even Chinese style dragons made of fire leaping at there enemies.
See, that is something that doesn't really fit into my view of the Dresden Files. (but i'm reading Ghost Story right now (not right now, but i will continue in the next few minutes) and there are a lot of completely new magic things seen in there). We haven't really seen such a thing in the Books.
It's cool as hell i give you that but it isn't really "throwing around the fundamental energies of the universe". I could see it stored in a magic item though...
I'd say the Imps (even the Dragon stuff) fits, both in terms of the RPG and the DresdenVerse setting. I'm fairly certain the RPG book suggests that Cassius' snake spells are standard Evocation attacks/blocks/manoeuvres. Ditto for Justin's eels. Whilst as far as the DresdenVerse goes they might not quite be Evocation, they fit that way in the RPG, and it makes things interesting.
It might be a bit much for a wizard using evocation, perhaps... but it'd fit right in with some kinds of sponsored magics. (And, even if you rule that it's too complex an effect for raw evocation, remember that a sponsored magic has that whole thaumaturgy with the speed and methods of evocation thing going.)
I've had someone throw a phoenix bomb (http://mixedmyth.comicgenesis.com/d/20010928.html) in the game I'm running. Of course, that's not quite what he thought he was doing... ahh, compels. Good times.
But they are Spirit Element Evocation, not elemental.
Let's say a player adds flavor to a fire spell effect description. For example, instead of the standard gout or ball of fire flying at its target, the player wants to describe it as miniature imp-shaped flames flying from his hands. Without any prerequisite action like a Summoning spell, would a GM have to disallow this, although the player doesn’t intend to have the fire do anything different than normal fire, just look different?The important part is, that magic comes from what the character believes. Mechanically, there is no difference between fireballs and impballs, and it is a fun variation. I can practically hear the impatient voice of a master wizard telling his (not so talented at fire magic) apprentice "Ok, one more time. Imagine the imps I showed you, they are creatures of fire. Now remember what they looked like, what they felt like. Capture their essence and shape it. Yes! Yes, you did it! You finally conjured a gout of flame. Seems like our trip to the planes of fire really had an imp-act."
In a similar vein, a Forzare-type Spirit spell could just pile driver a target with invisible force, but could the same effect (But visible) be done by a Nichtomancer (Shadow-based Focused Practitioner) making a column of solid shadow to smash someone? Or would solid shadow be disallowed?Why should it be disallowed? You are doing a standard magic action, namely an attack. How you describe it is up to you. Maybe the shadow is only a side effect from the spells energy bending light away, Einstein and all. Maybe the wizard is just conjuring stuff from the nevernever, that looks like shadows, but is actually really solid. Or you are sort of reverse-lasering, instead of focussing a beam of light you are removing everything, creating sort of a light-vacuum effect that results in a force against anything it touches.
Final example: Since Earth magic is linked to Electromagnetism, can an Earth based Block against leaving a zone be created by magneto-gravitically manipulating a flock of pigeons (who navigate via an ability to sense magnetic North) into kamikaze divebombing the zone borders (Lots of dead pigeons, ew)?I would allow it, I think. In fact, you would probably even be able to do a quick declaration of a "Flock of Pigeons" and tag it on your spell for more oomph.
Yeah, I'm an odd sort of guy. You're just lucky I erased the post attempt involving spells from a Copromancer...You're in good company. But what on gods earth is Copromancy?
You're in good company. But what on gods earth is Copromancy?
Heh. Look up coprophilia, and shudder in disgust. ;D
Why should it be disallowed?
The shape can be used for intimidation purposes and potentialy tagged as an aspect with the right sort of intimidation ploy
My decision would be totally based on context and tone. If it fit the tone of the game we were playing, it's fine. If it didn't fit the tone, then I ask for color that did.
Remember the scene in Changes where Harry. The shape can be used for intimidation purposes and potentialy tagged as an aspect with the right sort of intimidation ploy(click to show/hide)
Remember the scene in Changes where HarryThat could have been two spells, the second one invoking the consequence the first one inflicted(click to show/hide)
That could have been two spells, the second one invoking the consequence the first one inflictedYes it could have been but doing the imps as a single spell at no cost then tagging that as an aspect trying to play up the caster's control or links to some other being/source of power beyond that of their own should be disallowed without some kind of cost (i.e. increased difficulty, character aspect, etc)
What aspect is he tagging Tetrasodium? There needs to be an aspect for him to tag it, and mechanically this is no different from any other spell. It doesn't create an aspect for him to tag, period.Lets say the GM brings in an ectual imp or something, the character could use the imp shape of their spell as an example of something to convey a link of kinship/trustworthyness/etc to it, similar things could be applied to many other situations not directly involving actual imps.
You're trying to create mechanical differences with thematic differences and were I GM in that situation I would simply call shenanigans and ask you to stop breaking the rules.my original point exactly, it should be made clear up front that it won't be tolerated if they attempt to play off the imp shape somehow