Regarding the subtlety/magic discussion, this is discussed some on YS179.  Basically, my interpretation is that it seems to filter down to the idea that a character's emotion-related aspects can be applied to spellcasting.  So, for example, Dresden has the aspect "Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger".  This can be compelled in social environments as normal.  In addition to that, though, it could be compelled when Dresden tries to use magic that requires a subtle touch.  Generally, Dresden tends to steer clear of such magic because he knows he's bad at it.  Likewise, such an aspect could be invoked to boost other sorts of magic.  Emotions like anger can feed power into offensive fire spells for example.  Dresden does this, from time to time, too.

I don't get the impression that all spellcasters must specialize toward subtle or non-subtle in this way (the section I referenced mentions that "some" spellcasters have "blind spots" of this sort.

That's partially correct. Dresden does have subtlety issues and Molly does have non-subtlety issues. The rules do however explicitly say that you can't make a move action with Evocation because you'd bang into everything along the way. Controlled movement requires more control AKA subtlety than evocation allows. That's a limitation to all evocation not just evocation by wizards with subtlety issue like Dresden. A reasonable inference can be made that if controlled movement is impossible a number of other things must be impossible as well. What inferences can be made is up for debate, but the subtlety limitation on controlled movement is explicit RAW.

Is there an example of a physical skill like Might being used to make a social attack in this way? It feels like something I might do in SotC, but not so much DFRPG. If someone used magic this way, you would roll the Evocation v. Conviction to determine the amount of social stress? My mind is breaking on the amount of social stress you could dole out with a 30 shift thaumaturgical pantsing ritual.

Well there are several reasons you could use to justify limiting or not allowing something like that.

1) To keep beating the subtlety hose: Can you actually depants someone with evocation? Increase the gravitational pull on their pant without increasing it on anything else? Bear in mind that unless they're wearing sweatpants you might not be able to pull their pants down without unbuckling their belt and unbuttoning the pants (or ribbing them).

Leaving the poor horse on the wayside you could also reasonably argue that.

2) It's a maneuver, not an attack, you've depantsed them, congrats, that places the embarrassed aspect on them, but it's not going to scar them for life like  30 mental stress would.

3) Magic generally involves pseudo-latin or gestures. You start chanting pseudo-latin and gesturing weirdly at someone you're having an argument with and their pants fall of and anyone even slightly magic-savvy will do the math. Even someone non-savvy would probably figure it out even if they rationalized it as some kind of trickery. That means that you could easily face the same kind of social consequences from a magical depantsing as from a physical one.

I tend to see magic in social conflicts as requiring a fair amount of justification and being of fairly limited usage just like other non-social skills. Still possible in some cases just like you could use justify Might or Fists in for example an intimidation attempt.

So here's where I disagree...and yet don't know how to do it mechanically.  Do you HAVE to affect your target?  Can you make yourself more alluring/charismatic/convincing.

Let's say you want to lift a car.  You use a power 9 telekenisis/ or more likely biomancy spell to give yourself the effective Might of 9 which enables you to lift the car.  As stated in YS, there may be consequences to the person lifting the car...just because your strong enough, it doesn't mean your bones can handle it.

For social combat, could you give yourself the equivalent of a 9 rapport.  It spell doesn't act as an attack, it just boosts your skill making you better in social combat. What kind of consequences would this cause. My only issue with this is that a wizard can be better than anyone at any skill.

For evocation I think it's important to keep in mind that it's primarily a blunt instrument. Doing refined stuff is hard/impossible. In other words if you want to conjure up a big magical boot to kick a car so it rolls over on the side that's no problem. Doing more subtle things with the car could be quite a bit harder. Biomancing yourself to have might 9 would be hideously complex and IMO outside of what can realistically be done with evocation and would require a lot of time and research with Thaumaturgy.

As for rapport 9 how would you even begin to do that? Just because magic is used doesn't mean the player doesn't need to justify how the action is possible. The only way I can think of to do that would be mucking around with you own mind and even so you still have to figure out how a rapport 9 mind looks like. Hideously complex, only possible with Thaumaturgy, and likely to screw up your own brain the way mind altering magic tends to do. You could probably skirt the laws by saying you weren't invading the mind of another.

As BumblingBear says you could use Thaumaturgy to create aspects, but I don't think that necessarily amounts to X free fate points per day. There has to be a reasonable explanation for both how the aspect is created and how it benefits the character in the specific situation. Just casting a spell to create the aspects Charming and People-person each morning wouldn't fly IMO. Also of cause casting Thaumaturgy takes time so depending on the complexity of the aspects being created there might not be time. Personally I tend towards the opinion that the use of magic in social situations is limited, as seen in the books where magic rarely is used in a social conflicts. The rules aren't very clear though so YMMV.

Despite arguments from the novels irritating people, I just thought of some great cannon to prove that beast change allows change into a human.

(click to show/hide)

The Loup Garou's wolfy gf was a wolf, and could turn into a human.  That is presumably the wolf taking "beast change" to turn into a human.

That said, while I believe it is RAW that a human can turn into a human... it's kind of lame.

Fool Moon related

So in a campaign I was gming, if someone wanted to take this power to turn into a human, I would require that they change something significant... probably gender :evil:.  Depending on the setting, shockingly neon hair and different colored skin would work too.

::shrug::

I'd probably be inclined to take a harder line than that, but then it depends on the circumstances. If it was being used to get a bunch of free skill point while avoiding any of the inherent drawbacks to turning into a beast that's one thing, if it didn't feel exploitative I'd probably allow it even though I don't think the RAW allows it. The game is clearly meant to be customized by the players if they feel like it.

@Kerberos:

All negative effects of Beast Change should be handled as compels.

The power does not say that it prevents spellcasting, speech, etc. Therefore it does not, unless circumstances (and aspects) dictate otherwise.

It says that you turn into a beast, therefore you turn into a beast and can't speak, unless it's a parrot. Even if you think the text in the RPG is open to interpretation we know that Werewolves can't speak from the actual books.

It just says that you turn into a beast. Humans are arguably beasts.

No, humans are animals, beast are "any nonhuman animal, especially a large, four-footed mammal." Besides if humans qualified as beast there'd be no reason for the true shape-shifting power to specify that "You may take on nearly any
humanoid or beastly form".

If you think that the power is undercosted, you may well be right. However, your solution of endless uncompensated compels does not improve matters.

I don't think it's undercosted - I think you're misinterpreting the power. You shouldn't get free fate for being unable to speak in eagle form, anymore that you should get free fate for being unable to fly in human form.

Loup Garou have beast change but only someone with a very limited understanding of what a wolf is would call a Loup Garou a wolf beyond semantics. That would be like saying a minatour is a bull because it has horns though given the use of beast change for a Loup it would be reasonable to use beast change for any transformation into something monsterous or beastly including for hilarity sake the beast from beauty and the beast.

My point was mainly about trying to use it purely for for the skill-change without any actual shape-change. Personally I think using it for something with functional hands and/or speech is questionable, but a minotaur isn't that unreasonable, a pure skill-swap with no shape-change or changing into another human IMO is.

Or perhaps it's possession by a being with a different set of skills and knowledge.

Or perhaps it's simply the best way you can think of for representing some kind of magical skill enhancement(with, obviously, certain drawbacks).

Although by this point, I think I'm talking less about Beast Change and more about the Skill Shuffle trapping of it.

Exactly, obviously one can invent house rule as one wished, but beast change involves an actual change into an actual animal. That's more than a flavour thing, since changing into an actual beast has significant drawbacks like robing you of your ability to speak, possibly to cast magic and it tends to attract unfavorable attention at mundane cocktail parties. Beast change without the actual beast change is a far more powerful ability that effectively increases the number of skill points available to the character by a huge margin. At -1 refresh it's ludicrously overpowered compared to other powers and stunts that in some way gives you access to additional skill points and there'd be virtually no reason for any character not to take it.

Actually, as the persistent attacks were all gun shots it was more of "Alright, you hit him square in the torso. He rocks back about half a pace and you see his head turn in your direction."  which led to three more rounds (no pun intended) of ineffective gunfire.

He probably should have gotten that but you can still be more clear. After all the torso isn't necessarily a weak point. You could describe how the attack hits his neck, his open mouth or his eye. If his chest is bullet proof shooting him in the eye could still have an effects. If his eyeballs are bullet proof it's time to run or change tactics.