somewhat different thing) and can thus effect people with an effort of will without needing to travel through the intervening space. You conjure water in their lungs or  ice surrounding them or whatever. Harry doesn't use that kind of thing a lot, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (I'd argue he does it a few times in Cold Days with Infrigia...but they're potentially iffy, I admit).

If you don't think that kind of thing can be done, then stick with your current ruling. As long as there's line of effect you can use Athletics. But, IMO, sometimes there isn't.

Typical non-supernatural entities cannot dodge bullets by moving out of the line of effect in the time that the bullet takes to traverse the intervening space.  They must already be out of the line of effect when the bullet begins its journey.  Moreover, bullets fired from many types of weapons can relatively easily overcome most barriers that would 'block line of effect' without also blocking line of sight (glass, etc), so I guess my problem is that I just can't envision how you think this dodging bullets thing works that wouldn't also work for dodging spells.
Typical evocation (ie not evothaum) doesn't use symbolic links.  Thus, there is no such spell that targets a particular creature's heart, filling it with ice, for instance.  There are only spells that target the area where the caster of the spell believes that creature's heart to be.  And if that creature moves unexpectedly, such that their heart is no longer where the caster has envisioned it in that brief moment as they formulate their spell, then the spell will not have its intended effect (though it might achieve the intended result nevertheless if the creature merely moves such that another critical organ is affected instead of the heart in such a way that that organ fails).

[Deadmanwalking]

Typical non-supernatural entities cannot dodge bullets by moving out of the line of effect in the time that the bullet takes to traverse the intervening space.  They must already be out of the line of effect when the bullet begins its journey.  Moreover, bullets fired from many types of weapons can relatively easily overcome most barriers that would 'block line of effect' without also blocking line of sight (glass, etc), so I guess my problem is that I just can't envision how you think this dodging bullets thing works that wouldn't also work for dodging spells.

You move quickly and erratically so as to avoid and make difficult possible lines of effect. Mostly this does not (and cannot) avoid line of sight, though. If it does, it does so through the use of cover, which is a scene Aspect that must be applied. It may then be tagged or otherwise invoked for effect to use Athletics to avoid such an attack, but barring that it doesn't work so well.

Typical evocation (ie not evothaum) doesn't use symbolic links.  Thus, there is no such spell that targets a particular creature's heart, filling it with ice, for instance.  There are only spells that target the area where the caster of the spell believes that creature's heart to be.  And if that creature moves unexpectedly, such that their heart is no longer where the caster has envisioned it in that brief moment as they formulate their spell, then the spell will not have its intended effect (though it might achieve the intended result nevertheless if the creature merely moves such that another critical organ is affected instead of the heart in such a way that that organ fails).

Evocation, like all magic, is an effort of will and imagination. Most Evocations are willing, say, a bolt of fire to leap from your hand in a direction, and can thus be dodged...but if you are willing someone's heart to fill with ice, and they move, your eye kinda follows them automatically, and your will and imagination are gonna continue focusing on them, not on an empty space they occupied, so moving's not gonna be helpful unless they break line of sight (which I talk about above, and would work for similar non-Athletics targeting powers like many versions of Incite Emotion).

[Haru]

Evocation, like all magic, is an effort of will and imagination. Most Evocations are willing, say, a bolt of fire to leap from your hand in a direction, and can thus be dodged...but if you are willing someone's heart to fill with ice, and they move, your eye kinda follows them automatically, and your will and imagination are gonna continue focusing on them, not on an empty space they occupied, so moving's not gonna be helpful unless they break line of sight (which I talk about above, and would work for similar non-Athletics targeting powers like many versions of Incite Emotion).

I would still argue, that the effect needs to travel from you to the target, even if it isn't visible during that time. And once the effect has left you, you can't control where it is going anymore, it is working on it's own. And since it isn't thaumaturgy, the spell can't adjust his trajectory, because it doesn't know where it is supposed to go.

"I throw a fireball" and "I fill his lungs with water" are both the same kind of attack spell to me, it's just different narrative. If the spells only inflict stress, his jacket might catch on fire for a split second, or he has to spit a mouth full of water out, but that's pretty much it. I know how players always try to do the most effective "kill him with one attack" sort of spell, and in an open magic system like this, you can justify it pretty well. But on the other hand, treating every attack spell the same cancels that out pretty nice. And just because you plan on doing something that could kill someone in one strike doesn't mean you will be able to do so in the heat of battle.

As for mental spells. I am kind of fine with them by now. Provided they stay within mental conflicts. I would not let a WCV use his mental whammies in a physical fight, so I would not allow mental spells in aa physical fight. But if you can justify switching the venue, I will gladly oblige.

Of course, the wizards personal preferences of using his magic should also be considered. Molly would probably be able to put up a mental spell pretty quick, while Harry might need a willing target, or at least one that doesn't protest too much. Their physical spells are quite the opposite, of course.

The sex appeal stunt is great for attacks. Being taken out in a mental or social conflict by the sex appeal stunt is definitely a possibility, so I don't see a problem with making attacks with it. I guess the mental and social attack stunts grant more bang for the buck, because most groups will tend to have more physical than social and mental conflicts combined. So to give people an incentive to take some of the mental stunts, they overpowered them a bit.

[UmbraLux]

No.

Agreeing to disagree is a silly concept.

If you're up for a bit of philosophy, read this.  Not everyone chooses dogmatism when arguing on the internet.  Probably a good thing...else the arguments would be even longer.   

As for what skill to use when defending, Athletics is the default for physical attacks.  It's just a 'default' though - specific situations may justify a different skill choice.  There are a lot of situations Athletics simply doesn't cover in any logical manner.

[Tedronai]

Evocation, like all magic, is an effort of will and imagination. Most Evocations are willing, say, a bolt of fire to leap from your hand in a direction, and can thus be dodged...but if you are willing someone's heart to fill with ice, and they move, your eye kinda follows them automatically, and your will and imagination are gonna continue focusing on them, not on an empty space they occupied, so moving's not gonna be helpful unless they break line of sight (which I talk about above, and would work for similar non-Athletics targeting powers like many versions of Incite Emotion).

You have neither line of sight nor line of effect to an individual's heart, so how exactly are you targetting it again?  By where you believe it to be, right.
Does it take time (even a small amount) to formulate an evocation before releasing it?  Can the world change in that time?  Can such a change be the location of your target?

[Mr. Death]

If you're up for a bit of philosophy, read this.  Not everyone chooses dogmatism when arguing on the internet.  Probably a good thing...else the arguments would be even longer.   

As for what skill to use when defending, Athletics is the default for physical attacks.  It's just a 'default' though - specific situations may justify a different skill choice.  There are a lot of situations Athletics simply doesn't cover in any logical manner.

Agreed totally, with both.

You guys are looking at it the wrong way with the arguments, though--instead of "water in the lungs," consider "the whole room's filled with fire." Just dodging out of the way isn't really an option there, so how does one defend? With a different skill from Athletics.

Or, say, I do an attack meant to take you out that I describe as condensing the air all around you into a block of ice. Perhaps there the defense roll is Might.

There are plenty of ways that you can shape a Thaumaturgy spell so that Athletics doesn't make sense as the defensive roll, and I think it's a needlessly narrow reading to think otherwise.

[Taran]

I think all spells need a link.  Evocation is limited because that link is limited to sight, while Thaumaturgy can also use symbolic links (hence no NEED to use sight).  Therefore I think that you can originate an evocation from somewhere other than the caster as long as the caster can perceive the origin.

The other limitation to evocation is that it is not a refined form of magic - the whole "quick and dirty" thing.  So while you might be able to cause a quick burst of air that pulls the air from someone's lungs, you probably can't create a vacuum that surrounds their head.  That might be too complicated.

All this to say, I think evocation can still target different skills because it can target things other than an opponent and it can originate directly on the opponent. Causing someone's shirt(or skin) to spontaneously combust instead of blasting fire out of your hands to hit them, for instance.  Or Causing heavy gravity to prevent movement in a zone would target might, not athletics.  If you're using that same spell to target someone, I could see an argument for both Athletics or Might.

[Llayne]

I think this discussion just serves to show that it's a decision best left with the table.