The only (possible) mechanical issue I see is that it's built off of replacing someone's roll, however it has no shifts representing the ability for multiple people to use it. I don't know if that's an actual issue though.
I got it! Adding 2 shifts to make it the equivalent of a Zone-wide power would mean *anyone* in the Zone of origin (or ZOO) can easily get to the next Zone of destination (or ZOD) using the bridge.
And your only using this particular rule, in the Evocation sections, because you are casting thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation, correct?
Definately something I will want to think upon here.
Normally, I would also agree that this would do better as Thaum. BUT, the fact that those crossing have to make an athletics check, IMHO, is a fair trade off for an evocation spell. I see that as meaning that the rocks being used are just thrown up using Earth Magic and are not lined up nicely. I don't know about the Wardens... but OSHA is going to be coming after your wizard big time!
No hand railing at least 48" high. No flagging or signage for a temporary structure. No PE stamp signing off that the temporary structure is a safe, engineered structure. You party, I'm sure, has not taken the 30-hour OSHA certification class....
;)
As long as the element you are using could logically breach the Zone Border, I see no reason why it wouldn't work. Not quite RAW, I admit, but looks good to me.
Perhaps, this could even be a Maneuver evocation that could create an aspect of Stone Bridge that could be tagged and/or invoked for effect? It's shift cost would be that of the zone border +1 to make it last an extra exchange (and to make the Aspect sticky so it could used by several people and not just by one).
That would be the easiest, of course - a great suggestion - but I should have mentioned early on why I didn't opt for that at the time: it is a Fate Point sink for most involved, and all the players in this game are Wizard Apprentices with 1 Refresh. Plus a failed Athletics check, even with that Aspect to tag, would still have been bad. The Evoker was willing to take on whatever Stress and Consequences were needed to get folks out of there.
Devon, you misunderstand ... I literally meant Invoking For Effect (YS99). You hand a Fate point to the GM and say "Oh look, a convenient Stone Bridge. I simply cross it". That's it.
Perhaps, this could even be a Maneuver evocation that could create an aspect of Stone Bridge that could be tagged and/or invoked for effect? It's shift cost would be that of the zone border +1 to make it last an extra exchange (and to make the Aspect sticky so it could used by several people and not just by one).
I don't really think that's how Aspects are supposed to work though. It's like having a magic sword that is just an aspect...it doesn't actually make a lot of sense when you think about it. An aspect-only bridge isn't REALLY there. I like this more as kind of countering a zone barrier.
I don't really think that's how Aspects are supposed to work though. It's like having a magic sword that is just an aspect...it doesn't actually make a lot of sense when you think about it. An aspect-only bridge isn't REALLY there. I like this more as kind of countering a zone barrier.
Sure it does. An Aspect is an extraordinarily flexible thing that can mean anything ranging from emotions, to behavior, to environmental conditions, to an actual physical something or other (for example, a box of crates in the middle of a firefight).
For example, even putting magic aside, you could toss a net on someone as a combat maneuver and hit him with the aspect of Tangled Up which you could invoke or compel. Using magic, you could cast a spell that, well, Tangles Up an enemy and also invoke or compel something.
The danger to using maneuvers in this way, as someone pointed at above, is that it's a Fate point drain - very powerful if you have lots of them, useless if you don't.
Even one of the designers said some uses of aspects don't make a lot of sense (like a magic sword or the like). I think something like a bridge is like that, but floating rocks as stepping stones would be about right for an aspect. Tossing acid at someone or on the ground could be an aspect, but someone getting immersed in a pool of acid would not be. Imho, aspects are stuff that can influence things, that CAN change things, but the stuff that definitely changes things...the things that are nearly 100% consistent and stable, should be modeled another way. There's a reason why there are weapons, zone borders, and other things in the game that are not modeled by aspects.
Well, like any other Evocation spell, the aforementioned bridge is purely temporary. In fact, describing it as floating rocks makes perfect sense. I don't think anyone meant it to last more than an exchange or two unless someone wishes to take the time to cook up some Thaumaturgy.
And by the way, a flaming sword absolutely makes sense as a maneuver based spell. It's basically adding a new element aspect (Red Hot Flames) to an existing object (Sword), so that as long as that Aspect remains, it can be tagged or invoked by the wielder of the sword in Weapons based melee combat.
And for something more permanent, you could indeed make a magic sword as an enchanted item that casts a maneuver based evocation on itself 1 or more times per session. Would take up an enchanted item slot like normal.
Then use your free tag to make a declaration.
I think I may have missed this? I checked the rule for tagging, and it says the only restriction is that it should be done immediately. I didn't see where it said you could not invoke for effect. Can you point me to it. (If so we have been playing wrong).
Anything *invoked* can be free tagged, including Invoked for Effect. Compels cannot.
Ah, thank you - I just found this on YS 99, under "Invoking for Effect," it says: "As with regular invocations, you can also spend fate points to invoke aspects on the scene or on other characters for effect."
So yes, you can "Invoke for Effect" on an external Aspect, but it is not a free tag - it costs a Fate Point. My apologies for the confusion.
Err... I was under the assumption that that was the reasoning behind the word difference.. That an Invoke is the specific expenditure of a fate point to use on an aspect, while Tagging an aspect allows you to freely take advantage of a newly placed aspect on someone, something, or somewhere...
Granted, I need to do a far more in-depth study of the rules >.<
Tagging just means it's free. That's why it's small sub-section within the bigger Invoking section. From the very first line: "A tag is a special move that you may be able to do when you're invoking aspects other than your own." (YS106)
Ahh, now I see what your saying.. But you can only Tag an aspect under certain conditions, correct?
Nope.
You just need to tag it quickly from the point the Aspect is introduced (the absolute longest the tag should be available is a scene).
But isn't that the requirement in itself? YS106, taken right after the first sentence infusco quoted,
"Whenever you make a roll to gain access
to or create an aspect, as per the list on page 105,
you may invoke it one time, and one time only, for
free—as in, you don’t spend from your pool of
fate points to take advantage of the aspect."
So technically, unless I'm getting the word wrong, the basic requirement for an aspect to be Tagged for free, is that it has to be created or made known to yourself through a roll you've previously made?
In most cases, especially in a conflict, an aspect that you create has be tagged almost immediately, either by yourself or an ally of your choosing. At worst, it has to be done within the same scene. I'd say it would have to depend on what brought about that aspect in the first place. A maneuver should definitely be within an exchange or two, but I'd say a consequence could be free-tagged anytime in that scene.
I think we are pretty much on the same page.. Not sure what we are arguing about >.< ... But I would maybe argue with a consequence aspect... Need to read up on exactly how it explains them again to say anything for sure, hehe...
If you really wanted to use a maneuver and aspect maybe something like this. Use the spell to create a maneuver to give the zone the Aspect "Filled with rocks". Then use your free tag to make a declaration. "The rocks are stable enough to cross over on." Then anyone can cross them i think?
So, I think we are all good as far as arguing goes... Did we come to a general consensus on how such a thing could be done? And was my idea doable, and seeming to be right as far as shifts go, if it could work?
And did you want that spell for a game session that is going to happen, or already has happened? If it has, how did it go?
The first, staring at 3 shifts for the maneuver of "The Aurora" as it visibly gathers the earth's magnetic forces, then however many more you'd think you need for added time, though technically, you'd only need it to be tagged in the next spell mechanically.. I'd prefer to keep both spells running though, cause it would just make more sense thematically...
The second spell is where a lot more heavy lifting comes into play.. Another start at 3 shifts for the next maneuver, "Bridging the Gap". Then another 2 shifts of energy, to create an effect large enough to effect the whole zone. Finishing off with probably a base of at least 2, maybe even 4 or 5 for duration, so everyone can get away. So thats a base of between 7 to 10 shifts. Tag "The Aurora" to help you with a +2, I doubt any GM would argue that, then Invoke for Effect your Aspect of "Bridging the Gap" with your free tag for bringing it into play...
It then goes on to say that a tag is only subject to the key limitation, that it must be used almost immediately after the aspect has been brought into play. So, from this, I would assume that you Could tag for the normal +2 bonus, or you could Invoke for Effect, or any other effects normally allowed through invoking...
I think we are pretty much on the same page.. Not sure what we are arguing about >.< ... But I would maybe argue with a consequence aspect... Need to read up on exactly how it explains them again to say anything for sure, hehe...
You could basically make an Aurora Borealis kinda bridge, and walk over it with all the pretty lights... maybe even invoke it a second time, to daze and confuse the bad guys as they stare on in dumbfoundedness...
But basically, using the earth element, instead of real rock ((which sounds like it may be a little scarce in the current example)) using the Earth's magnetic field, imbuing it with a lot of extra juice, then steadying it to be used as a literal bridge..
The easiest way to visualize how the Consequence Aspect works is a brutal melee fight. You do X-shifts of damage to an opponent, and they take the Consequence "Broken Arm" - the next time you act, you can:
a) free tag that "Broken Arm" Aspect for a +2 to an Intimidation check because they are wounded and easier to cow
b) free tag that "Broken Arm" Aspect for a +2 to another attack as you target the weak arm
c) Invoke for Effect/Compel the "Broken Arm" aspect and say "My opponent's arm is broken - he's not sure he wants to fight me anymore, so he surrenders and agrees to tell me what he knows" - if the GM accepts, you hand him a Fate Point and he gives it to the NPC, who may or may not get to use it in a later conflict with you
This makes me curious, as a GM do you ever automatically compel aspects on the NPCs or do you just do it for PCs? If there are Huge Gusts of Wind on a scene, you might compel a PC to fall over...seems almost unfair that's not done with the NPCs. Or, in your view, is it the job of the PCs to handle that side of things by spending fate points? (I suppose the latter is the most consistent and makes the most sense in terms of game mechanics).
I think I like it as an X-shift Evocation where X is the Zone Border, with a 2-shift premium to make it a "Zone-wide" effect (even though the Zone is just a point along a Zone Border), plus extra shifts for Duration - that reflects the spellcaster having to give it energy. I think calling it a Block on the Zone Border is an elegant way to justify the spell effect.
This is a postmortem discussion - this already happened in game, as I had originally described, and I was looking for community feedback on how I handled it. It seemed like a challenge to stat properly.
You would want four shifts to make the Aspect Sticky - then it would last the scene without needing extra duration.
And this is where the confusion is. You can "Invoke" for a free re-roll or a +2 to a roll. And you can get that for free using the "free tag" rule for creating or discovering a new Aspect.
You can "Invoke for Effect" as well, but it is going to cost a Fate Point no matter what. Any time you are using an Aspect to make something happen without a die roll, a Fate Point has to change hands.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on an NPC's Aspect, it is equal to a Compel, and they get a Fate Point from you.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on a Scene Aspect - even one you created - you give the GM a Fate Point.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on one of your own Aspects, you give the GM a Fate Point.