Purview of Evocation

[Wordmaker]

I'd allow that. I'd even allow a later Evocation roll to remove the aspect, if the player could describe it in such a way that it fit within the purview of the elements he could use.

[Taran]

Yes you can counter-spell maneuvers, assuming magic is sustaining the maneuver.

For instance, magically created winds could be dispelled.
"Cracked earth" - probably not because once the earth is cracked, it's cracked and you can't "uncrack" it.  Although, you might be able to narrate it as "reversing the effect".  That would be up to the GM.

Anyways, you'd need to equal or beat the power of the spell... so 6 or higher.

[Troy]

Yes you can counter-spell maneuvers, assuming magic is sustaining the maneuver.

For instance, magically created winds could be dispelled.
"Cracked earth" - probably not because once the earth is cracked, it's cracked and you can't "uncrack" it.  Although, you might be able to narrate it as "reversing the effect".  That would be up to the GM.

Anyways, you'd need to equal or beat the power of the spell... so 6 or higher.

A tie goes to the aggressor?

[GryMor]

 

A tie goes to the aggressor?

Defending sets a difficulty, an action that precisely reaches the difficulty is successful with 0 shifts.

[Troy]

I'm trying to figure out what they mean with all their explanations about bonuses and specializations.

1) They don't stack.
2) The total number available is limited by your Lore Skill.

Do the bonuses from Specializations and Focus Items stack?

So my sheet looks like this:

Specializations[/i][/u]
Evocation: Elements (Air, Earth, Spirit); Power (Air +1)

My focus item is an oak wand (defensive power +1 for air)...

When I cast any Air evocation, I get +1 Power (Conviction)
when I cast an defensive Air evocation, I get +2 Power (Conviction)

Is that right?

The "no stacking" rule means Specializations don't stack and the bonuses from Focus Items don't stack ... but Specializations + Focus Items is okay?

[Cadd]

Specializations and Foci stack, yes.

Per the sidebar on YS278, overlapping specializations are really only possible with Thaumaturgy anyway; such as the writeup on Ancient Mai (OW100). She has Complexity: Wards +2 and Complexity: Ectomancy +1. If she's making a ward blocking out ghosts (thus both Ectomancy and Wards), she would only get the +2 bonus from Wards.

[Troy]

Ah, excellent. Thank you so much.

Here's a question: The spell example Entanglement (YS293)... how is that supposed to work. You cast it and if your roll exceed the Target's Athletics roll, then the Aspect BOUND IN PLACE is placed on the target? Does that actually bind them in place? Or does it just put an Aspect on them that can be tagged if they try to run away or something? And how long does it last? Is it one exchange?

[JDK002]

Ah, excellent. Thank you so much.

Here's a question: The spell example Entanglement (YS293)... how is that supposed to work. You cast it and if your roll exceed the Target's Athletics roll, then the Aspect BOUND IN PLACE is placed on the target? Does that actually bind them in place? Or does it just put an Aspect on them that can be tagged if they try to run away or something? And how long does it last? Is it one exchange?

It's generally a good idea to ignore all the example spells listed in both books.  A lot of them are horribly worded at best, or downright break the stated rules at worst.

In this case Entanglement is probably a maneuver, as it does specifically state it's an aspect.  Which means it would not physically bind them until you tagged the aspect.  The issue there is you pretty much have to tag for effect instantly, because if he moves you lose your narrative justification.

Then the target of the spell would be unable to move until they (or someone else) takes an action to remove the "Entangled" aspect, probably with another maneuver action.  The difficulty to do so would likely be bases on how much power was put into the spell, 3 is typically the default number for an evocation maneuver.

[Troy]

All of that makes sense to me, but since this is an Evocation, wouldn't the Maneuver only last one exchange unless extra shifts of power were put into the Duration? You cast Entanglement... someone is bound in place by bands of mystical energy... Next exchange, the bands disappear, culprit runs away.

Am I missing something?

Note: According to blog post from Fred Hicks, when you Create Advantage to Maneuver/Block... that Aspect would stay in place as long as it is in your line of sight (but that's Fate Core Stuff). So, if BOUND IN PLACE was on a target and the Aspect was freely invoked by the wizard that placed it, the target would have to Overcome it in order to move. If the wizard made a run for it, as soon as he was out of the room or otherwise out of sight, the spell (thus the Aspect) would end. I kind of like that ruling better... perhaps even adding that as long as the wizard is concentrating on whatever magical Maneuver/Block he placed, his other actions are at -1 until the spell ends. Something like that... What do you think?

[Sanctaphrax]

No, you're not missing anything.

I know the example says that Entanglement has a duration of one scene, but as aforementioned the examples do not always follow the rules they purport to be examples of.

[Wordmaker]

I would say that whether or not you need to put extra shifts into a maneuver for duration largely depends on what aspect you're applying, and how that is described.

For example, yes if you put the aspect "bound in place" and the spell is directly holding your target, then you might have to take that into account. But if you just want to put the aspect "On Fire" on a target or a scene, then once the fire starts the spell is over, but the effects remain.

Not quite sure how to house-rule that.

[Troy]

Well, I feel like I've seen this spell in use in a novel, or at least a version of it.

(click to show/hide)

In Summer Knight, Harry gets to the whole villains-reveal-their-entire-plan point of the book and Summer Lady Aurora is going to kill him after everything is explained. Elaine Mallory stops Aurora because of the death curse. Aurora admits that she would be unable to hold Harry in place once she leaves, and Elaine tells her that she can hold him. She then casts a spell (probably an Air evocation, judging by the way Harry describes it), and it binds Harry in place. He said he felt like he was wrapped up in a straight jacket, unable to move. And he stays like that until he counters the spell himself.

I admit it gets a little confusing because there are some Aspects you can create using any method (not just spells), and those Aspects aren't just doing to go away. In reading how everything's supposed to work, I'm thinking that the writers intended using magic to Maneuver the same as using a Skill to place an Aspect on a scene or target with a Maneuver. You place an Aspect on a person, object or scene. If you get more shifts than necessary, the Aspect becomes "sticky" meaning it lasts the whole scene or until it's removed. It's just with magic, you have a variety of means at your disposal to justify placing those Aspects.

BOUND IN PLACE is an Aspect that could be placed using a spell or using some rope and a sturdy chair. These Aspects are "sticky" meaning they remain until they are removed by another character. Does that mean that the Aspect is true and in effect whether it is Invoked or not? So a person BOUND IN PLACE can't move. If I want to punch that person, I can punch them (maybe they defend with Endurance rather than Athletics or Fists, since they just have to grin and bear the punch). If I want to Invoke the sticky Aspect on them, I can punch them at +2. If the bound person wants to move, he has to overcome the Aspect (perhaps using Might or Athletics), and if I want to make it harder for them, I can Invoke the Aspect to give them -2.

I'm trying to figure out how the Maneuvers work out, but it's hard because I'm dealing with certain things that don't have real world analogs. If you set something on fire, well, of course it's ON FIRE! until the fire gets put out or the fire consumes all the fuel. If you use an Earth evocation to punch your way out of a jail cell, the Aspect MAN-SIZED HOLE IN THE WALL is going to stay there until someone fixes the wall, right? What's the difference between that and BOUND IN PLACE using a spell?

[Taran]

This is how I'd do BOUND IN PLACE.  If the aspect was invoked and I was GM:

Assuming the aspect is sticky, I'd immediately compel the Player by saying:  You cannot move from your zone until you remove the aspect.  Maybe I'd add other stipulations if it seemed appropriate, like having to defend with Endurance, as you mentionned.

If they pay off the compel, they're free to move, but I might continue to compel them until someone takes the time to remove the aspect or they have no more FP's to pay it off - if it's reasonable to do so.  Maybe they just pay it off once and that's the end of it...it depends on the situation - maybe they get out of the zone and the spell is no longer applicable etc...

[Wordmaker]

The other, more rules-fitting, way to create a spell that would restrain a target for a period of time is to use a block, rather than a maneuver.

[Bedurndurn]

I'd argue that BOUND IN PLACE is a bad aspect. Remember that this is an RPG that loosely models the setting of the books; the fiction is not to be taken as examples of how the mechanics of the RPG works. In DFRPG, aspects can be invoked for +2s, rerolls or the nebulous "for effect", but in the scope of a conflict, what you descriptively title the aspect should be in line with the framework of actions that can be taken in combat. If you want to make someone unable to leave their zone, that's a block on their movement, so you should be doing a block action, not a maneuver. Similarly, you're not allowed to use Shooting and a gun to place the aspect DEAD on people as a maneuver and deny them all future actions; you've got to make attack actions, inflict stress and take them out.

I'm trying to figure out how the Maneuvers work out, but it's hard because I'm dealing with certain things that don't have real world analogs. If you set something on fire, well, of course it's ON FIRE! until the fire gets put out or the fire consumes all the fuel. If you use an Earth evocation to punch your way out of a jail cell, the Aspect MAN-SIZED HOLE IN THE WALL is going to stay there until someone fixes the wall, right? What's the difference between that and BOUND IN PLACE using a spell?

Well look at the targets of those actions. Placing ON FIRE onto the scenery as a maneuver is fine. The scenery isn't an active participant in the conflict, and the Fate system isn't about modeling the effects of arson. Note that you can't place ON FIRE on a participant in the conflict and then demand that it do stress to them in ongoing turns; if you want to pile stress on a combatant, you have to make attack actions. MAN-SIZED HOLE IN THE WALL is also against the scenery, so again that's probably fine (though probably only if you can 'take out' the wall with attacks that deal physical stress or something).

BOUND IN PLACE on a person though seems like that steps over the line since you're using a maneuver to place an aspect that's best represented by another action type in the conflict. Versus other characters, that's an important distinction. If you want to toss an aspect so you can tag it on a future roll, then your description for what happens should be less definitive and less specific like COVERED IN GOO or IN HIS OWN PERSONAL HURRICANE or whatever. If your goal is to prevent action, then that's a block and you don't even need to come up with a spiffy aspect name for it. But doing both with one action is a no-no. It breaks the action economy and there's nothing in the magic chapter that says you can cheat the system and get more than one effect a turn.

As an aside, I don't think I'd allow a block spell that completely jammed up another character for more than a round, since again that breaks action economy in a big way. At least you'd have to pay for it with shifts of power instead of just stacking offensive control bonuses though, so that's probably less obnoxious.