Defending attacks with various skills

[Taran]

So there was this big debate some time ago...I can't find the thread but a discussion has come up in a game recently.  In that discussion I had an idea that I wanted to run by people.

There is an argument that Athletics is the default defense for physical attacks - or Weapons/fists for melee attacks.  That one doesn't have too much wiggle room to choose which skills to defend with.

Most people agree with this with standard physical weapons, but the debate is around spellcasting.

Where the caster gets to dictate the defense skill for the target.  Like defending with Might to avoid a gravity spell, for example.

The rules are vague and some of the sample spells use other skills as defenses, so I thought it would be easiest to come up with an easy standard:

All physical attacks are defended with "default" skills as mentionned above: Athletics for ranged (assuming no stunts) and weapons, fists or athletics for Melee.  Maybe a bit of wiggle room depending on the situation but, as I said, it's the default.  This counts for evocations because they are, by their nature, physical. (mind magic aside)

If you could somehow set up a maneuver or declaration which you could invoke, the target could be compelled to use another skill.  So you "blind side" someone forcing them to take the hit in the body instead of dodging or parrying your weapon.  That would compel them to use Endurance to defend.

A spell wouldn't exactly need any declarations because it's pretty much built into the spell.  So the wizard still gets to make custom spells, but they don't always work that way all the time (the compel gets turned down).

On one hand, it seems like the game is already built to work that way.  On the other hand, it makes wizards spells compel machines and might be abused to get enemies to burn their FP's.

[JDK002]

I don't think I would allow it via declairation.  Maneuver maybe if it's treated as a compel and the defender gets a fate point out of it.

I'm typically very againts the attacker dictate what skill must be used to defend under any circumstances, fights tend to end quick in this game as is.  It's been awhile since I've read through that section of YS, but I do recall it saying the defender gets to decide what skill to defend with, then must give justification as to why.  Taking it out of the hands of the defender and giving it to an attacker, who in the case of a wizard can make up whatever reason they want for justification, just feels like you are giving the attacker way too much power.

I say not via declairations because that's all declairations would degrade into in conflict and doesn't require an action.  With something like a maneuver, it requires someone to decide not to attack that exchange in order to set up the aspect.  So if you wanted to make use of it every single attack, you're effectivly cutting the number of attacks in two.  You're also giving the defender the ability to buy out the compel, or out-maneuver the opponent before they can tag the meneuver aspect.

[Sanctaphrax]

What made you think that Evocation needed to be made stronger?

[Taran]

What made you think that Evocation needed to be made stronger?

Well that's point of posting a question on a forum isn't it?  I wasn't aware that it was making it stronger.  There's opinions that evokers can dictate (within reason) the defensive skill.  I was trying to find another solution.

If you restricted it to Maneuvers, the caster would have to spend an action to do something like that - which they probably wouldn't...but at least they'd have the option.

[Sanctaphrax]

It's true, there are people who believe you can dictate defensive skills.

But I really don't see why you'd let Evokers dictate defensive skills freely without letting other people do the same.

[Llayne]

The table has already decided that evocation can be used to target other skills/force the defender to use a skill other than athletics. (or other skill as feats dictate) I know there is debate about that, but for the sake of this discussion it's a given.

My take was that evocation simply refers back to the basic Attack section, so if Evocation can target other skills than 'mundane' attacks should be able to as well.

Mechanically they are the same, an attack is an attack. It felt like Evocation was being given a 'free, unstated, and unrolled' declaration, which they then tag for effect to change how it will be defended against.

The "Gravity Field" is all around my target, so I tag it for effect to make him defend with might instead of athletics.

I'm not throwing a fireball, I'm "Filling His Lungs With Water" which I'll tag for effect to make him use endurance to defend.

This is just my interpretation of mechanically what is happening with evocation attacks that target other skills. It seems like evocation is getting a 2-for-1 deal.

And if it works this way for evocation, why shouldn't "Blind Spot" "Restrained"  or "Broken Sword" be able to be tagged for effect in a similar way? Maybe not in a 2-for-1 manner, but building off of a previous declaration or maneuver?

[Deadmanwalking]

It's true, there are people who believe you can dictate defensive skills.

But I really don't see why you'd let Evokers dictate defensive skills freely without letting other people do the same.

It depends on how you envision magic and what it's limitations and advantages are. Being able to effect people internally (ie: fill their lungs with water) for example, is an effect that it's hard to justify dodging...and one nearly impossible to achieve sans magic.

[Taran]

But I really don't see why you'd let Evokers dictate defensive skills freely without letting other people do the same.

Well, that's my point.  If you make it equal on all fronts IE:  all physical attacks (including evocations)are  resisted by a set of default skills, you could tag maneuvers to compel defenders to use skills outside the default set.

To reiterate, this would be ALL physical attacks, including weapons and guns and fists.

The advantage evocation has over the other, mundane attacks is narrative power.  It's way easier to justify having a guy defend with Might if you're altering gravity than if you wanna poke them with a sword.

My concern** would be that no wizard would bother setting up a maneuver before throwing out an attack spell.  It would be more beneficial to throw out two high powered attack spells...in most situations.  But I don't know because I have played a wizard extensively.

**edit: as in I would be concerned that it would be a pointless rule because it would never get used...by wizards, anyways.  I think melee and ranged characters would be more likely to use it since they're usually setting up maneuvers anyways.

[Tedronai]

The table has already decided that evocation can be used to target other skills/force the defender to use a skill other than athletics. (or other skill as feats dictate) I know there is debate about that, but for the sake of this discussion it's a given.

My take was that evocation simply refers back to the basic Attack section, so if Evocation can target other skills than 'mundane' attacks should be able to as well.

Mechanically they are the same, an attack is an attack. It felt like Evocation was being given a 'free, unstated, and unrolled' declaration, which they then tag for effect to change how it will be defended against.

The "Gravity Field" is all around my target, so I tag it for effect to make him defend with might instead of athletics.

I'm not throwing a fireball, I'm "Filling His Lungs With Water" which I'll tag for effect to make him use endurance to defend.

This is just my interpretation of mechanically what is happening with evocation attacks that target other skills. It seems like evocation is getting a 2-for-1 deal.

And if it works this way for evocation, why shouldn't "Blind Spot" "Restrained"  or "Broken Sword" be able to be tagged for effect in a similar way? Maybe not in a 2-for-1 manner, but building off of a previous declaration or maneuver?

Yes, evocation can do this.
Simply follow the directions below:
Declare.  Tag-for-effect to trigger a Compel.  Hope they don't refuse (or take the win of them being down a FP).

If they want to mandate defense skills, they need to follow that formula whether or not they're using Evocation.

Alternately, they can phrase their spell in such a way as to suggest a defense, and to make it more difficult to narratively justify the use of standard defenses, but that amounts only to a battle of creativity between the players (or players vs gm), and does not strictly enforce the desired result.

Or, at least, that's my opinion on the subject.

[Taran]

Yes, evocation can do this.
Simply follow the directions below:
Declare.  Tag-for-effect to trigger a Compel.  Hope they don't refuse (or take the win of them being down a FP).

If they want to mandate defense skills, they need to follow that formula whether or not they're using Evocation.

Alternately, they can phrase their spell in such a way as to suggest a defense, and to make it more difficult to narratively justify the use of standard defenses, but that amounts only to a battle of creativity between the players (or players vs gm), and does not strictly enforce the desired result.

Or, at least, that's my opinion on the subject.

This has kind of been my opinion. 

So at least one opinion that it should be a maneuver and one that it could be done with a declaration.

I suppose it's not too bad(concerning spell casters) as long as you make them roll for the declaration, instead of my original idea of having the declaration wrapped up in the spell.

I still think that you could also do this with mundane weapons, but narratively it's much more difficult to do.

[JDK002]

This has kind of been my opinion. 

So at least one opinion that it should be a maneuver and one that it could be done with a declaration.

I suppose it's not too bad(concerning spell casters) as long as you make them roll for the declaration, instead of my original idea of having the declaration wrapped up in the spell.

I still think that you could also do this with mundane weapons, but narratively it's much more difficult to do.

I agree that if you're going to do this at all, it should be available to everyone, not just some special imaginary rule for wizards.  I'm kinda confounded that this whole idea apparantly stemmed from one spell example in OW that seemingly made it up out of nowhere.  It's well known and accepted that OW contradicts a lot of the explicit rules in YS, yet it seems a lot of disagreements on this forum are from cherry-picking OW.

I still think via declairation is dangerous.  9 times out of 10 I would tag for this effect over a +2 or a reroll.  Though I also think dictating what you can tag an aspect for, regardless of how it came to be can also go bad.

  I also think a lot of people aren't considering this would be far more deadly for the players.  Now suddenly a pack of mooks who you could easily trounce with maybe a mild consequence are dishing out moderate and severe consequences.

[Taran]

I agree that if you're going to do this at all, it should be available to everyone, not just some special imaginary rule for wizards.  I'm kinda confounded that this whole idea apparantly stemmed from one spell example in OW that seemingly made it up out of nowhere.  It's well known and accepted that OW contradicts a lot of the explicit rules in YS, yet it seems a lot of disagreements on this forum are from cherry-picking OW.

I still think via declairation is dangerous.  9 times out of 10 I would tag for this effect over a +2 or a reroll.  Though I also think dictating what you can tag an aspect for, regardless of how it came to be can also go bad.

  I also think a lot of people aren't considering this would be far more deadly for the players.  Now suddenly a pack of mooks who you could easily trounce with maybe a mild consequence are dishing out moderate and severe consequences.

Well, even with a maneuver, a group of mooks can already do this kind of thing.

If you're being attacked by 3 mooks, 1 or 2 set up the maneuver and mook 3 tags for effect.

I mean, the actual invoke is not outside the rules of the game.  A compel can involve ANYTHING that makes sense,  Maybe you hit a guy with your massive maul and inhuman str and cause a consequence, you could invoke the consequence to make the guy fly across the room and be out of the combat for one exchange.  If the GM agrees that that is a reasonable invoke, then the NPC/PC can choose to turn it down.

But you're right, at least the first mook has to use up his turn maneuvering as opposed to declaring and attacking.

In your opinion, what kind of narrative(or maybe its mechanical) power does a declaration have?  Can they drive compels the same way a maneuver can?  I honestly get the two mixed up sometimes...sometimes there's a very fine line.

[potestas]

What made you think that Evocation needed to be made stronger?

the average wizard can only throw out 3-4 spells without nasty bad things happening. Way less if he has to throw out something truly awesome. In fact I doubt Harry or any of the wizards in the books could do what they do if this was really the system they worked under.

 It's one of the reasons I am not terribly fond of this magic system. Ars magicka is a much better system for representing the magic in the Dresden universe.

[JDK002]

Well, even with a maneuver, a group of mooks can already do this kind of thing.

If you're being attacked by 3 mooks, 1 or 2 set up the maneuver and mook 3 tags for effect.

I mean, the actual invoke is not outside the rules of the game.  A compel can involve ANYTHING that makes sense,  Maybe you hit a guy with your massive maul and inhuman str and cause a consequence, you could invoke the consequence to make the guy fly across the room and be out of the combat for one exchange.  If the GM agrees that that is a reasonable invoke, then the NPC/PC can choose to turn it down.

But you're right, at least the first mook has to use up his turn maneuvering as opposed to declaring and attacking.

In your opinion, what kind of narrative(or maybe its mechanical) power does a declaration have?  Can they drive compels the same way a maneuver can?  I honestly get the two mixed up sometimes...sometimes there's a very fine line.

Mechanically speaking there isn't much of a difference other than one requiring an action.  Once a declairation or maneuver is successful they both act just like any other aspect, which is where the "maneuver only" issue could pop up.

Yeah I agree that it's well within the rules to invoke an aspect to make it harder to defend.  Which I'm much more okay with over "wizards get it for free all the time".  Mostly due to the fact that it requires set up and rolling, and the defender has recourse in buying out the compel, or a fate point as a payout.  I actually like that, because now the defender can easily do the same thing to you and get a +2 using the FP.

[Taran]

the average wizard can only throw out 3-4 spells without nasty bad things happening. Way less if he has to throw out something truly awesome. In fact I doubt Harry or any of the wizards in the books could do what they do if this was really the system they worked under.

Noted.  You don't feel the magic system is OP.

It's one of the reasons I am not terribly fond of this magic system. Ars magicka is a much better system for representing the magic in the Dresden universe.

 This isn't really the place for a magic system debate.