Question about evocation maneuver

[Guldor]

Something which is stuck in my head, since i read the spellcasting rules and especially the maneuver part of the evocation chapter. The thing is, i directly thought about setting someone on fire so he gets the aspect (what a surprise) ON FIRE. Until now no big deal you would assume. You set the powerlevel, you roll your discipline and the victim gets a roll to avoid his crispy fate. But in this special case (the most other scenarios concerning magic maneuvers my fantasy produces aren´t problematic to simulate with the rules) has two big problems for me:

1) What roll does the victim get? If you imagine a fiery bolt which is shot by the mage it is of course athletics, but what is if you imagine the mage simply "wishes" his victim to catch fire. Maybe this is something which is simply some kind of background knowledge gap i possess and it is simply not possible to cast this way.

But more important: 2) Of course given that the victim of this magic maneuver fails his roll he is ON FIRE. So you can use the maneuver or can even compel the burning guy. But thats it? Hey! They guy is on fire! Shouldn´t he get at least some physical stress? How would you handle this situation?

Thanks for reading and perhaps posting your thoughts....

[Taran]

I think that people might disagree with me as it might be a "boring" way of doing it:

Invoke for effect, then GM Compels that he rolls against environmental damage (the value depends on how powerful the maneuver was) every round until he does something to remove the aspect.

If he pays a FP, the next round he gets compelled again with some other nastiness unless he removes the aspect or pays it off again...

[gojj]

1) If you shoot something at him he would defend with Athletics (unless a stunt says otherwise), but if you are doing some weird pyrokinesis thing then your opponent would defend with Discipline. Others may disagree but that's my take on it.

2) Well in my opinion "On fire" is more of a consequence. You could set his sleeve or pant leg on fire to create the "singed" temporary aspect on him, or again if you're doing some odd mental attack thing then your opponent could just think he's on fire. I would agree that just "On fire" doesn't make much sense for a maneuver, however this makes sense to me. I think fire is "supposed" to be more about straightforward blasting then about finesse, so it would take a craft mage to through maneuver's around with it. another possibility is to shoot a fire bolt not to harm the enemy, but to put him off balance, or flush him out of cover.

[NicholasQuinn]

1) What roll does the victim get? If you imagine a fiery bolt which is shot by the mage it is of course athletics, but what is if you imagine the mage simply "wishes" his victim to catch fire. Maybe this is something which is simply some kind of background knowledge gap i possess and it is simply not possible to cast this way.

The former, yes, athletics seems appropriate. Although depending on circumstance, others might work. For the latter? Depends how they're defending. I'd even rule an athletics check to "stop, drop and roll" could work. Other then that, endurance (maybe at a stretch?) or discipline. Fate seems to emphasise that different skills can be used, just be imaginitive (but realistic within the setting).

But more important: 2) Of course given that the victim of this magic maneuver fails his roll he is ON FIRE. So you can use the maneuver or can even compel the burning guy. But thats it? Hey! They guy is on fire! Shouldn´t he get at least some physical stress? How would you handle this situation?

Here are some of Fred's thoughts on the subject. The second post, part way down, "On the subject of ongoing environmental damage". Hope that proves useful, the thread as a whole is full of insightful comments.

[Guldor]

@Taran: I like the idea of invoking for effect so that the burning guy gets enivormental damage. But I think to demand one FP every round is a little bit harsh. Perhaps if he spends one FP  he can extinguish the flames very easily, for example by removing his burning jacket or something like that. If he takes the compel a certain amount of damage per round seems to be ok.But it shouldn't be to high, because then the maneuver would override the normal attck actions...

@gojj: Discipline seems to be the best choice. Perhaps referring to the mentioned maneuver as only setting the pants on fire (and not the whole guy) might be a good solution sometimes. This is more believable for a simple +2 Bonus from the aspect. But in certain circumstances this would be too comedy like for my taste. Imagine the mighty pit fiend which materializes in a cloud of sulfur. His growling voice strikes fear into the heart of mortals and then he sets your shoes on fire? I`m certainly exaggerating a bit , but you know what i mean....

@Quinn: Yeah Endurance seems not to be the ideal solution. I think discipline is a good choice in this special case. And thank you for the link. I like this forum. Until now all people were very helpful...

[Haru]

You roll athletics not only to actually dodge, but also to make yourself less of a target. Finding cover, running around, stuff that would make it harder to focus on you. This would still apply to your "I set him on fire" spell, even if the narrative of the spell creates the fire directly at the target instead of throwing it at him. I would not create a fight will against will, that would seem inappropriate to me.

The trouble with damaging maneuvers that don't actually do damage is well known, I had to struggle with it, too. Up front: I would not let you tag your "on fire" aspect for effect to do damage. Otherwise any wizard would just maneuver anything to ashes, which is not what maneuvers are for.
You could tag it for effect, so that he has to put it out before doing anything else, probably rolling survival to do so. While he tries this, you are free to do other things. You might have a combo-spell, that you usually do, set the target on fire, then superheat that fire. Mechanically, the first is a maneuver, the second is an attack, tagging the maneuver for a +2.
As a whole, it is about how the fire effects the story, not how much damage it does.

The thing with demanding a fate point each round is just the way compels work, he gets compelled, so he either accepts it, or he pays a fate point. I would probably escalate this, if the player tries to buy out of it. Fire is fire, fire burns, you don't just run around when on fire.

Or The attacker could tag the aspect to make the target concede, so the fight would be over without any further action.


On another note: "on fire" is definitely not a consequence, unless you are suggesting, that the target remains on fire for a session or two.

[NicholasQuinn]

@Quinn: Yeah Endurance seems not to be the ideal solution. I think discipline is a good choice in this special case. And thank you for the link. I like this forum. Until now all people were very helpful...

Yes, Endurance is probably the weakest of the suggested ideas, and anytime. The forums here are a useful place.

I would not create a fight will against will, that would seem inappropriate to me.

To me, this would depend on the context of the manoeuvre in question. It could be less of a 'battle of wills', and more of a "my character keeps her cool, refusing to let the fire distract her", or "my character stays disciplined, quickly dealing with the fire instead of panicking".

Another skill that might work would be Lore. Perhaps the character's arcane sense tell her something is about to go very wrong, thus allowing them to run/move.

Whilst I'd be disinclined to allow such defence rolls in the case of a normal, straight forward attack; the attack as described seems a more... special case.

*Naturally said character(s) could also be male, but for the necessity of writing the ideas down it is easier to focus on one sex.

As a whole, it is about how the fire effects the story, not how much damage it does.

This. I agree that the story should remain the focus.

[gojj]

On another note: "on fire" is definitely not a consequence, unless you are suggesting, that the target remains on fire for a session or two.

I wasn't suggesting the person would be on fire the whole time he has the consequence. For example say Ron the Wizard got slashed up by a Red Court and got the Consequence "Excessive bleeding", he could get bandaged up and within the hour and stop bleeding, but the consequence would remain till the next scene because of other unsaid things that went along with the bleeding: fatigue, light headed, sore, etc. So the person on fire may be put out quickly, but the burnt flesh and the like would remain. I'm not trying to nitpick or start an argument over technicalities, just restating my point to hopefully clarify. However I will concede that rewording the consequence would make it clearer.

[noclue]

I think that people might disagree with me as it might be a "boring" way of doing it:

Invoke for effect, then GM Compels that he rolls against environmental damage (the value depends on how powerful the maneuver was) every round until he does something to remove the aspect.

If he pays a FP, the next round he gets compelled again with some other nastiness unless he removes the aspect or pays it off again...

not surprisingly, I'm hating this

Maneuvers used to provide aspects for tagging are cool. Maneuvers as a way to deal stress? Not so much. That's what attacks are for.

I wasn't suggesting the person would be on fire the whole time he has the consequence. For example say Ron the Wizard got slashed up by a Red Court and got the Consequence "Excessive bleeding", he could get bandaged up and within the hour and stop bleeding, but the consequence would remain till the next scene because of other unsaid things that went along with the bleeding: fatigue, light headed, sore, etc. So the person on fire may be put out quickly, but the burnt flesh and the like would remain.

That's how I would do it too.

@NQ thanks for that post of Fred's discussion. That's right on target in my book.

[noclue]

1) What roll does the victim get? If you imagine a fiery bolt which is shot by the mage it is of course athletics, but what is if you imagine the mage simply "wishes" his victim to catch fire.

How about alertness to notice you're brewing a massive fire spell?

They guy is on fire! Shouldn´t he get at least some physical stress? How would you handle this situation?

if your goal was physical stress you should have rolled an attack. Maybe you want to rethink the maneuver?

[Guldor]

Maneuvers used to provide aspects for tagging are cool. Maneuvers as a way to deal stress? Not so much. That's what attacks are for.
That's how I would do it too.

Of course I see that these are two different actions and from the point of view of the rules it is all logical. But sometimes my imagination tells me something else than the rules. When a guy is on fire, he burns, which means damage. To clarify my point: The rules for maneuvers are ok and mostly balanced but in special situation the hinder me to describe the situation. I´m not into exact combat simulations but here the difference between "reality" and rules is too crass. By the way: Alertness is a good idea for noticing the big fire spell spell. This would combine perfectly with Harus idea of some kind of combo spell (see below)

The trouble with damaging maneuvers that don't actually do damage is well known, I had to struggle with it, too. Up front: I would not let you tag your "on fire" aspect for effect to do damage. Otherwise any wizard would just maneuver anything to ashes, which is not what maneuvers are for.
You could tag it for effect, so that he has to put it out before doing anything else, probably rolling survival to do so. While he tries this, you are free to do other things. You might have a combo-spell, that you usually do, set the target on fire, then superheat that fire. Mechanically, the first is a maneuver, the second is an attack, tagging the maneuver for a +2.
.

I have to say I LIKE this idea. I think this could be handled in this way: The Player says:"I want to set the guy on fire with magic!". The GM says "Well ok, but for this I demand that you use your next action so superheat your fire as an attack. Think of the whole evocation as some kind of two step attack spell." I can live with this solution. Thank you Haru!

[sinker]

I have recently discovered a great way to deal with this, as it's been a problem for many people. Consider what you are doing when you invoke an aspect. The invocation is literally the person with the fate point saying "This becomes important to the narrative, and here's how." Knowing this and thinking about the motives behind that it becomes way easier to figure out what to do in these situations.

Using your example, when you spend the fate point, what do you say? Is it "He looks down at his flaming arm and runs flailing in an attempt to put himself out"? Then you're trying to disable him. The compel prevents him from action. How about "He dives into the nearby ocean and doesn't surface"? You're trying to drive him away. The compel results in a concession or retreat on his part.

In the end it's all about why is it important that he's on fire? As the person invoking it's important that you come up with that, otherwise it's not important.

Another hint; it's not going to be the same from table to table or even from situation to situation within the same group.

[noclue]

Of course I see that these are two different actions and from the point of view of the rules it is all logical. But sometimes my imagination tells me something else than the rules. When a guy is on fire, he burns, which means damage.

Hmmm, would you use a Maneuver to place an aspect "Decapitated" or "Stabbed through the neck" or "Arm Chopped Off!" Why should you use a Maneuver to set someone on fire and burn them? The game has other ways for burning people.

[Guldor]

@sinker: Yes you shouldn`t loose view of the narrative sense of the performed action. Good point.

@noclue: Drastic examples  , but of course your right. Nevertheless I would like to allow a player to set someone on fire when it enriches a scene. And then Harus idea seems to be a good idea to handle this kind of situation.

[computerking]

Hmmm, would you use a Maneuver to place an aspect "Decapitated" or "Stabbed through the neck" or "Arm Chopped Off!" Why should you use a Maneuver to set someone on fire and burn them? The game has other ways for burning people.

I don't know if a GM would allow those aspects in the normal course of gameplay. The important question at that point is why you want to put that particular aspect on them. If the reason is, "Because it will kill them," then it should be disallowed, because that's what the stress track and attack actions are for.

So back to the original suggestion, "On Fire". You might attempt to use this because just throwing a standard Fireball attack doesn't necessarily create any lasting fire. OK, in that case a GM might suggest that the resulting aspect from the maneuver be "Clothes Burning," or, "Pants on Fire". The target still has the same effect, without making the inference that the target's skin is already a crisp, burning mess. The general "On Fire" aspect brings to mind someone literally burning, and that doesn't quite jibe with a maneuver's intent.

It helps to pick more specific (And thereby more appropriate) aspects for maneuvers. Someone who takes things too literally may have a problem reconciling the aspect not causing damage directly.