ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Theonlyspiral on December 18, 2012, 07:38:22 PM
-
Hey There Guys,
A player in my upcoming game sent me his Family Sword (an Item of Power) to review and make sure it was OK. I've played about 2 hours of the game, completely out of the books and a pregenerated adventure, so I'm a little out of my depth here. Having had bad experiences with magic items in other games, I figured I would come to the experts. The character is the last son of a family that has a destiny to destroy a specific outsider. I would really appreciate everyone's thoughts on this blade.
Akai Family Spirit Blade [-3]
Description: An unassuming Japanese Katana that has gained significant magical powers over the past several centuries.
Musts: You must be a descendant of the Akai family, and Have a High Concept related to the family Destiny.
Skills Affected: Weapons
Effects:
[-1]Memories of the Ancestors. The wielder of this sword gains +1 Weapons while wielding it in combat.
[+1]One Time Discount. You're not Duncan Macleod. You can't hide a Katana on your Person.
[-1]Outsider Bane. This sword serves as the catch for any supernatural toughness abilities possessed by outsiders. This weapon increases and stress it inflicts on an Outsider by 1 step.
[-1]The Quest. This item is unbreakable as long as it is used in the service of the family destiny. If it is ever used to further the aims or ends of Outsiders it looses it's magical properties until the user redeems himself or it passes to a new member of the Akai family.
[-1]Spirit Sheath.Up to Four times a day you may use the sword to generate a strength 7 Block against magic on yourself.
-
Personally I'd put just about any kind of a sword with a +2 discount.
-
Personally I'd put just about any kind of a sword with a +2 discount.
This. It's pretty explicit, what with one of the Swords of the Cross being a katrana and getting the +2. Also, unbreakable as described under The Quest is free with Items of Power. You don't have to pay for it. So, with those considerations in effect, it's only a -1, not -3. If you want it to be a bigger deal than that, well, add more powers.
-
The Quest should not cost refresh.
As said, a Katana should probably be a +2 discount.
Spirit Sheeth's effects are being determined...how? It looks like an Enchanted Item effect worked in to the IoP, but does the player holding the item have the stats to back that up?
-
Also, four times a day with a set effect like that isn't really a "power", and it's way above the guidelines for what a 1-refresh power should be.
If anything, I'd say make that power allow the player to make a block against magic using some specific skill (Conviction comes to mind, given the flavor of the sword; maybe Discipline) at a bonus.
-
Hey There Guys,
A player in my upcoming game sent me his Family Sword (an Item of Power) to review and make sure it was OK. I've played about 2 hours of the game, completely out of the books and a pregenerated adventure, so I'm a little out of my depth here. Having had bad experiences with magic items in other games, I figured I would come to the experts. The character is the last son of a family that has a destiny to destroy a specific outsider. I would really appreciate everyone's thoughts on this blade.
Yeah, Items of Power can get a bit tricky at times. Here are my thoughts on it:
Akai Family Spirit Blade [-3]
Description: An unassuming Japanese Katana that has gained significant magical powers over the past several centuries.
Musts: You must be a descendant of the Akai family, and Have a High Concept related to the family Destiny.
Skills Affected: Weapons
Effects:
[-1]Memories of the Ancestors. The wielder of this sword gains +1 Weapons while wielding it in combat.
So far so good, but here is the first time it gets weird. A weapon like that has a purpose, and a purpose no less, that is mentioned already. I would therefore only grant the +1 when the wielder is fighting outsiders, not as a blanket bonus. This is basically a stunt that is attached to the weapon.
[+1]One Time Discount. You're not Duncan Macleod. You can't hide a Katana on your Person.
That's true. And as a sword, it should get a +2 bonus. A sword is definitely big enough to grant that.
[-1]Outsider Bane. This sword serves as the catch for any supernatural toughness abilities possessed by outsiders. This weapon increases and stress it inflicts on an Outsider by 1 step.
The wording here is a bit off, and I think it grants too much power for one refresh. Since the sword was made to fight one specific outsider, I would only allow it to cut through that outsiders toughness entirely. However, since that would be a little bit weak for one refresh, I'd let it also reduce the toughness power of any outsider by one step. And no extra bonus, that's too much rolled into one.
You could add another [-1] power, that adds 2 stress on successful hits against outsiders. It would stay the same cost, since we increased the discount above.
[-1]The Quest. This item is unbreakable as long as it is used in the service of the family destiny. If it is ever used to further the aims or ends of Outsiders it looses it's magical properties until the user redeems himself or it passes to a new member of the Akai family.
I'm pretty sure, this does not need a refresh point to be active. An item of power is always unbreakable, and it will always be undone, if it is used against it's purpose. Of course, that might mean, that it can't even be used to battle faeries or wizards or anything that isn't an outsider. You should talk about what the purpose of the sword allows and what it doesn't with your player.
[-1]Spirit Sheath.Up to Four times a day you may use the sword to generate a strength 7 Block against magic on yourself.
Um... No. This is really odd. First of all, a flat out number like that is kind of wrong. If there are numbers like that, they are usually 2 or 4, the equivalent to tagging an aspect or two. Then the "four times per day" is also kind of strange. Those things are usually measured in "per session", which is how long you play (unless you allow the item to replenish earlier, because you are playing extra long, or enough time has passed ingame, and so on).
Now I kind of see what he did there, but I am still questioning the "strength 7" part. You can buy 4 enchanted item slots for 1 refresh (the 4 uses). If you have thaumaturgy or evocation, you can create enchanted items that hold spells, for example block spells. Those spells have a base strength of you lore skill. Now for the sword, it doesn't have to be the lore skill, you could replace any other skill for it. Weapons (without any increases from stunts and powers) would be the one to go for here, probably, or you take an arbitrary number, since one of his ancestors created the weapon, and he would have probably also laid down the enchantment.
Though I have to say, this would be easier as a stunt, again. Make it a stunt that allows the wielder to do a weapons block against magic, per the standard (as in: not magic) block rules. It kind of amounts to the same thing, but he can keep it up indefinite if he has to, as long as he rolls the block each exchange as his action. He can also, if need be, increase his roll with fate points and tags, which would not be possible in the current form.
So yeah, that's what I got. hope that helps.
-
Also, four times a day with a set effect like that isn't really a "power", and it's way above the guidelines for what a 1-refresh power should be.
If anything, I'd say make that power allow the player to make a block against magic using some specific skill (Conviction comes to mind, given the flavor of the sword; maybe Discipline) at a bonus.
Why not make it a stunt that allows you to parry magical attacks with weapons as long as you have the weapon drawn.
@ Haru: why can't the sword meet the catch for outsiders. It's less specific than one particular outsider but more specific than holy.
-
Why not make it a stunt that allows you to parry magical attacks with weapons as long as you have the weapon drawn.
Oh, god call, that'd work very nice, too.
The only difference would be, that you wouldn't be able to shield other characters like you could with a block.
-
Why not make it a stunt that allows you to parry magical attacks with weapons as long as you have the weapon drawn.
That works, but since the OP phrased it as a block, I figured I'd stay as close to that as I could. That and--The only difference would be, that you wouldn't be able to shield other characters like you could with a block.
Damn, Haru beat me to the punch.
Come to think of it, I added exactly that to my write up of the Sword of Truth, and was told to just make it an equivalent to the Footwork stunt that lets you just defend against everything with Weapons.
-
Damn, Haru beat me to the punch.
Meep Meep :P
-
Also, four times a day with a set effect like that isn't really a "power", and it's way above the guidelines for what a 1-refresh power should be.
If anything, I'd say make that power allow the player to make a block against magic using some specific skill (Conviction comes to mind, given the flavor of the sword; maybe Discipline) at a bonus.
Eh. A level of Refinement allws 4 Enchanted Item slots and it's roughly on par with what a Warden's Sword does (which is only two item slots). I'd allow it.
So far so good, but here is the first time it gets weird. A weapon like that has a purpose, and a purpose no less, that is mentioned already. I would therefore only grant the +1 when the wielder is fighting outsiders, not as a blanket bonus. This is basically a stunt that is attached to the weapon.
Swords of the Cross do it. No reason this shouldn't too. Gives it some usefulness aside from fighting Outsiders, too, which is good. Items of Power should be cool to have or what's the point?
The wording here is a bit off, and I think it grants too much power for one refresh. Since the sword was made to fight one specific outsider, I would only allow it to cut through that outsiders toughness entirely. However, since that would be a little bit weak for one refresh, I'd let it also reduce the toughness power of any outsider by one step. And no extra bonus, that's too much rolled into one.
Having a specific weapon meet the Catch of a creature type is an established thing. Normally I might not even charge Refresh for it, actually, but Outsiders are specifically tough enough with a rare enough Catch that -1 seems appropriate.
Reducing defensive abilities is more typical of magic, and just generally wonky mechanically. It's much easier to just say 'This satisfies the Catch of X'
Why not make it a stunt that allows you to parry magical attacks with weapons as long as you have the weapon drawn.
This is also a valid way to do it.
-
Awesome. This is exactly the kind of feedback I needed. I like the idea of the blade parrying Outsider magic a lot more than than it putting shields up on everyone. So to take everyone's advice into account the sword would look like:
Akai Family Spirit Blade [-2]
Description: An unassuming Japanese Katana that has gained significant magical powers over the past several centuries.
Musts: You must be a descendant of the Akai family, and Have a High Concept related to the family Destiny.
Skills Affected: Weapons
Effects:
[-1]Forged By the Real. This blade inflicts 2 additional stress on a successful strike against an Outsider.
[-1]Memories of the Ancestors. The wielder of this sword gains +2 Weapons while wielding it in combat against Outsiders.
[+2]One Time Discount. You're not Duncan Macleod. You can't hide a Katana on your Person.
[-1]Outsider Bane. This sword serves as the catch for any supernatural toughness abilities possessed by (Insert Outsider Name here). The sword additionally reduces any toughness ability possessed by any outsider it strikes by one step.
[+0]The Quest. This item is unbreakable as long as it is used in the service of the family destiny. If it is ever used to further the aims or ends of Outsiders it looses it's magical properties until the user redeems himself or it passes to a new member of the Akai family.
[-1]Spirit Sheath.While wielding the Family Blade you may Parry magical attacks as if they were Weapon attacks.
-
I'd seriously go with the original Memories of the Ancestors. Though the new one works too, if you really want.
Additionally, as written, both Forged By the Real and Outsider Bane are too weak. After all, you can get +2 stress vs. everything for one Refresh. They should be combined into a single -1 ability...or you should go back to the original version.
-
I really don't think satisfying the Catch for Outsiders' toughness powers should cost refresh.
Most Outsiders will have a Catch of 'Holy stuff' or something similar, meaning that any 'Holy' weapon will do the job for most of them. Such a weapon will also satisfy the Catch for many many other creatures.
Being 'Holy' doesn't cost refresh. The Catch of Outsiders will come up less often then a Catch of 'Holy stuff'. Satisfying the Catch of Outsiders should not cost refresh.
-
So, as far as parrying attacks against other people, I think you could do that with a FP. Also, for blocking, couldn't he just use weapons to put up a block? I mean, you can just do that anyways, especially if the weapon allows you to parry magic.
-
I really don't think satisfying the Catch for Outsiders' toughness powers should cost refresh.
Most Outsiders will have a Catch of 'Holy stuff' or something similar, meaning that any 'Holy' weapon will do the job for most of them. Such a weapon will also satisfy the Catch for many many other creatures.
Being 'Holy' doesn't cost refresh. The Catch of Outsiders will come up less often then a Catch of 'Holy stuff'. Satisfying the Catch of Outsiders should not cost refresh.
Eh...it's a little unclear that holy stuff does it for all Outsiders. That said, I think the original version (-1 Refresh, satisfies the Catch, +1 damage) was about right. -2 to not even fully satisfy their Catch? Way overpriced.
So, as far as parrying attacks against other people, I think you could do that with a FP. Also, for blocking, couldn't he just use weapons to put up a block? I mean, you can just do that anyways, especially if the weapon allows you to parry magic.
Yeah, I'd say the current version allow that.
-
Eh...it's a little unclear that holy stuff does it for all Outsiders. That said, I think the original version (-1 Refresh, satisfies the Catch, +1 damage) was about right.
If we presume more disparate Catches for Outsiders, the math just gets more complicated, but it doesn't reach a substantially different conclusion. Satisfying the Catch of a particular group is not meaningfully more powerful (if at all) than satisfying a particular type of Catch, and satisfying a particular type of Catch doesn't cost refresh.
'Satisfies the catch and inflicts +2 stress' would be more reasonable, and even that's weak for a Power.
-
I tend to agree with you for the most part. Outsiders are just bad enough that it seems to me some cost might be reasonable...that said, satisfies the Catch and +2 damage is certainly reasonable as a -1 power, I agree.
-
The reason I look upon satisfying the catch as a big deal is that outsiders are unknowable and alien. We don't really know what (if anything) is a reliable catch as the only person who we see meaningfully got toe to toe with them is Harry. Harry being a Star Born is a big deal in the novels. A lot of speculation on the boards seems to be that it took planning and a lot of work to create one. If you have a catch that is almost impossible to fulfill, then having a weapon the ignores the rarity and danger of acquiring the knowledge and items you need to kill it seems pretty strong.
-
Michael also butchered them pretty easily. But then, he had a Sword of the Cross, which are definitionally everything's Catch.
But that aside, what you speak of is the reason I'm an advocate of your original ability (or one that did +2 stress instead of +1) being reasonable for a single -1...the current version is still vastly underpowered.
-
Hey Everyone, It's me the player who came up with this item!
I'm really enjoying the feedback on this thread I thought I would add some more of the flavour i had in mind into the discussion it might help clarify things or make new ideas crop up.
This sword is powered by the shades of the family. When the wielder dies they leave behind a shade, and that shade (after returning the sword to the family, or being destroyed) joins with the sword and empowers it further. The idea I had was that the memories and skills of those shade might be partially accessible (like ectomancy) which I tried to represent in the "memories of ancestors" power. The only other thing I would like to add is that it would be nice if it had at least a little utility against things other than outsiders. I hop this adds some clarity, and can generate further discussion! :)
-
You could do something like "channeling the ancestors", by putting a relabeled beast change on the sword, so you could switch out your skill set for that of an ancestor, if need be.
Rereading the sotc again, I think Deadmanwalking is right, +1 against everything seems well within reach. That would be your "uses against other things".
Michael also butchered them pretty easily. But then, he had a Sword of the Cross, which are definitionally everything's Catch.
When did Michael fight outsiders?
-
Hmm. The way I'd build this is as follows:
Akai Family Spirit Blade [-2]
Description: An unassuming Japanese Katana that has gained significant magical powers over the past several centuries.
Musts: You must be a descendant of the Akai family, and Have a High Concept related to the family Destiny.
Skills Affected: Weapons
Effects:
[-2]Memories of the Ancestors. The wielder of this sword gains +1 Weapons while wielding it in combat as their ancestors guide their hand in battle. They also receive all benefits of the Ghost Speaker power (YS p. 169) as long as they are in possession of the blade.
[+2]One Time Discount. You're not Duncan Macleod. You can't hide a Katana on your Person.
[-1]Outsider Bane. This sword serves as the catch for any supernatural toughness abilities possessed by outsiders. This weapon increases and stress it inflicts on an Outsider by 2 steps.
[-0]The Quest. This item is unbreakable as long as it is used in the service of the family destiny. If it is ever used to further the aims or ends of Outsiders it looses it's magical properties until the user redeems himself or it passes to a new member of the Akai family.
[-1]Spirit Sheath. While wielding the Family Blade you may Parry magical attacks as if they were Weapon attacks.
There, cool and useful, as well as especially potent vs. Outsiders.
-
When did Michael fight outsiders?
Offscreen during Proven Guilty, when he rescues that Warden training camp.
-
Offscreen during Proven Guilty, when he rescues that Warden training camp.
This. It's worth noting he was singularly more effective against them than Ebenezar McCoy. And didn't really find them any harder to kill than anything else he's fought. Michael's a scary guy.
-
This. It's worth noting he was singularly more effective against them than Ebenezar McCoy. And didn't really find them any harder to kill than anything else he's fought. Michael's a scary guy.
That and Excalibur is a scary sword. All Creatures Are Equal Before God, and all that.
-
Ah, right. I was kind of under the assumption, that the toughness reduction from the sotc only applied to things from this side of reality. I stand corrected.
-
That and Excalibur is a scary sword. All Creatures Are Equal Before God, and all that.
True enough. :)
-
Hmm. The way I'd build this is as follows:
Akai Family Spirit Blade [-2]
Description: An unassuming Japanese Katana that has gained significant magical powers over the past several centuries.
Musts: You must be a descendant of the Akai family, and Have a High Concept related to the family Destiny.
Skills Affected: Weapons
Effects:
[-2]Memories of the Ancestors. The wielder of this sword gains +1 Weapons while wielding it in combat as their ancestors guide their hand in battle. They also receive all benefits of the Ghost Speaker power (YS p. 169) as long as they are in possession of the blade.
[+2]One Time Discount. You're not Duncan Macleod. You can't hide a Katana on your Person.
[-1]Outsider Bane. This sword serves as the catch for any supernatural toughness abilities possessed by outsiders. This weapon increases and stress it inflicts on an Outsider by 2 steps.
[-0]The Quest. This item is unbreakable as long as it is used in the service of the family destiny. If it is ever used to further the aims or ends of Outsiders it looses it's magical properties until the user redeems himself or it passes to a new member of the Akai family.
[-1]Spirit Sheath. While wielding the Family Blade you may Parry magical attacks as if they were Weapon attacks.
There, cool and useful, as well as especially potent vs. Outsiders.
For the most part I like it.
Spirit Sheath is pretty lame compared to Footwork, though.
Outsider Bane is basically impossible to cost correctly given the totally undefined nature of Outsider Catches, but...what you have there is about as well-written as I can imagine it being.
If nobody minds, I'll clean up a couple of typos and add this to the list.
-
For the most part I like it.
Thanks. :)
Spirit Sheath is pretty lame compared to Footwork, though.
Depends on what kind of magic you're facing. If it all targets Athletics, yeah, Footwork would be better...but if some of it targets Endurance, Might, or Discipline...well, then, you've got something handy there. Hell, you can parry mental attacks with it, since it's conceptually a counterspell, parrying the magic itself.
Outsider Bane is basically impossible to cost correctly given the totally undefined nature of Outsider Catches, but...what you have there is about as well-written as I can imagine it being.
Yeah...we're still really shaky on what Outsiders actually have going defensively.
If nobody minds, I'll clean up a couple of typos and add this to the list.
I, for one, am cool with it.
-
Depends on what kind of magic you're facing. If it all targets Athletics, yeah, Footwork would be better...but if some of it targets Endurance, Might, or Discipline...well, then, you've got something handy there. Hell, you can parry mental attacks with it, since it's conceptually a counterspell, parrying the magic itself.
You should probably read the arguments we've had about mental Evocations and Evocations that don't target Athletics.
My (possibly-biased) summaries:
Mental evocations are pretty clearly broken, and the RAW don't unambiguously make them possible.
However, the novels have them. And the rules do imply their existence.
Evocations that can't be defended against with Athletics probably don't exist. There's nothing in the rules that implies them except for one example spell, and the example spells are honestly pretty badly written.
Given that Athletics's defence trapping can be used against explosions and bullets, it's hard to think of a physical Evocation it couldn't apply to. And given how powerful Evocation is, there's no good reason to.
-
You should probably read the arguments we've had about mental Evocations and Evocations that don't target Athletics.
Links? The search function's unreliable at best.
My (possibly-biased) summaries:
Mental evocations are pretty clearly broken, and the RAW don't unambiguously make them possible.
However, the novels have them. And the rules do imply their existence.
You could probably argue the examples in the novels are all Psychomancy not Evocation per se (Kemmlerian Necromancy allows it at Evocation speeds, after all), if you really wanted. But the game pretty clearly intends them to be available, and I think them definitionally breaking the 4th Law makes their use...somewhat limited. I can also definitely see not allowing them for balance reasons, though.
But none of this, including some sort of 'forum consensus' matters at all when giving advice to an actual game. The only rules interpretations that matter in that case are those that apply in that particular game...so advice has to take this sort of thing into account even if you wouldn't allow it in your games.
Evocations that can't be defended against with Athletics probably don't exist. There's nothing in the rules that implies them except for one example spell, and the example spells are honestly pretty badly written.
Given that Athletics's defence trapping can be used against explosions and bullets, it's hard to think of a physical Evocation it couldn't apply to. And given how powerful Evocation is, there's no good reason to.
This I'm skeptical of. The example spells are really clear that this is how they work, and I can think of a dozen other easy examples that don't make sense to defend against with Athletics [such as being frozen in ice (it's a Block, not an attack, but Might's the obvious skill to escape...and Athletics makes no sense at all if the block materializes around you) or being overheated from the inside via an effort of will (Endurance is clearly your defense here...how does moving help?), etc. etc.]
It's clearly intended that other skills can come into play when defending against magic. Anything else is, well, both clearly illogical and against the game's intent. An argument can be made that Athletics is always applicable per the RAW...but an equally strong one can be made that it can't. So...I'm going with logic and intent here.
-
Links? The search function's unreliable at best.
Not off the top of my head. As you say the search is lousy.
You could probably argue the examples in the novels are all Psychomancy not Evocation per se (Kemmlerian Necromancy allows it at Evocation speeds, after all), if you really wanted. But the game pretty clearly intends them to be available, and I think them definitionally breaking the 4th Law makes their use...somewhat limited. I can also definitely see not allowing them for balance reasons, though.
does some stuff that's hard to describe as anything but mental evocation. But I guess you could call it a maneuver.
You're wrong about the clear intent, by the way. If it was clear, I'd think it was intended. Which I don't. That's the thing about clarity...if somebody else doesn't see it it's not there.
Also, you should read this (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.msg1051139.html#msg1051139) because you actually care about intent. One of the Evil Hat guys all but says "mental attacks are thaumaturgy".
The fourth law, incidentally, only applies to humans. And it doesn't cover sleep spells, which some people think of as mental.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.msg1051139.html#msg1051139But none of this, including some sort of 'forum consensus' matters at all when giving advice to an actual game. The only rules interpretations that matter in that case are those that apply in that particular game...so advice has to take this sort of thing into account even if you wouldn't allow it in your games.[/quote]
The item should of course be adapted to the rules of the user's game.
But I don't know what those are, so I try to write for what I think the rules are objectively. Unfortunately objectivity is hard to find.
This I'm skeptical of. The example spells are really clear that this is how they work, and I can think of a dozen other easy examples that don't make sense to defend against with Athletics [such as being frozen in ice (it's a Block, not an attack, but Might's the obvious skill to escape...and Athletics makes no sense at all if the block materializes around you) or being overheated from the inside via an effort of will (Endurance is clearly your defense here...how does moving help?), etc. etc.]
It's clearly intended that other skills can come into play when defending against magic. Anything else is, well, both clearly illogical and against the game's intent. An argument can be made that Athletics is always applicable per the RAW...but an equally strong one can be made that it can't. So...I'm going with logic and intent here.
All Evocation is aimed manually. It doesn't aim itself. You can't do the symbolic link thing without Thaumaturgy. So if somebody tries to heat up your insides, you can get out of the way and have them miss your insides.
That's not just what I think is mechanically fair, it's also what I think is logical and narratively appropriate. And if I had to guess I'd say it was the intent as well.
So I, too, am going with logic and intent.
PS: There's only one example evocation that implies Athletics can't defend against certain spells. And the examples imply all kinds of silly stuff.
-
Not off the top of my head. As you say the search is lousy.
Darn.
does some stuff that's hard to describe as anything but mental evocation. But I guess you could call it a maneuver.
You're wrong about the clear intent, by the way. If it was clear, I'd think it was intended. Which I don't. That's the thing about clarity...if somebody else doesn't see it it's not there.
Also, you should read this (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24744.msg1051139.html#msg1051139) because you actually care about intent. One of the Evil Hat guys all but says "mental attacks are thaumaturgy".
Definitive enough for me. And like I said, I'm pretty comfy with that interpretation. The proposed sword would still defend against, say, a Kemmlerian's Evocation-speed Psychomancy though, which was my original point.
The fourth law, incidentally, only applies to humans. And it doesn't cover sleep spells, which some people think of as mental.
True enough.
The item should of course be adapted to the rules of the user's game.
But I don't know what those are, so I try to write for what I think the rules are objectively. Unfortunately objectivity is hard to find.
Yeah. But even if it's wrong, if a lot of people are doing it...it should be taken into consideration when advice is given.
All Evocation is aimed manually. It doesn't aim itself. You can't do the symbolic link thing without Thaumaturgy. So if somebody tries to heat up your insides, you can get out of the way and have them miss your insides.
That's not just what I think is mechanically fair, it's also what I think is logical and narratively appropriate. And if I had to guess I'd say it was the intent as well.
So I, too, am going with logic and intent.
I disagree. Tracking visually can't be dodged by Athletics in most cases, that's clearly mostly Stealth (and would absolutely work to avoid such an attack...though probably not the first round). Finding cover with Athletics might work, too...but only if there's cover to be had, and only if you can pinpoint who the attack's from, so not universally at all. And almost certainly not in time to avoid the first attack (though it'd work on subsequent ones once you had cover...tagging the Cover aspect for effect, probably). But you could do the same to use Athletics vs. someone who needed to see you to use, say, Inflict Emotion. Which clearly isn't how that power normally works...so why should it be for a spell with the same requirements (ie: line of sight)?
PS: There's only one example evocation that implies Athletics can't defend against certain spells. And the examples imply all kinds of silly stuff.
I saw, well, all of them. They have a line for what Skill is used to avoid the spell. Now, most of them, it's Athletics (as it should be)...but if Athletics was actually universal, why the line? And I count three that target other stats (Earth Stomp, Orbius, and Quick Veil), though I guess you could argue that Veils are special. I wouldn't, but you could.
-
I just want to think everyone for their help with this. Both myself and MightyThews are very happy with how this turned out.
-
Definitive enough for me. And like I said, I'm pretty comfy with that interpretation. The proposed sword would still defend against, say, a Kemmlerian's Evocation-speed Psychomancy though, which was my original point.
Yeah, but that's such an edge case. Footwork still makes this look sad.
I disagree. Tracking visually can't be dodged by Athletics in most cases, that's clearly mostly Stealth (and would absolutely work to avoid such an attack...though probably not the first round). Finding cover with Athletics might work, too...but only if there's cover to be had, and only if you can pinpoint who the attack's from, so not universally at all. And almost certainly not in time to avoid the first attack (though it'd work on subsequent ones once you had cover...tagging the Cover aspect for effect, probably). But you could do the same to use Athletics vs. someone who needed to see you to use, say, Inflict Emotion. Which clearly isn't how that power normally works...so why should it be for a spell with the same requirements (ie: line of sight)?
You don't just have to see them, you have to see them and aim. It's like a bullet or a grenade: once it's moving, there's no dodging. But the aim can be dodged.
I saw, well, all of them. They have a line for what Skill is used to avoid the spell. Now, most of them, it's Athletics (as it should be)...but if Athletics was actually universal, why the line? And I count three that target other stats (Earth Stomp, Orbius, and Quick Veil), though I guess you could argue that Veils are special. I wouldn't, but you could.
Athletics can be used to defend against all physical attacks. Blocks are another matter. Orbius and Quick Veil are blocks.
The defensive Skill line is there for maneuvers and for the assistance of newbies, I think. And I'm pretty sure it isn't definitive...if it says use Discipline against this mental attack, that doesn't mean you absolutely can't use Conviction.
Also, @%$# Orbius.
-
Yeah, but that's such an edge case. Footwork still makes this look sad.
Eh, not if it lets you parry blocks or maneuvers as well regardless of what skill they target. Being able to insta-counterspell with Weapons is really pretty cool.
You don't just have to see them, you have to see them and aim. It's like a bullet or a grenade: once it's moving, there's no dodging. But the aim can be dodged.
I disagree. Evocation is often aimed, but by no means always. Sometimes just having line of sight is sufficient depending on circumstances and spell.
Athletics can be used to defend against all physical attacks. Blocks are another matter. Orbius and Quick Veil are blocks.
And I'd say that the Evocation rules break that general rule (as they do many others), allowing the targeting of other skills instead. I mean, poison gas should sure target Endurance, shouldn't it?
The defensive Skill line is there for maneuvers and for the assistance of newbies, I think. And I'm pretty sure it isn't definitive...if it says use Discipline against this mental attack, that doesn't mean you absolutely can't use Conviction.
I don't necessarily disagree on the 'not definitive' bit, and would likely allow Athletics to defend against non-Athletics targeting attacks under the right circumstances (as mentioned in my example last post)...I just think each attack has a particular skill its targets that can always defend with, no justifications needed.
Also, @%$# Orbius.
Heh. That one's a bit wacky, innit?
-
Eh, not if it lets you parry blocks or maneuvers as well regardless of what skill they target. Being able to insta-counterspell with Weapons is really pretty cool.
It doesn't. Says "attacks" right there.
I disagree. Evocation is often aimed, but by no means always. Sometimes just having line of sight is sufficient depending on circumstances and spell.
And I'd say that the Evocation rules break that general rule (as they do many others), allowing the targeting of other skills instead. I mean, poison gas should sure target Endurance, shouldn't it?
Poison gas is Thaumaturgy. You have to alter things on a molecular level to make it. It's not a simple burst of elemental energy.
And Evocation only ignores normal limits when it says it does. Don't you think something like "Evocation can totally bypass the defensive benefits of Speed Powers while cutting most characters' defence skills down by 2 points or so" merits mention in the actual rules?
People say Wizards are broken, often because people break them by changing the rules.
Heh. That one's a bit wacky, innit?
If by "wacky" you mean "terrible", yes.
-
It doesn't. Says "attacks" right there.
That's an awfully limited and mechanistic reading. Attacks is often used to refer to various offensive acts not just the attack action per se.
Poison gas is Thaumaturgy. You have to alter things on a molecular level to make it. It's not a simple burst of elemental energy.
Pulling all the air out of someone'e lungs then. Or cutting off blood to the brain with Water or Spirit.
And Evocation only ignores normal limits when it says it does. Don't you think something like "Evocation can totally bypass the defensive benefits of Speed Powers while cutting most characters' defence skills down by 2 points or so" merits mention in the actual rules?
I'd argue that it says precisely that, in the example section. Examples are an excellent way to demonstrate rules, after all.
People say Wizards are broken, often because people break them by changing the rules.
I've never found them so, all rules I'm using included. They're really scary...very briefly. Then they start getting into trouble.
If by "wacky" you mean "terrible", yes.
Wacky as in unusual and pretty weak, so pretty much, yeah.
-
before you get into an orbius debate, you might want to do it as PM.
Maybe you can allow the stunt to "cut" through spells as well. work as a counter-spell using Weapons. So a firewall designed to block movement could be overcome by swinging the weapon through it...much like a wardens sword. I think that would balance it if not make it too powerful. He'll basically get to use weapons against anything magical.
-
I'd argue that it says precisely that, in the example section. Examples are an excellent way to demonstrate rules, after all.
These examples are not demonstrating rules, they're introducing them. Show a portion of actual (non-example) rules text that so much as strongly implies this capability.
-
before you get into an orbius debate, you might want to do it as PM.
I think we agree on Orbius, actually. :)
Maybe you can allow the stunt to "cut" through spells as well. work as a counter-spell using Weapons. So a firewall designed to block movement could be overcome by swinging the weapon through it...much like a wardens sword. I think that would balance it if not make it too powerful. He'll basically get to use weapons against anything magical.
Seems reasonable to me.
These examples are not demonstrating rules, they're introducing them. Show a portion of actual (non-example) rules text that so much as strongly implies this capability.
Not the first time a rule's been introduced that way. In fact, if you want to go down this route, I'm not finding anywhere that says Thaumaturgy 'Attacks' can target skills other than Athletics that's not an example. There's a reference on p. 265 outside the examples section, but it's an example (using a spell to make a target sick targeting Endurance) not an actual explicit rules note. And yet, I'm not hearing anyone make this argument for Thaumaturgy...I mean, I guess you can argue it has an example in the text instead of later in the chapter, but that seems like a very arbitrary place to draw the line, and pretty weak, as justifications go.
And the only place that even implies that Athletics can defend against all spells is p. 200...and it's a little iffy. I mean, it lists Athletics as a 'catch all', sure, but other places clearly note exceptions to that, it's clearly not originally intending to be talking about magic, and the whole section's a little suspect given p. 201's utterly neglecting to mention Rapport's use as a defensive skill (while the skill chapter lists it as the default one, even calling it "Athletics for social conflict").
-
Isn't targeting a skill and defending something with a skill something you can decide on the spot regarding any attack, provided the attacker and/or the defender can justify it?
-
Isn't targeting a skill and defending something with a skill something you can decide on the spot regarding any attack, provided the attacker and/or the defender can justify it?
It's more of 'attacker suggests (providing justification), defender chooses(providing justification)', with all of this being subject to table oversight.
-
That's an awfully limited and mechanistic reading. Attacks is often used to refer to various offensive acts not just the attack action per se.
If you say "attacks", you should not be surprised when people think you're referring to attacks.
Pulling all the air out of someone'e lungs then. Or cutting off blood to the brain with Water or Spirit.
You still need to hit the relevant organ with your magic. If it moves, then you'll miss.
Also, I dunno if I'd allow such fine manipulation with Evocation. I'd probably let it slide for the sake of smooth play, but it seems a bit much to me.
I'd argue that it says precisely that, in the example section. Examples are an excellent way to demonstrate rules, after all.
Thing is, the examples in this game don't always actually follow the rules they are supposedly examples of.
Wacky as in unusual and pretty weak, so pretty much, yeah.
Weak?
You must be reading it differently from me.
Then again, it is pretty vague. Easy to read in multiple different ways.
Not the first time a rule's been introduced that way. In fact, if you want to go down this route, I'm not finding anywhere that says Thaumaturgy 'Attacks' can target skills other than Athletics that's not an example...
And yet, I'm not hearing anyone make this argument for Thaumaturgy...I mean, I guess you can argue it has an example in the text instead of later in the chapter, but that seems like a very arbitrary place to draw the line, and pretty weak, as justifications go...
And the only place that even implies that Athletics can defend against all spells is p. 200...
The text talks about "whatever resisting skill the target may use". And it makes a reference to the maneuver rules, which are generally defended against by whatever skill seems reasonable.
This isn't ironclad, but Thaumaturgy hitting various skills is mechanically fair and it makes sense to me. So I'm not going to contest it. With Evocation, the textual support is shakier, the result is less fair, and the idea makes less sense.
The skill description of Athletics says "You can use Athletics as a defensive skill to respond to physical attacks." No ifs or buts, you can use it. You could even argue that it can be used against Thaumaturgy, though I personally would not.
-
If you say "attacks", you should not be surprised when people think you're referring to attacks.
True enough, though it should be noted that I didn't originally write that one.
You still need to hit the relevant organ with your magic. If it moves, then you'll miss.
I still say that depends on context.
Also, I dunno if I'd allow such fine manipulation with Evocation. I'd probably let it slide for the sake of smooth play, but it seems a bit much to me.
Eh. Force choking plus some medical knowledge isn't really that subtle, IMO.
Thing is, the examples in this game don't always actually follow the rules they are supposedly examples of.
Such as? I mean, aside from the spells section.
Weak?
You must be reading it differently from me.
Then again, it is pretty vague. Easy to read in multiple different ways.
Well, as listed, it's just not that spectacular. If you jack it up significantly and spend two rounds doing it (the second on duration) it can be pretty scary...but then with that much investment it should be, and it's still probably not as good as a direct attack most ways.
The text talks about "whatever resisting skill the target may use". And it makes a reference to the maneuver rules, which are generally defended against by whatever skill seems reasonable.
Yeah, but the maneuver reference is in with the use of Thaumaturgy to do maneuvers, not the section on using it as an attack, and the "whatever resisting skill the target may use" isn't inj that specific section either. The only actual evidence that Thaumaturgy attacks work that way is two examples (one from the example section at the end of the chapter).
This isn't ironclad, but Thaumaturgy hitting various skills is mechanically fair and it makes sense to me. So I'm not going to contest it. With Evocation, the textual support is shakier, the result is less fair, and the idea makes less sense.
Basically, I disagree with those latter two points. And don't think the support is nearly as much shakier as you do.
The skill description of Athletics says "You can use Athletics as a defensive skill to respond to physical attacks." No ifs or buts, you can use it. You could even argue that it can be used against Thaumaturgy, though I personally would not.
Indeed, you could, by an overly literal reading of the rules. Which is sorta what I was talking about, really. Any defense available needs to make sense.
-
Eh. Force choking plus some medical knowledge isn't really that subtle, IMO.
Blood vessels are tiny. Blocking them requires needle-like precision. Unless you're just grabbing the neck and squeezing, but that's clearly dodge-able.
Such as? I mean, aside from the spells section.
Off the top of my head, the stunt rules say that stunts can only give +1 to attacks. But there are plenty of examples which give +2 to social/mental attacks. It's not clear where the error is...either the +1 limit was only supposed to be for physical attacks, or the example stunts are wonky. Or both.
I could come up with more examples, given time and effort.
Well, as listed, it's just not that spectacular. If you jack it up significantly and spend two rounds doing it (the second on duration) it can be pretty scary...but then with that much investment it should be, and it's still probably not as good as a direct attack most ways.
Since it says it's adjudicated as a grapple, I generally assume that it incapacitates its target like any other grapple.
Not gonna argue this one again though.
Yeah, but the maneuver reference is in with the use of Thaumaturgy to do maneuvers, not the section on using it as an attack, and the "whatever resisting skill the target may use" isn't inj that specific section either.
Yes it is. Those exact words are right there, starting (by my count) at word 30 of the Contests And Conflicts section on page 265.
Immediately afterwards that section says "This is like the maneuver-equivalent spells above,...".
The only actual evidence that Thaumaturgy attacks work that way is two examples (one from the example section at the end of the chapter).
...
Basically, I disagree with those latter two points. And don't think the support is nearly as much shakier as you do.
...
Indeed, you could, by an overly literal reading of the rules. Which is sorta what I was talking about, really. Any defense available needs to make sense.
The rules are not terribly tightly written, and you can argue for all sorts of things. But some things have strong cases and others have weak ones. Evocation attacks against which Athletics cannot be used have a weak one.
-
Blood vessels are tiny. Blocking them requires needle-like precision. Unless you're just grabbing the neck and squeezing, but that's clearly dodge-able.
Not really, some varieties of martial arts train you to choke someone out via cutting off blood to the brain. It's not that hard in absolute terms, you just press on the right part of the neck. Such an attack might well be dodge-able but it also might not depending on circumstances.
Off the top of my head, the stunt rules say that stunts can only give +1 to attacks. But there are plenty of examples which give +2 to social/mental attacks. It's not clear where the error is...either the +1 limit was only supposed to be for physical attacks, or the example stunts are wonky. Or both.
I could come up with more examples, given time and effort.
I'm not finding any of those actually. It's a bit hard to tell because the line between what's an attack and what's not is a bit weird on social skills, but the only one that gives a +2 and actually says you can attack with it is Infuriate and that has a rather large disadvantage on it that might explain why it trumps the general rule.
Since it says it's adjudicated as a grapple, I generally assume that it incapacitates its target like any other grapple.
Sure, but as a spell-based Block if it's broken it's gone...all it requires is one good roll (or a couple of Fate Points) and you're free as a bird.
Not gonna argue this one again though.
Seems reasonable.
Yes it is. Those exact words are right there, starting (by my count) at word 30 of the Contests And Conflicts section on page 265.
Immediately afterwards that section says "This is like the maneuver-equivalent spells above,...".
Huh, you're right. Missed that somehow. I'll freely admit that that makes the case there a bit stronger...but it's still hardly definitive sans examples.
The rules are not terribly tightly written, and you can argue for all sorts of things. But some things have strong cases and others have weak ones. Evocation attacks against which Athletics cannot be used have a weak one.
I obviously disagree. I don't think either of us are gonna change our minds on this one, so let's agree to disagree and move on, eh?
-
Not really, some varieties of martial arts train you to choke someone out via cutting off blood to the brain. It's not that hard in absolute terms, you just press on the right part of the neck. Such an attack might well be dodge-able but it also might not depending on circumstances.
Once a bullet is in motion, if you are in it's path, it will be hitting you. And yet, for some reason, you don't seem to be arguing that athletics should be ineffective at dodging firearms attacks. Why is that?
it's still hardly definitive sans examples.
Examples are not the foundation upon which the strength of a rule is built.
-
Once a bullet is in motion, if you are in it's path, it will be hitting you. And yet, for some reason, you don't seem to be arguing that athletics should be ineffective at dodging firearms attacks. Why is that?
Because that's not what Athletics does? It lets you move out of the line of effect, the same way it lets you dodge many spells. Indeed, if you assume all Evocation has a line of effect Athletics should work on all of it. It's my opinion that some Evocation doesn't actually have line of effect (though it does require line of sight, a somewhat different thing) and can thus effect people with an effort of will without needing to travel through the intervening space. You conjure water in their lungs or ice surrounding them or whatever. Harry doesn't use that kind of thing a lot, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (I'd argue he does it a few times in Cold Days with Infrigia...but they're potentially iffy, I admit).
If you don't think that kind of thing can be done, then stick with your current ruling. As long as there's line of effect you can use Athletics. But, IMO, sometimes there isn't.
Examples are not the foundation upon which the strength of a rule is built.
Not on their own. Wasn't saying they were. I was arguing there's very little more to support Thaumaturgy working to target non-Athletics skills than Evocation (and was, admittedly, partially wrong). That's all.
-
Not really, some varieties of martial arts train you to choke someone out via cutting off blood to the brain. It's not that hard in absolute terms, you just press on the right part of the neck. Such an attack might well be dodge-able but it also might not depending on circumstances.
Pressing on the right part of the neck requires precision.
I'm not finding any of those actually. It's a bit hard to tell because the line between what's an attack and what's not is a bit weird on social skills, but the only one that gives a +2 and actually says you can attack with it is Infuriate and that has a rather large disadvantage on it that might explain why it trumps the general rule.
Infuriate, Honest Lies, and Sex Appeal. Infuriate's drawback is pretty minimal on attacks since your target can pick their consequences anyway.
I obviously disagree. I don't think either of us are gonna change our minds on this one, so let's agree to disagree and move on, eh?
No.
Agreeing to disagree is a silly concept.
-
Pressing on the right part of the neck requires precision.
Yeah, but not a whole lot of it. Certainly no more than Luccio's finger-thin whip of fire, which is a demonstrated Evocation effect.
Infuriate, Honest Lies, and Sex Appeal. Infuriate's drawback is pretty minimal on attacks since your target can pick their consequences anyway.
Honest Lies and Sex Appeal are clearly not primarily intended as attack stunts. They're primarily for non-attack uses of the skills in question. Heck, it could be argued they shouldn't (or even couldn't) be used for that purpose. I'm not sure if I'd argue that (though the more I think on it the more tempted I am by it) but it seems a valid explanation.
No.
Agreeing to disagree is a silly concept.
How so? You acknowledge that the other person isn't likely to agree with you, so arguing this particular issue is pointless, and start talking about some more productive topic or topics instead.
-
Because that's not what Athletics does? It lets you move out of the line of effect, the same way it lets you dodge many spells. Indeed, if you assume all Evocation has a line of effect Athletics should work on all of it. It's my opinion that some Evocation doesn't actually have line of effect (though it does require line of sight, a somewhat different thing) and can thus effect people with an effort of will without needing to travel through the intervening space. You conjure water in their lungs or ice surrounding them or whatever. Harry doesn't use that kind of thing a lot, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist (I'd argue he does it a few times in Cold Days with Infrigia...but they're potentially iffy, I admit).
If you don't think that kind of thing can be done, then stick with your current ruling. As long as there's line of effect you can use Athletics. But, IMO, sometimes there isn't.
Typical non-supernatural entities cannot dodge bullets by moving out of the line of effect in the time that the bullet takes to traverse the intervening space. They must already be out of the line of effect when the bullet begins its journey. Moreover, bullets fired from many types of weapons can relatively easily overcome most barriers that would 'block line of effect' without also blocking line of sight (glass, etc), so I guess my problem is that I just can't envision how you think this dodging bullets thing works that wouldn't also work for dodging spells.
Typical evocation (ie not evothaum) doesn't use symbolic links. Thus, there is no such spell that targets a particular creature's heart, filling it with ice, for instance. There are only spells that target the area where the caster of the spell believes that creature's heart to be. And if that creature moves unexpectedly, such that their heart is no longer where the caster has envisioned it in that brief moment as they formulate their spell, then the spell will not have its intended effect (though it might achieve the intended result nevertheless if the creature merely moves such that another critical organ is affected instead of the heart in such a way that that organ fails).
-
Typical non-supernatural entities cannot dodge bullets by moving out of the line of effect in the time that the bullet takes to traverse the intervening space. They must already be out of the line of effect when the bullet begins its journey. Moreover, bullets fired from many types of weapons can relatively easily overcome most barriers that would 'block line of effect' without also blocking line of sight (glass, etc), so I guess my problem is that I just can't envision how you think this dodging bullets thing works that wouldn't also work for dodging spells.
You move quickly and erratically so as to avoid and make difficult possible lines of effect. Mostly this does not (and cannot) avoid line of sight, though. If it does, it does so through the use of cover, which is a scene Aspect that must be applied. It may then be tagged or otherwise invoked for effect to use Athletics to avoid such an attack, but barring that it doesn't work so well.
Typical evocation (ie not evothaum) doesn't use symbolic links. Thus, there is no such spell that targets a particular creature's heart, filling it with ice, for instance. There are only spells that target the area where the caster of the spell believes that creature's heart to be. And if that creature moves unexpectedly, such that their heart is no longer where the caster has envisioned it in that brief moment as they formulate their spell, then the spell will not have its intended effect (though it might achieve the intended result nevertheless if the creature merely moves such that another critical organ is affected instead of the heart in such a way that that organ fails).
Evocation, like all magic, is an effort of will and imagination. Most Evocations are willing, say, a bolt of fire to leap from your hand in a direction, and can thus be dodged...but if you are willing someone's heart to fill with ice, and they move, your eye kinda follows them automatically, and your will and imagination are gonna continue focusing on them, not on an empty space they occupied, so moving's not gonna be helpful unless they break line of sight (which I talk about above, and would work for similar non-Athletics targeting powers like many versions of Incite Emotion).
-
Evocation, like all magic, is an effort of will and imagination. Most Evocations are willing, say, a bolt of fire to leap from your hand in a direction, and can thus be dodged...but if you are willing someone's heart to fill with ice, and they move, your eye kinda follows them automatically, and your will and imagination are gonna continue focusing on them, not on an empty space they occupied, so moving's not gonna be helpful unless they break line of sight (which I talk about above, and would work for similar non-Athletics targeting powers like many versions of Incite Emotion).
I would still argue, that the effect needs to travel from you to the target, even if it isn't visible during that time. And once the effect has left you, you can't control where it is going anymore, it is working on it's own. And since it isn't thaumaturgy, the spell can't adjust his trajectory, because it doesn't know where it is supposed to go.
"I throw a fireball" and "I fill his lungs with water" are both the same kind of attack spell to me, it's just different narrative. If the spells only inflict stress, his jacket might catch on fire for a split second, or he has to spit a mouth full of water out, but that's pretty much it. I know how players always try to do the most effective "kill him with one attack" sort of spell, and in an open magic system like this, you can justify it pretty well. But on the other hand, treating every attack spell the same cancels that out pretty nice. And just because you plan on doing something that could kill someone in one strike doesn't mean you will be able to do so in the heat of battle.
As for mental spells. I am kind of fine with them by now. Provided they stay within mental conflicts. I would not let a WCV use his mental whammies in a physical fight, so I would not allow mental spells in aa physical fight. But if you can justify switching the venue, I will gladly oblige.
Of course, the wizards personal preferences of using his magic should also be considered. Molly would probably be able to put up a mental spell pretty quick, while Harry might need a willing target, or at least one that doesn't protest too much. Their physical spells are quite the opposite, of course.
The sex appeal stunt is great for attacks. Being taken out in a mental or social conflict by the sex appeal stunt is definitely a possibility, so I don't see a problem with making attacks with it. I guess the mental and social attack stunts grant more bang for the buck, because most groups will tend to have more physical than social and mental conflicts combined. So to give people an incentive to take some of the mental stunts, they overpowered them a bit.
-
No.
Agreeing to disagree is a silly concept.
If you're up for a bit of philosophy, read this (http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1098). Not everyone chooses dogmatism when arguing on the internet. Probably a good thing...else the arguments would be even longer. :o
As for what skill to use when defending, Athletics is the default for physical attacks. It's just a 'default' though - specific situations may justify a different skill choice. There are a lot of situations Athletics simply doesn't cover in any logical manner.
-
Evocation, like all magic, is an effort of will and imagination. Most Evocations are willing, say, a bolt of fire to leap from your hand in a direction, and can thus be dodged...but if you are willing someone's heart to fill with ice, and they move, your eye kinda follows them automatically, and your will and imagination are gonna continue focusing on them, not on an empty space they occupied, so moving's not gonna be helpful unless they break line of sight (which I talk about above, and would work for similar non-Athletics targeting powers like many versions of Incite Emotion).
You have neither line of sight nor line of effect to an individual's heart, so how exactly are you targetting it again? By where you believe it to be, right.
Does it take time (even a small amount) to formulate an evocation before releasing it? Can the world change in that time? Can such a change be the location of your target?
-
If you're up for a bit of philosophy, read this (http://philosophypress.co.uk/?p=1098). Not everyone chooses dogmatism when arguing on the internet. Probably a good thing...else the arguments would be even longer. :o
As for what skill to use when defending, Athletics is the default for physical attacks. It's just a 'default' though - specific situations may justify a different skill choice. There are a lot of situations Athletics simply doesn't cover in any logical manner.
Agreed totally, with both.
You guys are looking at it the wrong way with the arguments, though--instead of "water in the lungs," consider "the whole room's filled with fire." Just dodging out of the way isn't really an option there, so how does one defend? With a different skill from Athletics.
Or, say, I do an attack meant to take you out that I describe as condensing the air all around you into a block of ice. Perhaps there the defense roll is Might.
There are plenty of ways that you can shape a Thaumaturgy spell so that Athletics doesn't make sense as the defensive roll, and I think it's a needlessly narrow reading to think otherwise.
-
I think all spells need a link. Evocation is limited because that link is limited to sight, while Thaumaturgy can also use symbolic links (hence no NEED to use sight). Therefore I think that you can originate an evocation from somewhere other than the caster as long as the caster can perceive the origin.
The other limitation to evocation is that it is not a refined form of magic - the whole "quick and dirty" thing. So while you might be able to cause a quick burst of air that pulls the air from someone's lungs, you probably can't create a vacuum that surrounds their head. That might be too complicated.
All this to say, I think evocation can still target different skills because it can target things other than an opponent and it can originate directly on the opponent. Causing someone's shirt(or skin) to spontaneously combust instead of blasting fire out of your hands to hit them, for instance. Or Causing heavy gravity to prevent movement in a zone would target might, not athletics. If you're using that same spell to target someone, I could see an argument for both Athletics or Might.
-
I think this discussion just serves to show that it's a decision best left with the table.
-
You guys are looking at it the wrong way with the arguments, though--instead of "water in the lungs," consider "the whole room's filled with fire." Just dodging out of the way isn't really an option there, so how does one defend? With a different skill from Athletics.
Sure, unless the room isn't TOTALLY filled with fire, and there's some small pocket you can get to that was protected by a desk, or stack of boxes, or whatever. And even if it IS totally filled with fire, the skill you do defend with is still not dictated unilaterally by the attacker. The attacker sets the stage, but the defender chooses how to respond.
Or, say, I do an attack meant to take you out that I describe as condensing the air all around you into a block of ice. Perhaps there the defense roll is Might.Sure. Or it might still be athletics, as the air takes a moment to condense giving the defender a short window of opportunity to escape. Or it might be some other skill made possible by the circumstances of the attack.
There are plenty of ways that you can shape a Thaumaturgy spell so that Athletics doesn't make sense as the defensive roll, and I think it's a needlessly narrow reading to think otherwise.
This, as most things in DFrpg, comes down to a battle of creativity. If you as the attacker create a situation where a particular skill seems at first glance to be unsuitable to serve as a defense, then the defender doesn't get to use that skill to defend, unless they can conjure sufficient justification to turn the tables.
-
I would still argue, that the effect needs to travel from you to the target, even if it isn't visible during that time. And once the effect has left you, you can't control where it is going anymore, it is working on it's own. And since it isn't thaumaturgy, the spell can't adjust his trajectory, because it doesn't know where it is supposed to go.
Who says magical energy needs to be conjured touching you? If you're putting it over there as you call it up, it really doesn't need to travel from Point A to Point B.
"I throw a fireball" and "I fill his lungs with water" are both the same kind of attack spell to me, it's just different narrative. If the spells only inflict stress, his jacket might catch on fire for a split second, or he has to spit a mouth full of water out, but that's pretty much it. I know how players always try to do the most effective "kill him with one attack" sort of spell, and in an open magic system like this, you can justify it pretty well. But on the other hand, treating every attack spell the same cancels that out pretty nice. And just because you plan on doing something that could kill someone in one strike doesn't mean you will be able to do so in the heat of battle.
See, I like the players trying different methodologies to find what works best on a particular opponent. Seems like very much what a Wizard should be trying vs. tough foes.
As for mental spells. I am kind of fine with them by now. Provided they stay within mental conflicts. I would not let a WCV use his mental whammies in a physical fight, so I would not allow mental spells in aa physical fight. But if you can justify switching the venue, I will gladly oblige.
Wait. White Court Vampires absolutely can use Incite Emotion in physical fights. We've seen them do so in the books. Fairly often. Why couldn't they?
Of course, the wizards personal preferences of using his magic should also be considered. Molly would probably be able to put up a mental spell pretty quick, while Harry might need a willing target, or at least one that doesn't protest too much. Their physical spells are quite the opposite, of course.
Perfectly valid. Handled by compels, in all likelihood.
The sex appeal stunt is great for attacks. Being taken out in a mental or social conflict by the sex appeal stunt is definitely a possibility, so I don't see a problem with making attacks with it. I guess the mental and social attack stunts grant more bang for the buck, because most groups will tend to have more physical than social and mental conflicts combined. So to give people an incentive to take some of the mental stunts, they overpowered them a bit.
But that's not how sex appeal is usually used. I mean, yes,you can use Rapport for that, but the argument I was making was that usually that's not how you do it, and that's not really the stunt's intended purpose. I'm not sure whether I agree with that logic completely, but it seems a legitimate reason.
You guys are looking at it the wrong way with the arguments, though--instead of "water in the lungs," consider "the whole room's filled with fire." Just dodging out of the way isn't really an option there, so how does one defend? With a different skill from Athletics.
Or, say, I do an attack meant to take you out that I describe as condensing the air all around you into a block of ice. Perhaps there the defense roll is Might.
I actually used the ice spell example earlier. And, since you can 'dodge' mundane explosions with Athletics, I'm not sure the 'room full of fire' is a good one.
There are plenty of ways that you can shape a Thaumaturgy spell so that Athletics doesn't make sense as the defensive roll, and I think it's a needlessly narrow reading to think otherwise.
Nobody's actually arguing otherwise on Thaumaturgy, I just brought it up as an example of sorts.
I think this discussion just serves to show that it's a decision best left with the table.
I will note that I agree with this more or less completely. I certainly prefer the version I use and think it's more logical and works better for the game...but it's not a huge deal, and I'd be perfectly happy to play in a game where it was ruled the other way. And if the whole table disagreed with me, I'd probably switch over even as a GM, as the group's happiness with that rule is more important than either ruling on its own.
This, as most things in DFrpg, comes down to a battle of creativity. If you as the attacker create a situation where a particular skill seems at first glance to be unsuitable to serve as a defense, then the defender doesn't get to use that skill to defend, unless they can conjure sufficient justification to turn the tables.
I actually agree with this, too. In my opinion, the skill decided on as the defending skill by a particular Evocation is the skill that requires no justification to defend with. Other skills may be used freely...as long as you can justify it. Like that cover example I've brought up a few times.
-
Actually, I mistyped there. I meant Evocation, not Thaumaturgy.
-
"I throw a fireball" and "I fill his lungs with water" are both the same kind of attack spell to me, it's just different narrative.
While I agree in principle, narrative differences can be profound. Particularly in a game like FATE where we can manipulate the narrative directly.
Launch a fire attack against a fomor and you might invoke the Fire Element for more damage. Launch a water attack against the same fomor and he may well invoke the Water Element for easier defense. Hit an incorporeal spirit with either and they'll laugh. Those are just the obvious also - start using compels/invokes for effect and the possibilities become much broader.
-
Who says magical energy needs to be conjured touching you? If you're putting it over there as you call it up, it really doesn't need to travel from Point A to Point B.
I kind of see the wizards brain as the energy coupling, the point where the energy gathers and is shaped into the spell. After that, the energy flows wherever the wizard wants it to be. Granted, that is my interpretation only, and I'm by no means saying that's how it is or should be.
But that's kind of beside the point, I realize.
The default athletics roll is sort of the "this is how much you are bugging around and make it harder for other people to hit you" roll. Not necessarily an active dodge. This roll should always be available in a physical fight, I think, unless you explicitly remove it from the table (i.e. by spending a fate point or a tag to make the target use a different skill). If it fits, the defender can always choose a different skill to defend, of course.
See, I like the players trying different methodologies to find what works best on a particular opponent. Seems like very much what a Wizard should be trying vs. tough foes.
Sure, but I like to include that making use of their surroundings, not just "well, fire didn't work, I'll use air, then" sort of thinking. That might not be a problem in your group, but I specifically have a player with an aeromancer, and he did a spell where he wanted to take out a troll and he emptied the trolls lungs. Well, tried to, he rolled really well, but the Troll rolled endurance (it had a stunt) to resist and did. The player went "What? He is still standing with a vacuum in his lungs?"
Wait. White Court Vampires absolutely can use Incite Emotion in physical fights. We've seen them do so in the books. Fairly often. Why couldn't they?
Because I have come to realize that it will become really complicated, if you mix the different forms of conflicts. When setting up the scene, decide on what kind of conflict you want to have, and use the other ones to make maneuvers. And that's kind of how I see it used in the books.
Another way to go is, as I said: change the venue. For example Harry and Thomas against Lydia/Kravos in GP. It started out as a physical conflict, but when Thomas got Lydia into a grapple, he put an incite maneuver on her and tagged it to turn the fight into a mental conflict, where he could use his power as an attack to take Lydia/Kravos out.
But that's not how sex appeal is usually used. I mean, yes,you can use Rapport for that, but the argument I was making was that usually that's not how you do it, and that's not really the stunt's intended purpose. I'm not sure whether I agree with that logic completely, but it seems a legitimate reason.
Why not? It's a pretty classic setup for a scene, the femme fatale trying to seduce the hero. Sounds like a mental conflict to me. The taken out results would be him falling for her or she being furious when he rejects her.
What would you usually use it for?
While I agree in principle, narrative differences can be profound. Particularly in a game like FATE where we can manipulate the narrative directly.
Launch a fire attack against a fomor and you might invoke the Fire Element for more damage. Launch a water attack against the same fomor and he may well invoke the Water Element for easier defense. Hit an incorporeal spirit with either and they'll laugh. Those are just the obvious also - start using compels/invokes for effect and the possibilities become much broader.
Oh, absolutely, but that's part of an invoke or a compel, and you can do a whole lot of things with those. Like I said earlier in this post, you can take advantage of your spell like that with a tag or a fate point easily, but I kind of see it as a cheat, if you get around that just by saying you do your spell differently. Hell, a declaration on the spell could be enough, if it's interesting. Navel-gazing-declarations, if you will.
-
I actually agree with this, too. In my opinion, the skill decided on as the defending skill by a particular Evocation is the skill that requires no justification to defend with. Other skills may be used freely...as long as you can justify it. Like that cover example I've brought up a few times.
We obviously need to be more upfront with our definitions, then. I think that would clear up a lot of these debates before they start.
-
We obviously need to be more upfront with our definitions, then. I think that would clear up a lot of these debates before they start.
Yeah. That's probably true. Hell, that's probably true for the entire internet.
-
Yeah, but not a whole lot of it. Certainly no more than Luccio's finger-thin whip of fire, which is a demonstrated Evocation effect.
It requires enough precision to hit the neck with the fire whip.
Simply making the fire whip is comparatively easy.
Honest Lies and Sex Appeal are clearly not primarily intended as attack stunts. They're primarily for non-attack uses of the skills in question. Heck, it could be argued they shouldn't (or even couldn't) be used for that purpose. I'm not sure if I'd argue that (though the more I think on it the more tempted I am by it) but it seems a valid explanation.
They look like attack stunts to me. Even if that's not their primary purpose (I think it probably is their primary purpose), there's no good reason not to let them apply to attacks. The contradiction between rule and example is clear here.
How so? You acknowledge that the other person isn't likely to agree with you, so arguing this particular issue is pointless, and start talking about some more productive topic or topics instead.
You do not need my permission to disagree with me, and if you want to leave the argument you can just stop arguing. So agreeing to disagree has no real purpose.
You have neither line of sight nor line of effect to an individual's heart, so how exactly are you targetting it again? By where you believe it to be, right.
Does it take time (even a small amount) to formulate an evocation before releasing it? Can the world change in that time? Can such a change be the location of your target?
This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Thanks, Tedronai.
Any evocation attack can be avoided by being somewhere that the attack isn't. Thaumaturgy gets around this by using a symbolic link, so that the attack goes wherever you go.
PS: Incite Emotion should definitely be usable in combat.
-
It requires enough precision to hit the neck with the fire whip.
Simply making the fire whip is comparatively easy.
I disagree. Making a band around someone's throat isn't any harder than making it in your hand, IMO.
They look like attack stunts to me. Even if that's not their primary purpose (I think it probably is their primary purpose), there's no good reason not to let them apply to attacks. The contradiction between rule and example is clear here.
Eh, not necessarily. Rapport and Deceit aren't mostly intended to be attack skills. It's intended that they be able to be used as that, but it's not supposed to be their 'default setting'...nor, IMO, necessarily that of their Stunts.
You do not need my permission to disagree with me, and if you want to leave the argument you can just stop arguing. So agreeing to disagree has no real purpose.
It's a convention. A shorthand for staying "Hey, let's call this done and move on." Especially useful for people who have a hard time stopping arguing (I'm very much in that category personally), and more polite in some ways than just stopping out of the blue.
This is exactly what I've been trying to say. Thanks, Tedronai.
Any evocation attack can be avoided by being somewhere that the attack isn't. Thaumaturgy gets around this by using a symbolic link, so that the attack goes wherever you go.
And again, disagreed, but I think I've stated my point here as much and as often as I feel necessary, so I'm gonna just move on and discuss other things elsewhere (or here, if they come up) as I discuss doing above.
PS: Incite Emotion should definitely be usable in combat.
Agreed entirely.
-
I disagree. Making a band around someone's throat isn't any harder than making it in your hand, IMO.
The fact that people dodge Evocations all the time in both novels and gameplay contradicts that, I think. If hitting your enemy was easy as hitting your own hand, Harry would demolish fewer buildings.
It's a convention. A shorthand for staying "Hey, let's call this done and move on." Especially useful for people who have a hard time stopping arguing (I'm very much in that category personally), and more polite in some ways than just stopping out of the blue.
Yeah, that's the thing I find silly. If you want to stop arguing, just stop arguing.
Why would that be hard?
I tend to pursue arguments pretty far, but not because I have trouble stopping. I just think it's a worthwhile thing to do.
-
The fact that people dodge Evocations all the time in both novels and gameplay contradicts that, I think. If hitting your enemy was easy as hitting your own hand, Harry would demolish fewer buildings.
Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.
Yeah, that's the thing I find silly. If you want to stop arguing, just stop arguing.
Why would that be hard?
Eh. It's a courtesy thing. I really care about those. Perhaps to an irrational degree...
I tend to pursue arguments pretty far, but not because I have trouble stopping. I just think it's a worthwhile thing to do.
Usually true for me as well...but I'll admit to sometimes getting caught up in the argument and going on longer than I really intended.
-
Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.
Where is the threshold of finesse that transforms an attack from 'eminently dodge-able' to 'impossible to dodge; you'll have to use some other method of defense'?
-
Where is the threshold of finesse that transforms an attack from 'eminently dodge-able' to 'impossible to dodge; you'll have to use some other method of defense'?
It's not actually about finesse (this example was, but not the general principle). I'd argue Harry does some unavoidable ones in Cold Days that are very brute force. It has to do with where you summon the power, channeled through you and then basically thrown at them, or summoned on, in, or around them. The first is pretty much always Athletics, the second is often Endurance or Might instead. Other skills...are rare and hard to justify, since it's a Physical attack, kinda definitionally.
-
Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.
He's just a specific example. Point was, spells in general are not and should not be portrayed as non-dodge-able.
Eh. It's a courtesy thing. I really care about those. Perhaps to an irrational degree...
I tend to find unnecessary courtesy a bit grating.
-
It's not actually about finesse (this example was, but not the general principle). I'd argue Harry does some unavoidable ones in Cold Days that are very brute force. It has to do with where you summon the power, channeled through you and then basically thrown at them, or summoned on, in, or around them. The first is pretty much always Athletics, the second is often Endurance or Might instead. Other skills...are rare and hard to justify, since it's a Physical attack, kinda definitionally.
I'll keep pace with your moving goalposts by again asking you how you're formulating your spell to 'lock on' to your target's location without making use of sympathetic links, to which evocation does, by default, have access.
Again: It takes time to formulate a spell, even for skilled practitioners casting a spell for the thousandth time that month. Evocation spells have to be targetted manually; they do not get to make use of sympathetic links. The world can change between the time the practitioner begins formulating the spell and the time it takes effect. Such changes can include the target of the spell no longer being where they were. If the target of a spell not making use of sympathetic links is no longer in the area the spell will affect, then the spell will fail to affect them.
-
He's just a specific example. Point was, spells in general are not and should not be portrayed as non-dodge-able.
Infrigia. Cold Days. First fight scene.
I tend to find unnecessary courtesy a bit grating.
I'd apologize...but that seems like a bad idea in context.
I'll keep pace with your moving goalposts by again asking you how you're formulating your spell to 'lock on' to your target's location without making use of sympathetic links, to which evocation does, by default, have access.
First off, that wasn't moving the goal posts, Re-read my first post, my core argument has not changed. The precision thing was a side argument that was only tangentially related to the main one.
Second, I'll repeat, line of sight.
Again: It takes time to formulate a spell, even for skilled practitioners casting a spell for the thousandth time that month. Evocation spells have to be targetted manually; they do not get to make use of sympathetic links. The world can change between the time the practitioner begins formulating the spell and the time it takes effect. Such changes can include the target of the spell no longer being where they were. If the target of a spell not making use of sympathetic links is no longer in the area the spell will affect, then the spell will fail to affect them.
Not if you're specifically visualizing and focusing on a creature, not an area, when you cast the spell. This is...not typical, especially of Harry, but it remains doable, IMO.
But we're really just repeating the same exact points over and over again here. Let's just stop and move on, shall we?
-
Infrigia. Cold Days. First fight scene.
I'd apologize...but that seems like a bad idea in context.
First off, that wasn't moving the goal posts, Re-read my first post, my core argument has not changed. The precision thing was a side argument that was only tangentially related to the main one.
Second, I'll repeat, line of sight.
Not if you're specifically visualizing and focusing on a creature, not an area, when you cast the spell. This is...not typical, especially of Harry, but it remains doable, IMO.
But we're really just repeating the same exact points over and over again here. Let's just stop and move on, shall we?
Using the books as a justification to bend or break the rules of the game is a failing arguement. The novels do not follow the RAW, it does not have to take game balance and dice rolls into consideration. If you want to incorporate something from the books into the game you find a mechanic that fits, you don't ignore rules wholesale.
Second: you keep saying you disagree, but fail to support if with little more than you own opinion and some narrative fluff. Fluff that's only support is your own opinion. It's circular logic and mental gymnastics.
Third: I'm reminded of a little blurb in the YS rulebook. "magic doesn't make things easier, it makes things more complicated". I would claim it would take a significantly more power, focus, and percision to magically choke someone out from 30 feet away than it would be to just choke them out with you bare hands.
Fact is the RAW for evocation is a lot simplier than you're making it out to be. It's point, aim, shoot, regardless of the narrative flavoring. Cold hard logic would dictate that if you have to aim, it means you can miss.
-
Infrigia. Cold Days. First fight scene.
Evothaum. Irrelevant to this discussion.
First off, that wasn't moving the goal posts, Re-read my first post, my core argument has not changed. The precision thing was a side argument that was only tangentially related to the main one.
Your primary (whether or not you call it your 'core') argument for some time was predicated on the assertion that someone with more finesse than Harry could do this. When challenged to state just how much more finesse would be required, you instead claimed that finesse was not, in fact, at issue. Looks like moving goalposts to me.
Second, I'll repeat, line of sight.
This is a nonsensical argument. It makes no sense. It says nothing. It means nothing.
Not if you're specifically visualizing and focusing on a creature, not an area, when you cast the spell. This is...not typical, especially of Harry, but it remains doable, IMO.
And if you've got the Evothaum to support such symbolic targetting, then you're going to be just fine. Standard evocation has no such capability, though.
But we're really just repeating the same exact points over and over again here. Let's just stop and move on, shall we?
Unless you want to actually support your position with something more than a simple reassertion of it, then I'd say that's the only real alternative.
-
Using the books as a justification to bend or break the rules of the game is a failing arguement. The novels do not follow the RAW, it does not have to take game balance and dice rolls into consideration. If you want to incorporate something from the books into the game you find a mechanic that fits, you don't ignore rules wholesale.
<snip>
Fact is the RAW for evocation is a lot simplier than you're making it out to be. It's point, aim, shoot, regardless of the narrative flavoring. Cold hard logic would dictate that if you have to aim, it means you can miss.
Isn't 'using the books' (and perhaps some trappings in the rule book) the justification for stating magic requires line of effect? (Starting at the caster and flying out in a targeted fashion as a completed effect.) The rules themselves don't say much more than 1) determine desired effect; 2) choose mechanic; 3) specify shifts of power; 4) roll to control.
I think arguing the physics of magic is pointless (It is magic after all.) but most of the spell types work without requiring the effect to travel from one point to another. Counterspells work directly against another spell's energy, maneuvers do just about anything you can think of...shouldn't be hard to think of some that don't travel from point to point ("Distracted by <whatever?" perhaps.), and blocks affect someone's actions (How would a "you can't maneuver against me" block move from the caster to the target?). Evocation in general obviously doesn't need line of effect. It's also worth noting attacks need 'line of sight' but don't need 'line of effect'. Attacking through a window is perfectly acceptable.
In the end it's magic. We'll each filter it through our own preconceptions and apply individual interpretations. The "my interpretation must be Right" dogmatism is simply silly.
-
Using the books as a justification to bend or break the rules of the game is a failing arguement. The novels do not follow the RAW, it does not have to take game balance and dice rolls into consideration. If you want to incorporate something from the books into the game you find a mechanic that fits, you don't ignore rules wholesale.
I'm not using them as a justification, but as an example of how that sorta thing works. There's a hell of a difference...as is demonstrated by me not even having brought up that spell till now, and having had this opinion years prior to the existence of Cold Days.
Second: you keep saying you disagree, but fail to support if with little more than you own opinion and some narrative fluff. Fluff that's only support is your own opinion. It's circular logic and mental gymnastics.
I gave rules arguments. No really, several of them, and we determined the rules were unclear (several examples do it, the rest of the rules are less than supportive). So thereafter I was opposed by "But logically, you have to dodge." style arguments so I started arguing the in-world logic. Seriously, go back and read my first few posts on this subject, they're almost all rules. I responded to the nature of the arguments used against me...because given the unfortunate lack of clarity in the rules, whether it works logically does strike me as a good criteria for whether it works.
Third: I'm reminded of a little blurb in the YS rulebook. "magic doesn't make things easier, it makes things more complicated". I would claim it would take a significantly more power, focus, and percision to magically choke someone out from 30 feet away than it would be to just choke them out with you bare hands.
Uh...I'm not arguing that isn't harder. Choking someone out from 30 feet away is harder than doing it with your bare hands. Hence Mental Stress for doing it, among other things. And only a wizard who knows how to do so can manage it (much like only people who know how can do it with their hands).
None of that makes it impossible, though.
Fact is the RAW for evocation is a lot simplier than you're making it out to be. It's point, aim, shoot, regardless of the narrative flavoring. Cold hard logic would dictate that if you have to aim, it means you can miss.
Explain those examples, then. Especially the entire box on each and every spell for what skill it targets.
Evothaum. Irrelevant to this discussion.
Unseelie Magic doesn't do Evothaum for anything but entropomancy (which this isn't). So how is it evothaum?
Your primary (whether or not you call it your 'core') argument for some time was predicated on the assertion that someone with more finesse than Harry could do this. When challenged to state just how much more finesse would be required, you instead claimed that finesse was not, in fact, at issue. Looks like moving goalposts to me.
I'm going to respond to this in a separate post.
This is a nonsensical argument. It makes no sense. It says nothing. It means nothing.
Not sans context, but I was sort of assuming participants would've read my previous statements on the subject. I described my point on this issue in detail at least twice previously, I just didn't want to do it again.
And if you've got the Evothaum to support such symbolic targetting, then you're going to be just fine. Standard evocation has no such capability, though.
I disagree. I've explained how and why I disagree previously.
Unless you want to actually support your position with something more than a simple reassertion of it, then I'd say that's the only real alternative.
I'm tired of the same points coming up over and over again. You want explanations of my points, check my earlier arguments in the thread, they haven't changed.
-
Your primary (whether or not you call it your 'core') argument for some time was predicated on the assertion that someone with more finesse than Harry could do this. When challenged to state just how much more finesse would be required, you instead claimed that finesse was not, in fact, at issue. Looks like moving goalposts to me.
My original argument:
This I'm skeptical of. The example spells are really clear that this is how they work, and I can think of a dozen other easy examples that don't make sense to defend against with Athletics [such as being frozen in ice (it's a Block, not an attack, but Might's the obvious skill to escape...and Athletics makes no sense at all if the block materializes around you) or being overheated from the inside via an effort of will (Endurance is clearly your defense here...how does moving help?), etc. etc.]
It's clearly intended that other skills can come into play when defending against magic. Anything else is, well, both clearly illogical and against the game's intent. An argument can be made that Athletics is always applicable per the RAW...but an equally strong one can be made that it can't. So...I'm going with logic and intent here.
No mention of finesse anywhere.
The finesse discussion came up much later, here, in a very specific sub-argument about force-choking:
Pressing on the right part of the neck requires precision.
Yeah, but not a whole lot of it. Certainly no more than Luccio's finger-thin whip of fire, which is a demonstrated Evocation effect.
It requires enough precision to hit the neck with the fire whip.
Simply making the fire whip is comparatively easy.
I disagree. Making a band around someone's throat isn't any harder than making it in your hand, IMO.
The fact that people dodge Evocations all the time in both novels and gameplay contradicts that, I think. If hitting your enemy was easy as hitting your own hand, Harry would demolish fewer buildings.
Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.
Now, I guess I can see how you'd think I was trying to make a general statement there. I wasn't, it was purely in reference to the ongoing discussion on a specific rote/methodology.
-
Unseelie Magic doesn't do Evothaum for anything but entropomancy (which this isn't). So how is it evothaum?
What examples of Unseelie Magic had actually been seen at the time that section of YS was printed?
He was using Sponsored Magic, not regular Evocation. He doesn't (/isn't capable of) do(ing) that sort of thing normally, using his regular evocation. Sponsored Magic is capable of doing things of which regular Evocation is not. Mechanically, the major source of this is represented by what has become known on these boards as 'Evothaum'.
Unless you can come up with some better examples (ie. involving standard Evocation), the logical assumption, here, is that Harry gained this capability via his access to Unseelie Magic, ie. Evothaum.
Not sans context, but I was sort of assuming participants would've read my previous statements on the subject. I described my point on this issue in detail at least twice previously, I just didn't want to do it again.
I disagree. I've explained how and why I disagree previously.
You've not provided, that I can find, a meaningful explanation of how you're managing to use symbolic targeting (ie. sympathetic links) in a basic evocation (without relying on Evothaum or some similar additional capability). Without that, your assertion of 'line of sight', even taken in context, is circular, nonsensical, and worthless.
-
Now, I guess I can see how you'd think I was trying to make a general statement there. I wasn't, it was purely in reference to the ongoing discussion on a specific rote/methodology.
So going from, 'finesse matters in this example of what I'm talking about' to 'finesse doesn't actually matter'.
Gotcha. Good to know.
-
What examples of Unseelie Magic had actually been seen at the time that section of YS was printed?
True enough. On the other hand they did get to talk to Jim about some of this stuff. Very possibly not this one specifically, I admit.
He was using Sponsored Magic, not regular Evocation. He doesn't (/isn't capable of) do(ing) that sort of thing normally, using his regular evocation. Sponsored Magic is capable of doing things of which regular Evocation is not. Mechanically, the major source of this is represented by what has become known on these boards as 'Evothaum'.
This doesn't necessarily follow. Ice is a lot easier to justify doing this with than most elements and Harry didn't use it much if at all in his pre-Winter Knight days. You could as easily argue that he didn't lift heavy things before, so he was incapable of lifting. It's very possible it's a matter aided but not enabled by the whole "Being the Winter Knight'" thing. Besides...given how Thaumaturgy attacks work, using one in this circumstance makes no sense. It's notably less effective, so why would he bother? Yeah, yeah, fictional character not game character, yadda, yadda, yadda...it's still a weird choice if that's what he needs to do to manage it.
Unless you can come up with some better examples (ie. involving standard Evocation), the logical assumption, here, is that Harry gained this capability via his access to Unseelie Magic, ie. Evothaum.
I haven't read anything pre-cold Days in a while. I've been planning on re-reading them, but I'm not coming up with anything off the top of my head.
You've not provided, that I can find, a meaningful explanation of how you're managing to use symbolic targeting (ie. sympathetic links) in a basic evocation (without relying on Evothaum or some similar additional capability). Without that, your assertion of 'line of sight', even taken in context, is circular, nonsensical, and worthless.
No more than your assertion that you need line of effect. Both make sense given how magic is presented and neither require symbolic targeting. All you've really got I don't is the fact that in the books, Harry usually uses spells with line of effect...of course, he usually uses Fire or Spirit spells, too, but that doesn't mean other elements don't exist.
So going from, 'finesse matters in this example of what I'm talking about' to 'finesse doesn't actually matter'.
Gotcha. Good to know.
No, finesse very definitely matters to that specific example. Just not in general...which is what you were talking about, so I said finesse wan't the real issue.
Also, I'm starting to get annoyed with your tone. I can be every bit as condescending and dismissive as you, but I'm trying to keep this civil. Please try to do the same.
-
Tedronai, Deadmanwalking, your avatars are way too similar. Makes your arguments hard to follow.
I can't really comment on the Infrigia thing because I don't remember it that well. But I don't recall any reason to assume that it was non-evade-able. My impression was that it was just really fast and really lethal, like powerful Evocations tend to be.
Isn't 'using the books' (and perhaps some trappings in the rule book) the justification for stating magic requires line of effect?
I'm pretty sure he was referring to using the novels.
Also, I'm starting to get annoyed with your tone. I can be every bit as condescending and dismissive as you, but I'm trying to keep this civil. Please try to do the same.
You know, this quote is pretty condescending and dismissive too.
I think that's okay, though.
Telling people they're wrong is inherently aggressive. So aggressive tones are to be expected in an argument like this one.
-
Tedronai, Deadmanwalking, your avatars are way too similar. Makes your arguments hard to follow.
We have entirely different words, though. It's totally different. ;)
I can't really comment on the Infrigia thing because I don't remember it that well. But I don't recall any reason to assume that it was non-evade-able. My impression was that it was just really fast and really lethal, like powerful Evocations tend to be.
Another possible interpretation...but it still struck me as what I'm talking about.
I'm pretty sure he was referring to using the novels.
I think so was UmbraLux.
You know, this quote is pretty condescending and dismissive too.
Well, yes. I considered trying to moderate it...but couldn't come up with a good wording to do so that still got the point across, and was less motivated to do so than I might've been.
I think that's okay, though.
Telling people they're wrong is inherently aggressive. So aggressive tones are to be expected in an argument like this one.
I disagree, there's a difference between aggressive and condescending/dismissive or otherwise insulting. It can be summed up as the difference between "You are completely wrong." and "You are wrong and stupid." The first is aggressive, the second is distinctly insulting. Aggressive is fine, insulting is...less so.
There's often a bit of the second creeping in over long arguments, but it seems to me that minimizing it is a good and productive thing to do to avoid hard feelings and generally make the conversation about the issues as opposed to people's personal animosities.
-
I'm pretty sure he was referring to using the novels.
That was obvious, so was I. Was there a point or objection?
-
@DMW:
Thaumaturgy attacks are 'less effective' in that they lack weapon ratings. Evothaum attacks use evocation's methods, which include weapon ratings (see the 'Shell Game' sidebar), and so are not less effective.
The example being used from Cold Days is suspect at best. As such, it makes a poor support for your argument. It's full of holes. Some other example might be better suited to your argument, but since apparently none of us can think of one, it seems reasonable to conclude for now that one does not exist. In the absence of even a single solid example from canon, your assertion rests solely on your own opinion.
I'm not asserting that 'you need line of effect'. Those are your words. I'm asserting that it takes time to cast spells, that the target of an evocation is not based sympathetic principles such as those required to target an individual wherever they may be or wherever they may go, and that the location of an evocation's intended subject might change between the formulation of a spell and its taking effect in the world.
If finesse matters in that one particular example, then answer the question for that example. Just precisely how much finesse is required to take a spell using that methodology from 'eminently dodgeable' to 'attempts to dodge have no chance of success'.
How high does my Control roll have to be before I can unilaterally demand that my victim use a different skill for their defense?
-
I can't really comment on the Infrigia thing because I don't remember it that well. But I don't recall any reason to assume that it was non-evade-able. My impression was that it was just really fast and really lethal, like powerful Evocations tend to be.
Pretty much this, where the whole Infriga thing is concerned. Evothaum let's you do some amazing things, but they are still limited to evocations methods, meaning they are targeted by sight, not by symbolic link.
-
That was obvious, so was I. Was there a point or objection?
I was misreading you. My apologies.
I disagree, there's a difference between aggressive and condescending/dismissive or otherwise insulting. It can be summed up as the difference between "You are completely wrong." and "You are wrong and stupid." The first is aggressive, the second is distinctly insulting. Aggressive is fine, insulting is...less so.
I prefer active aggression to the passive sort, though, and tone rules tend to make people passive-aggressive.
-
@DMW:
Thaumaturgy attacks are 'less effective' in that they lack weapon ratings. Evothaum attacks use evocation's methods, which include weapon ratings (see the 'Shell Game' sidebar), and so are not less effective.
Matter of opinion, that. I'm not necessarily disagreeing here(that would be a whole different subject...and one I don't even have a strong opinion on), just noting that those rules are really open to interpretation.
The example being used from Cold Days is suspect at best. As such, it makes a poor support for your argument. It's full of holes. Some other example might be better suited to your argument, but since apparently none of us can think of one, it seems reasonable to conclude for now that one does not exist. In the absence of even a single solid example from canon, your assertion rests solely on your own opinion.
And a large segment of the rules.
And the conclusion that 'no examples exist' is a pretty big leap from the basis that neither you nor I can think of such an example off the top of our heads.
I'm not asserting that 'you need line of effect'. Those are your words. I'm asserting that it takes time to cast spells, that the target of an evocation is not based sympathetic principles such as those required to target an individual wherever they may be or wherever they may go, and that the location of an evocation's intended subject might change between the formulation of a spell and its taking effect in the world.
And I'm asserting that your visualization can be of a target that's an individual, not an area per se, and thus moving around that doesn't remove them from line of sight isn't helpful against such an Evocation.
And my apologies for getting some part of your argument wrong. My bad.
If finesse matters in that one particular example, then answer the question for that example. Just precisely how much finesse is required to take a spell using that methodology from 'eminently dodgeable' to 'attempts to dodge have no chance of success'.
How high does my Control roll have to be before I can unilaterally demand that my victim use a different skill for their defense?
Uh...that's really not what I'm saying. The part that requires finesse is rendering them unconscious, not dead, not the nature of the attack. If you're willing to just grab and crush their neck to pulp, that's equally undodgable and requires almost no finesse.
I prefer active aggression to the passive sort, though, and tone rules tend to make people passive-aggressive.
I wasn't suggesting it as any kind of rule, just a good idea most of the time.
-
I reread the Infrigia bit. No reason to assume it could not be dodged. It was an explosion of ice, and one that occurred very quickly. But if the Sidhe had moved when Harry said Infri- he might have survived.