Relevant Magic...

[Madmacabre]

Hello all...

As a starter, I am not experienced with the FATE/FUDGE system, which may explain my level of confusion.

This said, I got some question with regards to the mechanics of the evocation system.

When using evocation to create an attack, the system is well comprehensible. You select the power level, you pay the stress, you roll to see if you can control the spell and voilą! Similarity, the shield/block mechanics are quite simple.

Where I got confused is when using Evocation Magic to create the "other" magical effect, which falls under the Maneuver category.

So, let's say one of the PC decides to cover one of his target in WEB/CHAINS/SLIME to essentially root him in place. Using the Evocation mechanics, he would build up a spell that would put a temporary "Rooted" aspect on his target. Clear enough...

Where I get confused is when considering the actual effect on the target.

So, if I understand the rules correctly, the only effect suffered by the target is the fact that he has a "rooted" temporary aspect on him. To push this argument one step further, he only suffer from the situation if someone tags his temporary aspect.

Is that right?

After creating a number of characters to test the rules, I noticed that spell casters are especially low on Fate Points. So putting temporary aspects on targets are close to useless. Therefore the whole Maneuver category of evocation spells may not be as useful.

What am I missing?


Thanks for the help guys!

[Korwin]

The first use of an Aspect (after finding or creating it) is free.

[Madmacabre]

Oh,very good point. I forgot about that one.

But it does not change the fact that unless the target is tagged, he does not suffer any effect from the Evocation maneuver.


But my fault...maybe I didn't ask the question right...


A Spellcaster wants to immobilize his target. What are his options?

In that case, would a BLOCK action be more suitable (now that I think of it...maybe)? You create a block to prevent movement? COuld potentially be even better as you can put duration to the spell!

Mmm...very interesting.

[Belmonte]

He would tag the aspect with the free tag for effect, and the target would be just that -- rooted in place until something happened.  I'd say until he made a Might or Athletics check to break free of the roots. He'd have to exceed the caster's Discipline targeting roll.

[iago]

Block is a good concept to apply here; add some duration to it and you're off to the races. Then, think about a special case for blocking that we discuss in Playing the Game: the grapple.

Because if you wanted to hold someone in place *without* a spell, what would you do?

Often that's the trick to finding the path for implementation -- figure out what the mundane version of the action is, and how that would be expressed in the system, then take that system expression and translate it into a spell effect.

[Belmonte]

Here's a question.  The grappler (mundane) has to maintain it every round.

Does a caster?  I lean towards no, but Orbius doesn't say.  Or in other words, is the spell fire and forget?  Well, doesn't maintain it in that he doesn't spend an action.  He still has to spend shifts towards exchanges.

[iago]

I'd follow the logic of an ongoing spell effect as outlined elsewhere in the chapter: YS252 suggests 1 shift of power gets you +1 exchange of persistence.  So you want to lock someone down for a few exchanges, you'll need to establish both the strength of the effect (the equivalent Might result) and how long you want it to run for.

[LCDarkwood]

But it does not change the fact that unless the target is tagged, he does not suffer any effect from the Evocation maneuver.

He suffers an effect if it makes sense to you and your group that he should suffer an effect in the fiction. Intent precedes mechanics. I can't emphasize it enough.

When someone's actions are constrained by an aspect, it's called a compel.