In my version, I never did say who made it or went into the history of it.   

My version also does not allow one to bypass Lawbreaker status through use of Sponsored Magic.  Instead, it consumes the part of your soul that is tainted by being a Lawbreaker.  Oh, it will consume more than that given the opportunity!  But, that is the mechanism by which the user can "cleanse" (I use that work loosely) of his Lawbreaker status.  Which, I might add, is something I made up, sounds cool and worked in my story. 

I considered using a hunger track; but IMHO, having it eat at your stresses after use and laying down compels just seemed more evil for me.

To be honest, I haven't worked up a complete solution for Force-users.  Largely, though, I would model it very closely to what exists for magic in the DFRPG system.  Including Thaum for the more complex things (plenty of that in the cannon).  I would expand Evocation a bit, though, to handle certain things like Biomancy and allow for more physical related uses.

The Aspect route is easy enough to do as both the characters already have those aspects.  Hmmm... will have to think about this some more.  Thanks for the new idea/approach.

Having played GURPS for well over a decade now... I hate crunchy!  I would only go with stresses and such for a weapon under 2 circumstances:

1)  The weapon is used in a non-standard way.  Such as using your AK-47 to parry an axe swing from a big guy.

2)  It otherwise would make sense.  A catch all reason for odd things.

I would not track this sort of thing for every weapon all the time.  An alternative is to just skip the stress tracking for the weapon and go right to consequences for the weapon in the same manner one works out a concession.

It's what the book does.

I like the answer Kommisar (and it's a good one) but I still have a hard time and here's the reason why. How is one directly influencing perception using Deceit or rapport? One is creating a situation, and the response of the person makes the difference in their social standing, exactly as if you had pantsed them. This is the part that I can't get over. I don't see a difference between magically creating said situation and doing it with Deceit or Rapport.

Well, I agree.  There is no difference in that both are used as a means to create the situation that deals another social stress.  My point, is that magic is not directly dealing said social stress.  For instance, using your de-pantsing spell, it would have no effect targeting an Amazonian tribal leader that isn't wearing any.  Were as, shooting someone with a fireball is shooting someone with a fireball.  You are capable of dealing physical stress to the target (even if they have armor, dodge it or whatever).


As for the other arguement

Nice explanation, but it's skipping one glaring fact:

Magic is causation.

Use air magic to shove someone off a building.  They die from the fall, yet somehow your magic is still to blame.

Create a ball of ball (heat) and project it at someone, once launched you have no more control over it than you do a bullet fired from a gun.... however it is still your magic that would cause the death if they were to die.

Thus the same with the 30 shift "depantsing".

You are confusing the argument.  Pushing someone off a building with air magic and, therefore, causing a death with magic is a 1rst Law argument.  Not an effect argument.  Most everyone agrees that with pushing someone off a building with air magic the actual, technical, cause of the physical stress (and possible death) is blunt trauma from impacting the ground and not the air blast that pushed him.  There are MANY posts and threads here concerning 1rst Law interpretations and I will leave those there.

The difference here is that using magic to drop someone's pants is not a violation of the Laws of Magic.

As for a 30-shift "depantsing" spell; I would not allow this spell to operate as you have outlined its effects in a game I run.  I would allow the spell; no doubt.  But I would not allow for it to cause 30 shifts of social stress for the simple reason that I do not believe that in all instances and circumstances that having one's pants fall down would cause that much social stress to someone.  Under the right conditions, yes, it could.  But that is the kicker right there: "under the right conditions."  That is the very definition of setting up Aspects with maneuvers, declarations, and such and tagging them for effect.  Example:

Declaration:  "In front of a big crowd"  Aspect
Maneuver:  "Hounded by Scandal" Aspect  (Contacts roll to get Media on him perhaps)
etc...

Then you hit him with a 30-shift spell to cause his pants to fall (or pick other embarrassing incident that does not directly cause physical or mental stress to the individual).  Well, unless he has some very significant magical defenses around him, his pants are coming down.  I might even give a bonus for effect depending on the means by which your spell drops those pants.  But it will not automatically cause 30-shifts of social damage.  For the same reason that if you cast a 30-shift magical spell to create a slick spot in the shower for him to slip on the fall in the shower will not automatically cause 30-shifts of physical stress.  I would say that his shower is really, really slick!  Make him roll his athletics against a difficulty of 30.  He's sure to fall... but not to take 30 shifts of physical damage.  Now, drop a satellite on his home....

You are targeting his pants (or belt) with the spell.  Not him.  He suffers indirectly from the spell that is effecting his pants.  His pants are toast, though.


My challenge in this issue is trying to think of a way that one would directly attack someone socially with magic.

  -  You can turn him hideously ugly; but that is a physical attack (transformation) that has social repercussions
  -  You can inflict him with a curse that causes him to swear or say inappropriate things... but that is a mental attack again with social repercussions
  -  You can use magic to manipulate his environment in an infinite number of ways.  But those are maneuvers you stack for a social attack.
  -  You can use magic to give yourself an enhanced rapport, intimidation, presence or, well, any other skill with which you could then use to attack someone socially.  But you are using your skill to cause social stress to the target; not magic.  Even if that skill is boosted by magic.
 
Am I missing a method here?  Because I simply can not think of a way that one can sling a direct bolt of social stress causing magic at someone.  Now, the rules allow for it because the rules are infinitely flexible in many regards.  But just because the rules allow for such an action out of their inherent flexibility does not mean that one has to allow it in game.


As an aside, a target should always be allowed a defense roll of some sort and social attacks are no different.  Presence is a solid default roll in most situations.  Such as playing off losing one's pants or getting hit in the face with pie.

It all depends on how you are flavoring your "Breath Weapon".  Not all defenses/armor work against all attacks.  That is an element that I think has been missing in this debate.

For instance, say you have the typical Fire Breathing type.  Well, then someone wearing mortal armor; whether that is full plate mail or modern kevlar) does not get to use his armor to protect against this type of attack.  But, someone wearing one of those shiny flame resistant suits that wouldn't stop a bullet or sword at all would provide "armor" protection against the flame attack.

Along these same lines, most GMs are not going to allow someone wielding a long sword to use his weapon skill to defend against a guy a zone away firing at him with a shotgun (assuming no stunts and other wonkiness).

My opinion is that not all "Breath Weapons" are equal and that no blanket answer/ruling is going to cover all of them.

My main issue here is why would someone who is a mortal want to spend 1 Refresh on a IoP w/ Breadth Weapon Power (of whatever flavor)  You are spending 1 Refresh for a pistol.  The real power of a breadth weapon (IMHO) is that, as a power, you always have it.  You don't need ammo, it can not be stolen or removed from you.

Thrown onto an IoP in a low-tech setting, it has worth.  In a setting where firearms are generally available, though, the only real value I could see is if the Item itself was very innocuous and would not draw attention if you were carrying it around.  And an ornate, jewel encrusted rod or such does not count.

Weapon 2 Pistol, free.  Weapon 2 ring, 1 Refresh.  Not seeing a good bang for buck in most circumstances.

Grew up in the US Army.  My father and 2 uncles were all career.  Grandfather was a WWII 105mm battery commander.  So, a youth spent in and around places like Fort Stuart GA (Back when it was home of the 24th Mech ID).  Some kids learn to change a car's oil from their dad... I learned a set of much less practical (in terms of civilian life at least) skills.   Not many sixth graders have a basic understanding of how to arm, target and fire a Stinger AA missile.    Combine that with a degree in engineering and away we go.

Oh, and if you REALLY want to get me in my element, then we'll discuss military equipment of the Second World War.   

I know that the Italians and British both issued contact hand grenades during World War II; though largely in the early years of the war and were largely phased out.  The Brits, Germans, and Soviets all had contact Anti-Tank Hand Grenades.  Yes, hand thrown AT grenades.  The Brit one looked like a thermos. 

I don't know of anyone still issuing contact hand grenades today, though.