The thing that really makes me laugh is that control based builds are obviously great for attacks, while this helps make power based builds are great for maneuvers (especially if you apply success with style or other multiple-aspect allowing rules). Which, if you think about it, is exactly the opposite of what a person might expect. Raw power seems like it should be the attack option, while control heavy individuals would direct little power to great effect via maneuvers.
yeah...I tried to a house-rule fix...but it hurt my brain and didn't work well.
The classic example is Luccio and Harry. IMO, Harry and Luccio put out the same power. Maybe Harry puts out slightly more. Luccio just controls it better. More shifts of accuracy =more damage, less fallout and less backlash. It doesn't really translate to maneuvers or blocks. More Power = more accuracy/finess. Which, as you say, feels backwards. I'm not sure the best fix without making accuracy/discipline even more powerful than it already is.
The way I look at it is -- if you really want to play subtlety and finesse, then don't match power for power.
Instead of maneuvering against your opponent's biggest skill, go for its weakest. Instead of maneuvering him directly, go after the environment.
Take the gruffs, for instance -- Molly can't attack them or defend against them directly, so she veils -- while her paltry 3-shift spells won't reliably stop their Fists attacks or break through their defenses, they're plenty adequate to veil, since the gruffs' Alertness is lower.
This is a good point. Harry tends to go the hard way at any task. And that's, really a line between power and finesse.
The problem is evocation, generally, targets athletics. It's only, really, Thaumaturgy that let's you target a specific skill. There's exception, I suppose, and it probably depends on your GM, but for the most part you can dodge any evocation with athletics. And any evocation that targets discipline has problems with Lawbreaking.
ALthough, blocks and maneuver tend to be able to target different skills...so your argument, I find, is pretty sound.
The 3 is referenced a few times in the Paranet Papers--essentially, it's a basic Threshold against power to effect change in the world because of the collective basic disbelief in it by most of humanity. They say if you're maneuvering on yourself in your sanctum (or presumably other isolated places full of belief in magic, like Edinburgh) then the base difficulty is Mediocre.
Why Maneuvers and not Attacks or Blocks? I dunno. It's all pretty arbitrary. I think the 3 minimum should be there for evocation in general if you're going to house rule anything. If you're going to bend the universe to your will, you better be Good at it.
I could also see the requirement for a Maneuver's power being at least equal to the opposing skill. But specifically saying Maneuver power has to equal the opposing skill value...well, I guess that would then necessitate comparing their opposition to your Discipline roll, since your Power doesn't get a "roll" possibility. Interesting. I guess I see where you got this interpretation. It might even be what Evil Hat intended.
I dunno how I feel about it...it's interesting. Though one of the things I like about Power for Maneuvers is it gives Power builds another thing to be good at. This way it's less important than Discipline again. I'm curious what you think of it after playing it this way for a while.
Yeah...3 seems like a game balancy thing. Regular maneuvers don't require it, it seems. Scene aspects are dependent on how tough it is to do and, I guess, anything that requires magic is tough to do, therefore 3.
Here's my (IMO) objective view of the various ways:
1. Using opponents skill as the threshold for minimum power:
- makes maneuvers too powerful. Let's you cherry-pick your success.
- removes random chance and doesn't follow opposed rolls that are present in every other part of the game.
- makes using FP's to defend..weird.
- removes the power/finesse. it's all about power.
- The minimum Power of spells increases faster than skills. At a certain point, every maneuver succeeds. At submerged, you could have +6 power at minimum with only 1 refinement and skills are not likely to get that high.
2. Defending by Rolling against the power of the spell:
- adds the randomness and makes it harder for wizard to auto-succeed maneuvers. (unless the put +4 power above opponents skill...which is hard to do). But does not completely remove the auto-success since Power can get really high, especially if you over cast or have a crafter.
- removes accuracy completely.
- removes the power/finess. it's all about power
3. Power must be minimum opponents skill. Roll discipline to target.
- makes both aspects of spellcasting important (good)
- creates a double-chance to fail (I'm not sure if this is good or bad. I see both sides of this argument)
***we are allowing a Lore roll to know the minimum power. Same as it's done with counter-spelling. But if you fail, you must guess.
-Like example 1, The minimum Power of spells increases faster than skills. At a certain point, every maneuver exceeds the minimum required power because people's skills just don't get that high. At submerged, you could have +6 power at minimum with only 1 refinement and skills are not likely to get that high. but this is less of a problem because you still have to target. Certain specialties/elements will not be up to snuff, though!
- targeting is still important and there's the randomness of rolls.
- it still doesn't solve the Power/finesse conundrum. But it prevents it from being slanted to one or the other.
