Help with a Player's Item

[Tedronai]

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.

Sure, unless the room isn't TOTALLY filled with fire, and there's some small pocket you can get to that was protected by a desk, or stack of boxes, or whatever.  And even if it IS totally filled with fire, the skill you do defend with is still not dictated unilaterally by the attacker.  The attacker sets the stage, but the defender chooses how to respond.

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.

Sure.  Or it might still be athletics, as the air takes a moment to condense giving the defender a short window of opportunity to escape.  Or it might be some other skill made possible by the circumstances of the attack.

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.

This, as most things in DFrpg, comes down to a battle of creativity.  If you as the attacker create a situation where a particular skill seems at first glance to be unsuitable to serve as a defense, then the defender doesn't get to use that skill to defend, unless they can conjure sufficient justification to turn the tables.

[Deadmanwalking]

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.

Who says magical energy needs to be conjured touching you? If you're putting it over there as you call it up, it really doesn't need to travel from Point A to Point B.

"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.

See, I like the players trying different methodologies to find what works best on a particular opponent. Seems like very much what a Wizard should be trying vs. tough foes.

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.

Wait. White Court Vampires absolutely can use Incite Emotion in physical fights. We've seen them do so in the books. Fairly often. Why couldn't they?

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.

Perfectly valid. Handled by compels, in all likelihood.

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.

But that's not how sex appeal is usually used. I mean, yes,you can use Rapport for that, but the argument I was making was that usually that's not how you do it, and that's not really the stunt's intended purpose. I'm not sure whether I agree with that logic completely, but it seems a legitimate reason.

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.

I actually used the ice spell example earlier. And, since you can 'dodge' mundane explosions with Athletics, I'm not sure the 'room full of fire' is a good one.

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.

Nobody's actually arguing otherwise on Thaumaturgy, I just brought it up as an example of sorts.

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

I will note that I agree with this more or less completely. I certainly prefer the version I use and think it's more logical and works better for the game...but it's not a huge deal, and I'd be perfectly happy to play in a game where it was ruled the other way. And if the whole table disagreed with me, I'd probably switch over even as a GM, as the group's happiness with that rule is more important than either ruling on its own.

This, as most things in DFrpg, comes down to a battle of creativity.  If you as the attacker create a situation where a particular skill seems at first glance to be unsuitable to serve as a defense, then the defender doesn't get to use that skill to defend, unless they can conjure sufficient justification to turn the tables.

I actually agree with this, too. In my opinion, the skill decided on as the defending skill by a particular Evocation is the skill that requires no justification to defend with. Other skills may be used freely...as long as you can justify it. Like that cover example I've brought up a few times.

[Mr. Death]

Actually, I mistyped there. I meant Evocation, not Thaumaturgy.

[UmbraLux]

"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.

While I agree in principle, narrative differences can be profound.  Particularly in a game like FATE where we can manipulate the narrative directly.

Launch a fire attack against a fomor and you might invoke the Fire Element for more damage.  Launch a water attack against the same fomor and he may well invoke the Water Element for easier defense.  Hit an incorporeal spirit with either and they'll laugh.  Those are just the obvious also - start using compels/invokes for effect and the possibilities become much broader.

[Haru]

Who says magical energy needs to be conjured touching you? If you're putting it over there as you call it up, it really doesn't need to travel from Point A to Point B.

I kind of see the wizards brain as the energy coupling, the point where the energy gathers and is shaped into the spell. After that, the energy flows wherever the wizard wants it to be. Granted, that is my interpretation only, and I'm by no means saying that's how it is or should be.
But that's kind of beside the point, I realize.

The default athletics roll is sort of the "this is how much you are bugging around and make it harder for other people to hit you" roll. Not necessarily an active dodge. This roll should always be available in a physical fight, I think, unless you explicitly remove it from the table (i.e. by spending a fate point or a tag to make the target use a different skill). If it fits, the defender can always choose a different skill to defend, of course.

See, I like the players trying different methodologies to find what works best on a particular opponent. Seems like very much what a Wizard should be trying vs. tough foes.

Sure, but I like to include that making use of their surroundings, not just "well, fire didn't work, I'll use air, then" sort of thinking. That might not be a problem in your group, but I specifically have a player with an aeromancer, and he did a spell where he wanted to take out a troll and he emptied the trolls lungs. Well, tried to, he rolled really well, but the Troll rolled endurance (it had a stunt) to resist and did. The player went "What? He is still standing with a vacuum in his lungs?"

Wait. White Court Vampires absolutely can use Incite Emotion in physical fights. We've seen them do so in the books. Fairly often. Why couldn't they?

Because I have come to realize that it will become really complicated, if you mix the different forms of conflicts. When setting up the scene, decide on what kind of conflict you want to have, and use the other ones to make maneuvers. And that's kind of how I see it used in the books.

Another way to go is, as I said: change the venue. For example Harry and Thomas against Lydia/Kravos in GP. It started out as a physical conflict, but when Thomas got Lydia into a grapple, he put an incite maneuver on her and tagged it to turn the fight into a mental conflict, where he could use his power as an attack to take Lydia/Kravos out.

But that's not how sex appeal is usually used. I mean, yes,you can use Rapport for that, but the argument I was making was that usually that's not how you do it, and that's not really the stunt's intended purpose. I'm not sure whether I agree with that logic completely, but it seems a legitimate reason.

Why not? It's a pretty classic setup for a scene, the femme fatale trying to seduce the hero. Sounds like a mental conflict to me. The taken out results would be him falling for her or she being furious when he rejects her.
What would you usually use it for?

While I agree in principle, narrative differences can be profound.  Particularly in a game like FATE where we can manipulate the narrative directly.

Launch a fire attack against a fomor and you might invoke the Fire Element for more damage.  Launch a water attack against the same fomor and he may well invoke the Water Element for easier defense.  Hit an incorporeal spirit with either and they'll laugh.  Those are just the obvious also - start using compels/invokes for effect and the possibilities become much broader.

Oh, absolutely, but that's part of an invoke or a compel, and you can do a whole lot of things with those. Like I said earlier in this post, you can take advantage of your spell like that with a tag or a fate point easily, but I kind of see it as a cheat, if you get around that just by saying you do your spell differently. Hell, a declaration on the spell could be enough, if it's interesting. Navel-gazing-declarations, if you will.

[Tedronai]

I actually agree with this, too. In my opinion, the skill decided on as the defending skill by a particular Evocation is the skill that requires no justification to defend with. Other skills may be used freely...as long as you can justify it. Like that cover example I've brought up a few times.

We obviously need to be more upfront with our definitions, then.  I think that would clear up a lot of these debates before they start.

[Deadmanwalking]

We obviously need to be more upfront with our definitions, then.  I think that would clear up a lot of these debates before they start.

Yeah. That's probably true. Hell, that's probably true for the entire internet.

[Sanctaphrax]

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.

It requires enough precision to hit the neck with the fire whip.

Simply making the fire whip is comparatively easy.

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.

They look like attack stunts to me. Even if that's not their primary purpose (I think it probably is their primary purpose), there's no good reason not to let them apply to attacks. The contradiction between rule and example is clear here.

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.

You do not need my permission to disagree with me, and if you want to leave the argument you can just stop arguing. So agreeing to disagree has no real purpose.

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?

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Thanks, Tedronai.

Any evocation attack can be avoided by being somewhere that the attack isn't. Thaumaturgy gets around this by using a symbolic link, so that the attack goes wherever you go.

PS: Incite Emotion should definitely be usable in combat.

[Deadmanwalking]

It requires enough precision to hit the neck with the fire whip.

Simply making the fire whip is comparatively easy.

I disagree. Making a band around someone's throat isn't any harder than making it in your hand, IMO.

They look like attack stunts to me. Even if that's not their primary purpose (I think it probably is their primary purpose), there's no good reason not to let them apply to attacks. The contradiction between rule and example is clear here.

Eh, not necessarily. Rapport and Deceit aren't mostly intended to be attack skills. It's intended that they be able to be used as that, but it's not supposed to be their 'default setting'...nor, IMO, necessarily that of their Stunts.

You do not need my permission to disagree with me, and if you want to leave the argument you can just stop arguing. So agreeing to disagree has no real purpose.

It's a convention. A shorthand for staying "Hey, let's call this done and move on." Especially useful for people who have a hard time stopping arguing (I'm very much in that category personally), and more polite in some ways than just stopping out of the blue.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Thanks, Tedronai.

Any evocation attack can be avoided by being somewhere that the attack isn't. Thaumaturgy gets around this by using a symbolic link, so that the attack goes wherever you go.

And again, disagreed, but I think I've stated my point here as much and as often as I feel necessary, so I'm gonna just move on and discuss other things elsewhere (or here, if they come up) as I discuss doing above.

PS: Incite Emotion should definitely be usable in combat.

Agreed entirely.

[Sanctaphrax]

I disagree. Making a band around someone's throat isn't any harder than making it in your hand, IMO.

The fact that people dodge Evocations all the time in both novels and gameplay contradicts that, I think. If hitting your enemy was easy as hitting your own hand, Harry would demolish fewer buildings.

It's a convention. A shorthand for staying "Hey, let's call this done and move on." Especially useful for people who have a hard time stopping arguing (I'm very much in that category personally), and more polite in some ways than just stopping out of the blue.

Yeah, that's the thing I find silly. If you want to stop arguing, just stop arguing.

Why would that be hard?

I tend to pursue arguments pretty far, but not because I have trouble stopping. I just think it's a worthwhile thing to do.

[Deadmanwalking]

The fact that people dodge Evocations all the time in both novels and gameplay contradicts that, I think. If hitting your enemy was easy as hitting your own hand, Harry would demolish fewer buildings.

Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.

Yeah, that's the thing I find silly. If you want to stop arguing, just stop arguing.

Why would that be hard?

Eh. It's a courtesy thing. I really care about those. Perhaps to an irrational degree...

I tend to pursue arguments pretty far, but not because I have trouble stopping. I just think it's a worthwhile thing to do.

Usually true for me as well...but I'll admit to sometimes getting caught up in the argument and going on longer than I really intended.

[Tedronai]

Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.

Where is the threshold of finesse that transforms an attack from 'eminently dodge-able' to 'impossible to dodge; you'll have to use some other method of defense'?

[Deadmanwalking]

Where is the threshold of finesse that transforms an attack from 'eminently dodge-able' to 'impossible to dodge; you'll have to use some other method of defense'?

It's not actually about finesse (this example was, but not the general principle). I'd argue Harry does some unavoidable ones in Cold Days that are very brute force. It has to do with where you summon the power, channeled through you and then basically thrown at them, or summoned on, in, or around them. The first is pretty much always Athletics, the second is often Endurance or Might instead. Other skills...are rare and hard to justify, since it's a Physical attack, kinda definitionally.

[Sanctaphrax]

Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.

He's just a specific example. Point was, spells in general are not and should not be portrayed as non-dodge-able.

Eh. It's a courtesy thing. I really care about those. Perhaps to an irrational degree...

I tend to find unnecessary courtesy a bit grating.

[Tedronai]

It's not actually about finesse (this example was, but not the general principle). I'd argue Harry does some unavoidable ones in Cold Days that are very brute force. It has to do with where you summon the power, channeled through you and then basically thrown at them, or summoned on, in, or around them. The first is pretty much always Athletics, the second is often Endurance or Might instead. Other skills...are rare and hard to justify, since it's a Physical attack, kinda definitionally.

I'll keep pace with your moving goalposts by again asking you how you're formulating your spell to 'lock on' to your target's location without making use of sympathetic links, to which evocation does, by default, have access.
Again:  It takes time to formulate a spell, even for skilled practitioners casting a spell for the thousandth time that month.  Evocation spells have to be targetted manually; they do not get to make use of sympathetic links.  The world can change between the time the practitioner begins formulating the spell and the time it takes effect.  Such changes can include the target of the spell no longer being where they were.  If the target of a spell not making use of sympathetic links is no longer in the area the spell will affect, then the spell will fail to affect them.