Fire Vs. Constructs

[Mr. Death]

So I thought of this in the context of zombies, but given they're basically constructs, it applies to the broader category as well.

Fire erodes and cleanses magic, right? So would fire be considered a general catch for constructs? Or perhaps an aspect that can be invoked?

[Haru]

I think it would be easy to just make that part of the catch if you want to safe some points when creating the construct, but it doesn't have to be.

Mechanically, I think it's a different thing if you attack the construct or the magic that holds it together. In both cases, you burn it with fire, but one would be a regular attack, the other would be a counterspell using fire magic.

[citadel97501]

It should be noted that since most constructs are formed with Thaumaturgy and a lot of power, counter-spelling one is going to be very difficult with a straight up evocation spell.  I would highly suggest just burning it to ash, this is supported pretty well by the books.  Here are three in spoilers just off hand...

Harry vs.

(click to show/hide)

Scorpion in Storm Front

Harry vs.

(click to show/hide)

Toad Demon in Storm Front

Harry vs.

(click to show/hide)

Zombies in Dead Beat

[Mr. Death]

It should be noted that since most constructs are formed with Thaumaturgy and a lot of power, counter-spelling one is going to be very difficult with a straight up evocation spell.  I would highly suggest just burning it to ash, this is supported pretty well by the books.  Here are three in spoilers just off hand...

Harry vs.

(click to show/hide)

Scorpion in Storm Front

Harry vs.

(click to show/hide)

Toad Demon in Storm Front

Harry vs.

(click to show/hide)

Zombies in Dead Beat

Then again, the Warden Swords pretty easily discorporate a zombie, and they're only a 6-shift counterspell.

Also, I don't think you need to spoiler stuff from Storm Front, and Harry doesn't use fire at all in Dead Beat.

I think it would be easy to just make that part of the catch if you want to safe some points when creating the construct, but it doesn't have to be.

Mechanically, I think it's a different thing if you attack the construct or the magic that holds it together. In both cases, you burn it with fire, but one would be a regular attack, the other would be a counterspell using fire magic.

That makes sense, with Harry occasionally saying fire has this quality when used with this intent.

[gojj]

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Haru.

I think fire's cleansing properties is better represented as justification for attempting to counterspell with fire than as satisfying the catch for any construct. Zombies have a weakness to fire in many fantasy settings, but if someone makes a rock golem, or summons a demon, I don't think those would be inherently weak to fire just because they are a construct.

[PirateJack]

The easiest way to manage it is to make Fire their Catch.

[Haru]

I'm not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing with Haru.

You'd be surprised how often I find myself in that exact same situation.

My idea was basically to say that when creating the construct, you could (but don't have to) give it fire as a(n additional) catch to lower the creation costs (however you calculate that) of the construct. That way, fire will always do more damage, and you can say that's because it burns away part of the magic as well as part of the construct. If you decide against it, you can simply say that you put enough magic into it so that the fire can't burn away enough to hurt it or something similar, but you'll have to pay full prize (or find another catch).