Evocation Mental Attacks & Thaumaturgy Attack Spells

[blackstaff67]

Very good points, every one of them!

It's true that a "bag of tricks" solution with a very few broadly-applicable and very-east tricks (re-running the same few "I win this one" tricks for 99% of the problems encountered) isn't the way I'd like to play an RPG, or (as GM) see my players do it; occasionally I DO expect that my players WILL come up with a "clever trick" that entirely-sidesteps what I had expected to be a combat (or other tough problem); but that shouldn't be bread-and-butter for them.  A "trick" like this, broadly-used, does give pro-active PC's more power (assuming the NPC's are more reactive, otherwise it gets a bit arms-race-y); and a "because magic" handwave is indeed used more-broadly, more often, than most mundane handwaves.

So, if "easy" sleep-spell is a bad idea (and I'm inclined to agree with you that it is) ... can you help me come up with a different solution?  "Easy" isn't actually a critical part of it (making it so easy was just a first-cut approach).

The key elements that I'd like in a "Sleep" spell are:
 * Asleep is Asleep #1 -- it's a relatively fragile state.  Anything that would waken someone who's mundanely-asleep will waken someone who's magically-Slept (including falling-down from a standing position).
 * Asleep is Asleep #2 -- It's more-or-less obvious, from the outside; the subject is obviously not conscious/aware/alert/etc.
 * Asleep is Asleep #3 -- it isn't KO'ed or mechanically "Taken Out;" there are no lingering effects; there should be no Stress-Tracks filled, no Consequences, etc -- if the "Asleep" person awakens, they are an awake person who wasn't KO'ed/etc .

All the above doesn't have to be easy-to-do.  Maybe put it firmly into "Lawbreaker" territory (forcing Sleep upon the wakeful); maybe requiring lots of Shifts of success  Maybe make a ladder:  [ Vigilant --> Alert --> Awake --> Drowsy --> Asleep --> Deep Sleep ]  and say that a spell doing more than 1 step on the ladder isn't linear but pyramid-costed or even exponential?

Magic is a two-way street.  If I'm capable of it, I can assume safely the opposition is also capable of it in game.  A GM could justifiably say that I fall asleep and wake up sans everything.  Taken out without even a chance to concede to have some say over how I lose. Even worse, since Mental/Spirit attacks have no obviously visible effects, I wouldn't even know I was under attack (unless I made an excellent Lore roll).  I'm going with the suggestions that Taran came up with. 

[Sanctaphrax]

If you fall asleep while knife-fighting a vampire, you are essentially dead. So putting someone who's knife-fighting a vampire to sleep is basically the same as taking them out. So your third condition, that being asleep isn't like being taken out, seems very difficult to satisfy.

In a gunfight where you're crouching behind cover, you might have a chance to wake up in time. Would you be okay with limiting sleep spells by type of scene?

[g33k]

... These would all be things that could temporarily throw a person off.  Making someone 'nod off' in the middle of combat (similar to what happens when you are driving for too long) would be enough to get an advantage on a person but not take them out.   Magically induced narcolepsy could have the person fall down for a round and prevent them from acting in that exchange.

Rather than "nod off" in combat -- full-on narcolepsy/sleep/fall -- how about:  the victim just "zones out" for a moment -- pauses to take stock, not thinking quickly enough, and loses the round's action; plus is a bit slow to respond to the incoming attack ...  That seems viable to me.  The spell creates the tag'able "Aspect:Zoned Out"?

So you suggest that the classic "sleep spell" (Target becomes fast asleep) is just Not A Thing ... ?

I'm not wild about this solution, but I suppose I could live with it.

 

I might require a wizard to have an appropriate aspect in order to let them do 'mental' spirit evocations though.  Otherwise they'd be limited to light/force spirit evocations.

  Specifically, it's "Lawbreaker" territory?  Sure, "sleep" seems pretty innocuous... but it's still using magic to impose a mental state onto the target... so Lawbreaker.  If you weren't before, you are now.  That works, I think...

Hmm.  Good ideas, thanks...

Still wrestling with this...

[g33k]

Magic is a two-way street.  If I'm capable of it, I can assume safely the opposition is also capable of it in game.  A GM could justifiably say that I fall asleep and wake up sans everything.  Taken out without even a chance to concede to have some say over how I lose. Even worse, since Mental/Spirit attacks have no obviously visible effects, I wouldn't even know I was under attack (unless I made an excellent Lore roll).

Absolutely correct in every point.

The thing is... I think that IS narratively-true to the Dresdenverse.  Magic IS
just
that
powerful.

Solutions?  I think you're right, that Taran's are good...
Particularly if "Sleep" is just adjudged firmly within "Lawbreaker" turf, and earns the caster a visit from the Snicker-Snack Corps!
 

[g33k]

If you fall asleep while knife-fighting a vampire, you are essentially dead. So putting someone who's knife-fighting a vampire to sleep is basically the same as taking them out. So your third condition, that being asleep isn't like being taken out, seems very difficult to satisfy.

In a gunfight where you're crouching behind cover, you might have a chance to wake up in time. Would you be okay with limiting sleep spells by type of scene?

Let me re-parse that:
If you are knife-fighting a vampire, AND a wizard is acting to stop you from defending yourself (in virtually any manner a wizard can:  "Sleep Spell" or "Petrificus Totalus," does the method really matter?), you are essentially dead...

Or at least you SHOULD be, narratively-speaking!  That's a one-round "one-two punch" that SHOULD take down pretty much any human, shouldn't it?  I mean, whatever the game-mechanics DO say, they SHOULD be saying "DOA."

Are you okay with "wiz+vamp  vs.  lone human" being a multi-round action?

[Taran]

I don't see any problem with doing maneuvers that have people 'blank out' or 'nod off' or any other temporary things.

Even 'sleep' as g33k was saying, where a person is compelled to fall down and instantly wake up (IE: compelled to miss a turn or be 'prone').

I still think putting someone in a magical, semi-permanent, sleep is a physical thing.

So, even if you do mental maneuvers like 'groggy', and 'distracted' and 'zoned out', you can invoke them to do fun/interesting things, or you can tag them for a big physical attack that puts a person to sleep.

I don't really think a sleep spell is Law Breaking, unless you are actually doing mental damage.  In which case, the sleep spell might be a magically induced, semi-permanent nightmare that they're living out in their own mind.  Hell, they could be living a perfectly happy life that takes place entirely in their own mind.  That kind of thing would be Lawbreaking whereas making someone unconscious isn't.

Really, the result is the same but the fallout/repercussions for the victim and the attacker are different.

[Theogony_IX]

Related question, would you allow a successful maneuver to be tagged for effect to make some defend at Mediocre, or skip their action for the round?  Or would you require a FP?

[g33k]

  I don't really think a sleep spell is Law Breaking, unless you are actually doing mental damage.  In which case, the sleep spell might be a magically induced, semi-permanent nightmare that they're living out in their own mind.  Hell, they could be living a perfectly happy life that takes place entirely in their own mind.  That kind of thing would be Lawbreaking whereas making someone unconscious isn't.

Well, I'm not convinced that "Lawbreaker" is inevitable; but I'm not convinced that it isn't.

The "Yes, it is" argument that I see is pretty simple:  the mind is the core self; when you magically-impose YOUR will on the target, alter their mind... you alter their self.  Even if it "seems innocuous," and you say it "does no damage," you are making a change to them against their will.  It may be a SLIGHT change, but, like "slightly pregnant" or "slightly dead" -- it's an is/isn't line, that the spellcaster has crossed.

As I said, I'm not sure the argument CONVINCES me... but it may SUFFICE, as a reason to explain why a forced "go to sleep" isn't on a short-list of go-to solutions for more wizards in the Dresdenverse.  Or it may not:  still pondering.
 

[Sanctaphrax]

Let me re-parse that:
If you are knife-fighting a vampire, AND a wizard is acting to stop you from defending yourself (in virtually any manner a wizard can:  "Sleep Spell" or "Petrificus Totalus," does the method really matter?), you are essentially dead...

Or at least you SHOULD be, narratively-speaking!  That's a one-round "one-two punch" that SHOULD take down pretty much any human, shouldn't it?  I mean, whatever the game-mechanics DO say, they SHOULD be saying "DOA."

No. That would suck.

It would be completely unfun if everyone who failed to buy a Toughness Power was always one turn away from a completely arbitrary death.

If you read the novels, you'll note that Harry's not dead. Despite being a squishy human, who's been up against much worse than one spellcaster and one vampire working together.

Murphy's not dead either. Nor's Michael. In fact, the novels make clear that killing a human hero is really damn hard. Even with various magical powers. Which is good, because otherwise the supernatural action that this game is supposed to be about would kill most PCs within two sessions.

The wizard can maneuver and pass a tag to the vampire. The vampire can invoke it for +2. They can't arrange some kind of instant-victory combo. And they certainly can't bypass the consequence slots that are supposed to let important characters fight on.

Are you okay with "wiz+vamp  vs.  lone human" being a multi-round action?

What do you mean?

[Taran]

Well, I'm not convinced that "Lawbreaker" is inevitable; but I'm not convinced that it isn't.

The "Yes, it is" argument that I see is pretty simple:  the mind is the core self; when you magically-impose YOUR will on the target, alter their mind... you alter their self.  Even if it "seems innocuous," and you say it "does no damage," you are making a change to them against their will.  It may be a SLIGHT change, but, like "slightly pregnant" or "slightly dead" -- it's an is/isn't line, that the spellcaster has crossed.

As I said, I'm not sure the argument CONVINCES me... but it may SUFFICE, as a reason to explain why a forced "go to sleep" isn't on a short-list of go-to solutions for more wizards in the Dresdenverse.  Or it may not:  still pondering.

the line between physical and mental is tricky.

Someone can get into a car accident and suffer severe brain damage.  Amnesia or total personality changes can occur when you get brain damage.  Is it 'Mental damage'?  Not technically since it was 'physical' damage but it still changed the 'core of who they were'.

So, what is mental damage in this game?  Is it the 'soul'?  the personality?  It's too hard to say.  Therefore, I think, intent comes into play.

What's your intent?  Are you trying to destroy 'who they are'?  Then maybe 'Mental damage is the way to go and you get lawbreaker.  Are you just trying to pound them unconscious?  then maybe the physical track is the way to go and you avoid Lawbreaker.

A person might choose to take a physical Extreme Consequence of 'Amnesia' but, I think, the intent of the Wizard (at least for mechanics) should dictate whether they get Lawbreaker.

If that same person takes a mental Extreme Consequence of 'Amnesia', clearly the Wizard was trying to change the fundamental core of who that person was and should get Lawbreaker.

Does that make sense?  What it comes down to is the situation and what would make the game more interesting.  But also, is your Player trying to take the easy road and target the Mental Track?  If they are simply trying to 'put someone to sleep', then I wouldn't let them target the 'mental' track, despite their arguments that it's a sleep spell.  I'd argue that is the realm of the physical track.  If they want to 'put someone to sleep' and give them some sort of horrible anxiety disorder and destroy the person's soul, then I'd let them target mental track, get the advantage of an easier Take Out, and suffer the Fallout of breaking one of the Laws of Magic.

So, in that sense, the intent dictated which track the spell targeted.

[blackstaff67]

Let me re-parse that:
If you are knife-fighting a vampire, AND a wizard is acting to stop you from defending yourself (in virtually any manner a wizard can:  "Sleep Spell" or "Petrificus Totalus," does the method really matter?), you are essentially dead...

Or at least you SHOULD be, narratively-speaking!  That's a one-round "one-two punch" that SHOULD take down pretty much any human, shouldn't it?  I mean, whatever the game-mechanics DO say, they SHOULD be saying "DOA."

Are you okay with "wiz+vamp  vs.  lone human" being a multi-round action?

I think you've confused the PCs with the simple vanilla mortal NPCs.  The rules even come out and say that PCs as a rule have "plot armor" that prevents them from being take out.  Arbitrarily killing off PCs is a bad idea and doing so without even giving them the chance to concede is even worse. 

[g33k]

It's possible we're talking at cross-purposes here...  I don't mean to be using a "hero" character as game-world normative.   There are hundreds (maybe thousands?) of "normal" folk for every hero/villain bad-ass character.

I'm not trying to find a way to create the "one-shot take-out."  I'm trying to AVOID it... while keeping the narrative intact, the sense of the universe being cohesive and internally-consistent.

Most mortals are fragile, and squishy.
(Edit:  I see that blackstaff67 has highlighted just this point)

 

No. That would suck.
It would be completely unfun if everyone who failed to buy a Toughness Power was always one turn away from a completely arbitrary death.

I DO agree that "one-round win" is a pretty sucky thing, RPG-wise.  That is "mook" turf, and the players don't really want all-mook opposition, and CERTAINLY don't want to BE mooks!  But I would suggest that -- if you are up against an allied pair of vampire+wizard -- you are NOT in a "completely arbitrary" situation!

One element of not needing "everyone buys a Toughness Power" would be relying on the GM not to send overpower'ed opposition at the players.  Another is for the PC's to be smart (researching ahead of time) & tricky, and all the rest; and be ready and able to defeat the wiz/vamp pair when they face them!

If you read the novels, you'll note that Harry's not dead. Despite being a squishy human, who's been up against much worse than one spellcaster and one vampire working together.

Murphy's not dead either. Nor's Michael. In fact, the novels make clear that killing a human hero is really damn hard. Even with various magical powers. Which is good, because otherwise the supernatural action that this game is supposed to be about would kill most PCs within two sessions.

But for "ordinary people," a lone wizard or vamp (let alone the pair!) should suffice for a 1-round take-out.  It may not happen to Harry, or Michael, or Murphy... but it happens repeatedly in the stories to minor characters.  The supernaturals are DANGEROUS, and most people are essentially defenseless against them.

The wizard can maneuver and pass a tag to the vampire. The vampire can invoke it for +2. They can't arrange some kind of instant-victory combo. And they certainly can't bypass the consequence slots that are supposed to let important characters fight on.

I'm good with that; in fact, that's exactly what I want, too.

But how do we rule on a "Sleep Spell" which causes sleep -- no more, nor less, than "Asleep" -- as a result of the spell?

[blackstaff67]

I concede I hadn't closely read the thread as I should have.  My apologies. 

[Sanctaphrax]

But for "ordinary people," a lone wizard or vamp (let alone the pair!) should suffice for a 1-round take-out.  It may not happen to Harry, or Michael, or Murphy... but it happens repeatedly in the stories to minor characters.  The supernaturals are DANGEROUS, and most people are essentially defenseless against them.

I'm good with that; in fact, that's exactly what I want, too.

But how do we rule on a "Sleep Spell" which causes sleep -- no more, nor less, than "Asleep" -- as a result of the spell?

The fragility of minor characters doesn't really have anything to do with human-ness. Random vampires die the same as random mortals. Killing Maggie Dresden is much harder than killing a nameless monster. Probably harder than killing a Lord of the Outer Night, actually. Thanks to consequence slots, fate points, and skill ratings, that's also true in the game.

I still think "make it a take-out result" solves your problem. That way you can easily put to sleep enemies that you can easily take out, but not opponents you can't. In the fights where it makes logical sense to fall asleep and not just lose you might be able to briefly put someone out as a maneuver, but that wouldn't give you anything more than the standard +2.

You seem keen to avoid this approach, though. Mind explaining why?

[g33k]

The fragility of minor characters doesn't really have anything to do with human-ness. Random vampires die the same as random mortals.

For the first part, I agree; however, "random vampires" (and other "random" supernatural nasties) really don't die as easily as random mortals do; many "kill the average mortal" traumas will only annoy or inconvenience the average vamp/etc (aside from their specific weaknesses, e.g. WCV/Touch of Love, etc).  Narratively, sure:  Harry, who knows all this, uses these weaknesses readily, and the baddies fall in droves.

I still think "make it a take-out result" solves your problem. That way you can easily put to sleep enemies that you can easily take out, but not opponents you can't. In the fights where it makes logical sense to fall asleep and not just lose you might be able to briefly put someone out as a maneuver, but that wouldn't give you anything more than the standard +2.

You seem keen to avoid this approach, though. Mind explaining why?

I really profoundly dislike the mechanical issues, particularly aftereffects.  Some badass went toe-to-toe with a Ghoul or a Vamp or what-have-you, and wound up Taken Out... Consequences will take a while to heal, but he'll survive.  Fine, we're good.

Someone went toe-to-mind with a wizard who Slept him, and got Taken Out.  Once the victim wakes, there should be no consequences or "healing" time!

Just walking over and shaking them awake should un-do everything; the same should NOT be true for the victim of a Ghoul-mauling!