ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Tsunami on May 18, 2010, 10:58:42 AM
-
I know the Rotes topic has been discussed again and again, but i have yet to find a clear answer.
I it's here somewhere and i have simply missed it, point me at it and i'll go away. :)
The RAW in YS(257) state that "Any change in the parameters of the spell disqualifies it from being a rote."
Well enough.
Unfortunately some writeups in OW as well as some examples here on the boards seem to disagree.
For example: Carlos's Shield rote
Entropy Field: Ramirez must have his gauntlet in order to cast this rote. Attacks that pass through the field face Armor:3 in the form of disruption and disintegration or can serve as a Fantastic (+6) block. Ramirez sometimes devotes one or two of his basic six shifts to persistence—reduce the block or armor value accordingly when he does.
Now, changing the duration is a change in parameters, at least thats what i thought. So how can the whole thing be a rote?
What i'm looking for is clarification of what constitutes "a change in the parameters"
Can i use a +6 block rote to shield myself at +6, and then another time use it to shield a zone at +4
or to create a +4 block with 2 shifts of duration ?
Or maybe even use it a a zone border instead of a ususal block ?
Can i split my +6 attack up into two +3 attacks ? can i use my +6 attack rote to attack an entire zone at +4 instead?
Can i chose if the aspect a certain maneuver is placing will be a scene aspect or an aspect applied to a specific target ?
Personally i think doing any of these things mentioned here would be a "change in the parameters".
But at the moment it sems to me like a lot of that stuff would have to be possible to fit some of the writeups.
The one thing i would allow is the choice between Block/Armor for block rotes. Seems to me if enchanted items can be both, then a spell should too.
Anything more than that, Changing targets, duration, effects... -> no more rote.
So, I would hereby like to request an official ruling as to "what makes a rote?" specifically clarification on what constitutes "a change in the parameters".
Provided any of the devs find the time to read this... i know you've got your hands full with more important stuff right now. ;)
So long,
Tsu
-
From things the authors have stated I'm pretty sure it's only the following (aside from the explicit Focus rules):
1. Changing the Element
2. Changing the type of effect (such as from an Attack to a Maneuver)
3. Changing what the attack targets: A Veil Rote is always a Block vs. Alertness or Investigation, an Earth attack might always target Might, etc.
4. Changing the amount of Power in the effect
5. Adding on (or removing) the ability to effect the entire Zone
-
Does this mean that I can have an "any maneuver" rote? For example, a telekinesis like effect. I can move myself (for when I want to run away), move others (for when I want the horrible clawed monster over there instead of over here, and move objects (anything from disarming, calling objects to my hand, picking locks, picking pockets, etc).
Then that's not much of a limitation.
-
A general maneuver Rote, always resisted by the same skill, that puts any apropriate Aspect you like on someone or something? Yeah, sure.
Moving things from one zone to another is outside the scope of that effect, though. As are skill replacements. Those would change either what the Rote does (moving things from one zone to another is a grapple effect, not a maneuver), or what skill it's resisted by (skill replacement, such as using a spell to pick a lock is definitely resisted by something different from picking people up and throwing them around).
-
So Morgan's Earth Stomp does count as a Rote? Because its a split attack it had confused me before...
-
I think so, yeah.
This is somewhat speculative. It's based on what my (good, but fallible) memory tells me the creators of the game said, but they never gave an exhaustive discussion of this, so it's entirely possible I'm misinterpreting some particulars (like whether split attack can be tacked on to a Rote). But I'm much more certain that I'm mostly right.
-
A general maneuver Rote, always resisted by the same skill, that puts any apropriate Aspect you like on someone or something? Yeah, sure.
I'm pretty sure you're wrong in this case. The Rules clearly state that a rote maneuver always places "the exact same Aspect".
The way i see it that leaves little room for interpretation.
One specific aspect per rote.
Split attack is another of the problematic things for rotes. do i define a fixed (maximum)number of targets ? what happens if there are fewer targets available than specified in the rote? Can i then direct all the power at one target, or is some of the power simply lost in limbo...?
I've tried to track down posts where the devs said something about rotes, but couldn't put together a bigger picture.
Thus i repeat my plea for an official ruling... I think i'm not the only one who would really appreciate it.
-
You might not be able to make it a split attack, but you could make a rote than is a zonewide attack. I think of somthing like a flash spell.
-
On a related note, I'd love to know if the rules governing what an enchanted item can do are the same as the rules for rotes, or if not, in what ways are they more or less restrictive.
-
Thus i repeat my plea for an official ruling... I think i'm not the only one who would really appreciate it.
You are right buddy ;)
-
You are right buddy ;)
Thirded.
-
All theorizing aside, I too would like an official ruling.
-
Well.
IMO you can do whatever you want with the shifts you have in a rote.
6 shifts.
2 to power, 4 to duration
2 to power, 1 to zone, 3 to duration
Stuff like that.
As long as the rote always uses the same amount of power in the same fashion ( A flamethrower for example is different from a ball of fire, however multiple streams of fire still counts as a flamethrower) If you reach way outside of the rotes defined capacity it no longer is a rote.
An official ruling would be nice. :3
-
I think I remember one of the devs say something about how the parameters of the spell before casting are set (element, type, skill, etc) but after the spell is cast, you can redirect energy as normal for any evocation.
Not sure how that effects things like spreads which, one might think, would decide on targets before the actual casting of the spell.
For some reason I seem to also recall a discussion of this very spell some months back... I wonder if I can find it...
-
Yes Saedar, however you have to roll to control the energy after you change it's original purpose which isn't exactly what is being asked here.
-
Right now what we're concerned with is, can a split attack be part of a Rote?
Now that I think about it, I'm thinking no. Because if they can be, then why not have EVERY attack Rote be a split attack?
-
Because 5 Fair (+2) Weapon:1 evocations against a person who rolls Good (+3) on their defense would make you look like an idiot?
I mean, I'm not terribly sure that's how it would work - in fact I'm not terribly sure how a split attack being turned into a single attack would work, but the most obvious and I would think most correct manner wouldn't make it useful at all. If the split attack becomes an equally powerful single attack, then every rote should be split, yes - however, if the rote behaves as five or so separate casts that they resist separately ... well ... good luck hitting anything or having any appreciable power behind the hit. It would be good against a couple of mooks, but not much else.
ETA: Well, I guess a forked or maybe three pronged rote would still be okay, but anything higher than that and I think you'd be really cramping yourself for when the going gets tough. But then again, you might want to design your rotes to clear mooks instead of taking down bosses - as that's when you pour on your full overcast.
-
I think that looking at this from a purely rules perspective is not the best way to solve it...
As the developers keep repeating 'intent precedes system'. You say 'I want to do X' and then work out how to best model X using the rules. I think that the implication of this for Rotes is that a Rote always has exactly the same 'intent' component, which you adapt the system to depending on context. For example, Harry's 'Fuego' Rote is always a cohesive bolt/bar of flame which he uses to directly damage enemies. He sometimes aims straight at a single enemy, and sometimes sweeps across multiple targets. Therefore I think that the system says that the Rote is an X shift attack, but whether it's single, multi or indeed zone targeted is flexible (so long as the zone targeting is consistant with 'sweeping across an area' and not, say a radial explosion). When he uses 'fuego' with a different intent (ie. sucking heat out of water and redirecting it to freeze the water) then it is no longer the Rote version.
Obviously, this approach requires more discretion on the part of GMs and players, which may not give the clarity the OP was looking for, but I think it is the most fitting approach to the spirit of the rules.
So a Quick Veil Rote is always a block vs. perception with total shifts constant (power and duration combined), but I don't think it needs to specified whether it's on the caster or some external target. Am I making sense here?
-
Indeed. I'm fairly sure that's not quite what the authors intended, but it's an awesome idea, and might well be even better, now that I think on it.
-
Am I making sense here?
You most certainly are and I like what you've suggested. It's a simple suggestion and seems to me like it would work well.
-
Well, thank you both for the complimentary replies :D
@Deadmanwalking: I am particularly please by your comment, as you seem to have a pervasive, (and more importantly) creative and sensible presence on the RPG forum, and I have read many threads where I feel your posts have been very constructive and useful. If you wouldn't mind, do you think you could look at the other rules thought I had here?
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18174.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18174.0.html)
-
Thank you. :) It's nice to hear I'm thought well of.
And I'll post in the thread in question giving you my opinion shortly.
-
First off: There's nothing saying the example evocation spells are rotes, unless that's explicit in the spell's description.
What's the official ruling on what constitutes a rote? Whatever your GM is comfortable with allowing as a rote.
Sorry to disappoint, there. But we expect everyone to make decisions for their games based on what they want to see in their games.
At minimum, based on chats I had with Lenny during the development cycle, the choice of whether a block rote manifests as armor or as a block is not considered a change of parameters. At the time I didn't expect that, honestly. :)
But as I thought about it, it started to make sense to me. Harry clearly has some favored, go-to spells that he does regularly, but which manifest with some variations to it. His shield spell -- almost certainly a rote -- is the poster-child for that.
So for me, at my table, in my game, I'd say that defensive rotes that maintain the same amount of power can play around with whether it's armor or block, whether it's set up to last a few extra exchanges or is just a one-timer. In this, Deadmanwalking and I have some pretty similar perspectives on what the guidelines would be for what is or is not a change of parameters.
As far as the whole maneuver-aspect thing, man, maneuvers are such a lightweight action I'd definitely want to preserve a little flexibility there. I'd assert that the aspect inflicted needs to remain in the same thematic spirit, but I'd allow some change of specifics. Let's say my maneuver-rote is "Tip the Balance" in its theme -- the point is to knock people off-balance, flat on their asses, whatever. I can't then use that rote to inflict the aspect "Morose and Contemplating the Essential Futility of Life", but I sure as hell can and should be allowed to inflict "Off Balance", "On The Ground", "Two Left Feet", etc -- all playing with the theme that I'm using a little kinetic force to mess up the target's ability to take graceful action.
-
Thanks Fred. :)
Would the same guidelines apply at your table for effects generated by enchanted items?
-
Would the same guidelines apply at your table for effects generated by enchanted items?
Generally, yes.