Are there any advantages to Power over Control?

[kurtpotts]

Seems like it's a wash either way.
The reckless guy who always leaves the building on fire would take power over control and the studious fellow whose attacks are like surgical strikes takes control.

[Sanctaphrax]

How's that?

Better, at least if you ask me.

I don't see it?

Using your examples...

Without Aspects, the high-power low-control guy is clearly inferior on standard attacks. He has to take backlash to do the same amount of stress that the high-control low-power guy does normally. And control guy is more accurate.

With Aspects, they do the same amount of damage for the same cost. Control guy is still more accurate, though.

If you want an example where Aspects lead to a situation where power is actually better, here's one:

The Merlin wants to create a barrier to stop an army while the rest of the Council retreats. Through teamwork and his FP supply, he can invoke 7 Aspects. He needs a block strength of 25 to stop the army. Once it's up he'll extend the duration with another spell, so he doesn't need to buy duration.

If the Merlin has power 15 control 11, he can take 10 mental stress to cast the spell and then, assuming an average roll, do it without backlash. 10 mental stress hurts, but with consequences it's manageable.

If the Merlin has power 11 control 15 instead, it'll take him 14 mental stress. He can still cast it without backlash, but that 14 stress is pretty serious. If he's already a bit beat-up, he might well have to take an extreme consequence.

So in this situation, power is actually better.

[WadeL]

So, I've got some thoughts on how one might beef up Power...without, hopefully, making evokers more powerful, because that we don't need! Which combination of these do you think might be ideal?

1. Modifiers for zones get subtracted from Power instead of adding to the Power cost

This essentially means that it is easier to control zone attacks, but still have the same power requirements. For instance, say a Wizard wants to hit two zones (-4)...
Power 5, Control 5 - Power drops to 1 because he's going after two zones. Can easily control it, doing 6 shifts of effect to each zone.
Power 3, Control 7 - Power drops to -1 from affecting two zones. Can't even do it unless he's willing to go up to taking 3 stress to get a Power 1 attack, though if he does that he does end up with 8 shifts of effect.
Power 7, Control 3 - Power drops to 3, can now control the Power just fine. Does 6 shifts of effect to each zone.

You might also decide to do a similar thing for extra zones for block...or even for duration on things like shields, which would give a really nice bonus to Power.

2. Limit damage on spell attacks based on your Power (maximum damage of 2x Power).

Basically, this would mean you can only do so much with accuracy - in the end, you also need the juice. So if you do a Power 3 attack, your maximum damage is going to be 6, even if your opponent rolls Mediocre for his dodge and you roll Fantastic on your Discipline.

I actually kind of like this - it seems to make sense - the only thing I don't like is how different it makes evocation from other weapon attacks then. But considering the weapon rating of an evocation attack can go way, way over what a mundane weapon can be, I don't think that's an issue so much.

3. No targeting bonus to damage on zone effects.

If you target a whole zone, you just do your weapon damage, no accuracy bonus, though it still is what the targets have to roll to dodge. This is another one of those things that makes sense, but does change things more than it seems - it makes Zone attacks all or nothing damage wise, for instance (though that may make sense too?).

4. Give some number of free casting for spells way below your Power.

People do sometimes complain about Wizards not being able to get off quite enough spells, anyways (though obviously it is far more than enough most of the time). So say that, once per scene, you can cast a spell at Power -4 for free. And maybe also once per scene at Power -8, Power -12, Power -16, etc, so long as your Power doesn't go into the negatives. This way, someone with a lot of juice has more staying power, but it doesn't make casters too much more lethal because the extra spells they can throw into the mix are at lower power.

Anyways, anyone like any of these tweaks? Or see horrible downsides to any of them?

[Theogony_IX]

I think that you are very focused on attacks, and that isn't all one can do with magic.  Maneuvers, Blocks, and Counterspells are extremely useful things and are determined more by power than by control.  If you're going to make an analysis of the benefits of power over control and vice versa, then you need to include these as well.

[Sanctaphrax]

There's a common houserule saying that control bonuses don't add to attack rolls. They help with controlling the spell, but aiming is straight Discipline.

Personally I think that's a bit too hard on high-end Wizards, but I'm told it works reasonably well at the levels people normally play at.

As for your suggestions...

I don't much like the first idea, since it makes it easier to end a fight on the first round with a huge zone attack.

The second idea seems fine to me. It's another thing to keep track of, though, and I'm not sure how often it'll come up.

I actually like the third idea quite a bit. Zone attacks are really strong, this would tone them down a bit. Might even be worth applying to non-magical zone attacks.

The fourth is kinda minor. It's an upgrade to wizards and that's often problematic, but one spell at power -4 isn't likely to change much. I don't think this is likely to meaningfully affect the balance between power and control.

[WadeL]

I think that you are very focused on attacks, and that isn't all one can do with magic.  Maneuvers, Blocks, and Counterspells are extremely useful things and are determined more by power than by control.  If you're going to make an analysis of the benefits of power over control and vice versa, then you need to include these as well.

I guess with non-attack stuff, it seems it is almost always the best option to go with balanced Control and Power. Where with attack, Control is way better. But there don't seem to be any applications where Power is the better choice.

[Theogony_IX]

I guess with non-attack stuff, it seems it is almost always the best option to go with balanced Control and Power. Where with attack, Control is way better. But there don't seem to be any applications where Power is the better choice.

When it comes to non-attack evocations, that is the case if you are relying on only your raw stats.  You can sacrifice control for more power and rely on tagging maneuvers to make your control rolls.  Maneuvers can augment your control, but they can't augment your power.  In this way, having more power than control allows your non-attack spells to be that much more efficient and/or more powerful, which can be very useful depending on the situation.  See Sanctaphrax's Block example above.

There are advantages and disadvantages to each set up.  What it comes down to, is how you want your spell casting to play out.
If all you want is attack, attack, attack.  Then control over power.
If you want a variety of average sized spells every exchange, then bring them a little more even and save up those fate points for poor rolls.
If you want a variety of really big spells possibly spread out a bit, then go power over control and spend your exchanges on maneuvers,  convince your teammates that the best strategy is to feed you maneuvers, or set yourself up to efficiently soak up stress in backlash.

[WadeL]

I saw this suggestion elsewhere, so I figured I'd ressurrect this thread to see if anyone had any thoughts...

What about just saying Control bonuses don't apply to the attack roll?

So you've got Great (+4) Discipline and Conviction, specializations/items that give you +2 Control and +2 Power. You summon up a Weapon: 6 fire blast for 1 Stress. You roll Discipline to attack, get +0 on the dice...so a Great (+4) result. Your Control bonus applies to that roll to check if you can control your shifts of power (6 control for 6 power - check!), but you still only get that +4 to attack.

It would seem that it takes away some of the double-dipping of Control bonuses, removes the thing where after a few Refresh wizards are way, way better at hitting things with single-target attacks than anyone else, down-powers Control on attacks where everyone agrees it is too powerful, and doesn't down-power Control in other areas at all.

Anyone see any meaningful disadvantages to doing it this way?

[blackstaff67]

So, I've got some thoughts on how one might beef up Power...without, hopefully, making evokers more powerful, because that we don't need! Which combination of these do you think might be ideal?

1. Modifiers for zones get subtracted from Power instead of adding to the Power cost

This essentially means that it is easier to control zone attacks, but still have the same power requirements. For instance, say a Wizard wants to hit two zones (-4)...
Power 5, Control 5 - Power drops to 1 because he's going after two zones. Can easily control it, doing 6 shifts of effect to each zone.

  I respectfully disagree here.  Your wizard must still call up Five (5) shifts of Power; the EFFECT merely drops to one as far as the targets are concerned, but the Power must still be controlled, especially if it's not a Rote.  That's how I would rule at any rate.

[Theogony_IX]

I really think that a lot of the trouble surrounding wizards can be handled by taking the book's advice on YS77 Building a Practitioner.  Don't allow your players to create a wizard with a 5-5-4 set up.  Ask them to vary their trifecta skills.  That way if they want high control, they have to deal with low power.  It allows them to be good at Thaumaturgy, but only a one or two trick pony in combat.  If they want full variety and strength in combat, they have to deal with a low control and be not so great at Thaumaturgy.  Multiple wizards in the group can then fill differing roles, rather than one wizard being able to do everything.

Additionally, this then gives the bonuses from focus items a more useful roll in shoring up weaknesses.  Say I went high control and low power.  I might use my focus items to bolster my power for defensive evocations if I want to round my caster out.

When I was GMing I gave wizards 12 points to spend on their trifecta skills and didn't allow Conviction and Discipline to both be at 5 (I toyed with the idea of requiring a 2 point difference between the two skills as well, but the game died before I could test the idea out.).  I also asked them to define a blind spot in their casting and to reflect it in one of their aspects.  If they wanted the 4-4-4 set up, I required a larger blind spot.  It seemed to work nicely that way for the little bit we tried it.

It doesn't solve everything, but it helps.  It also widens the difference between choosing high power or high control.  When your 1-stress block is only 3 shifts cos' you dumped everything into offense and control, that makes a difference.

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think it's appropriate to interfere with people's skill selection.

What about just saying Control bonuses don't apply to the attack roll?

So you've got Great (+4) Discipline and Conviction, specializations/items that give you +2 Control and +2 Power. You summon up a Weapon: 6 fire blast for 1 Stress. You roll Discipline to attack, get +0 on the dice...so a Great (+4) result. Your Control bonus applies to that roll to check if you can control your shifts of power (6 control for 6 power - check!), but you still only get that +4 to attack.

It would seem that it takes away some of the double-dipping of Control bonuses, removes the thing where after a few Refresh wizards are way, way better at hitting things with single-target attacks than anyone else, down-powers Control on attacks where everyone agrees it is too powerful, and doesn't down-power Control in other areas at all.

Anyone see any meaningful disadvantages to doing it this way?

It makes high-Refresh spellcasters substantially weaker. You might not see that as a downside, but personally I don't like the idea of making Evocation so inaccurate.

And not everybody agrees control is too powerful on attacks.

[Theogony_IX]

I don't think it's appropriate to interfere with people's skill selection.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.  If the books suggest it, and it solves some problems, I don't see the harm.

[WadeL]

It makes high-Refresh spellcasters substantially weaker. You might not see that as a downside, but personally I don't like the idea of making Evocation so inaccurate.

I guess, comparing it to other high-refresh characters...are other high refresh characters likely to get big bonuses to their attack rolls that Wizards can't also get? It seems that stunts/powers that raise your attack roll (as opposed to damage) are pretty rare - for the vast majority of character types, the only way to raise your to-hit roll is to up your skill. Except wizards, who can pretty trivially get +4 to attack even by the time you're in the low teens of refresh.

[Mr. Death]

It's limited to only four or five attacks or actions per combat, though -- beyond that, it starts to hit them pretty heavily.

How many times has Harry obliterated some obstacle, only to learn there's something else he immediately has to deal with while he's still recovering?

Yes, wizards are powerful -- obscenely so, in some circumstances (one of my players has, on more than one occasion, cashed in fate points to cast a spell rolling from 20) -- but they're supposed to be, and there are some drawbacks that can cripple them, or at least seriously offset their usefulness. A fight just lasting more than four rounds can prove a challenge to a wizard -- especially if you let them cast shields reflexively as defenses.

[Sanctaphrax]

If the books suggest it, and it solves some problems, I don't see the harm.

I don't think they do and I don't think it does. IIRC all the book says is that it's difficult or impossible to make all three skills very high. Not that you shouldn't be allowed.

And 5/4/4 is often more optimal than 5/5/4, if you ask me. So prohibiting 5/5/4 doesn't do very much to depower spellcasters.

I guess, comparing it to other high-refresh characters...are other high refresh characters likely to get big bonuses to their attack rolls that Wizards can't also get?

Not big bonuses. But +1 to hit is a standard stunt effect, and there's also True Aim and Blood Drinker. Combine that with apex combat skills and occasional custom stuff, and you can expect people to attack at around skill cap +1 or +2. Plus some of them can dump huge stacks of FP, which Wizards pretty much never have.

Wizards, meanwhile, often don't have capped Discipline. So they'll probably be attacking around skill cap -1 or +0.

It's a very significant difference against people with enchanted item defences or capped Athletics plus a dodging stunt and/or Speed.

A fight just lasting more than four rounds can prove a challenge to a wizard -- especially if you let them cast shields reflexively as defenses.

I'm not disagreeing, but I think it's kinda funny how the phrasing here implies that reflexive shields make Wizards weaker.