pull spell, others?

[wyvern]

Yes, your intent is to break their weapon.  But, unless you actually push them all the way to taken out, you don't get to declare consequences.  If they decide that their weapon survived your hit, but the force of the impact sprained their wrist?  That's what happened.  If they decide they got mostly out of the way, taking only a cut across their arm?  That's what happened.  The section on breaking objects with might refers explicitly to barriers - a far cry from being able to just casually destroy your opponent's weapons.

How do you use craftsmanship to attack an item held by an enemy?  That's a very good question.  Thank you for exactly making my point for me.

And what on earth gives you the idea that you can either 1) outright snatch a weapon with might, or 2) break it as a supplemental action?

Regardless, I'm going to cease this discussion after this post.  I've made my point, and given the relatively loose nature of the rules, neither of us will be able to make any sort of absolute proof of our position; I'll simply stand back and let others reading this make their own conclusions.

[Belial666]

My point is that while disarming someone might be a maneuer to apply an aspect on the character, breaking a weapon is not a consequence or aspect on the character; it is an effect on an object they are holding. You can break objects. If you don't like this interpretation, OK. I'll be just making a maneuer to apply the "broken" sticky aspect on the object. Frankly, it is easier and applying aspects on objects is covered by the rules as well. They can later use craftmanship to remove the "broken" aspect by repairing if they want - of course, repairs take a long time so for the purposes of combat the aspect can't be removed. Which is the whole point here.

[Bernd]

My point is that while disarming someone might be a maneuer to apply an aspect on the character, breaking a weapon is not a consequence or aspect on the character; it is an effect on an object they are holding. You can break objects. If you don't like this interpretation, OK. I'll be just making a maneuer to apply the "broken" sticky aspect on the object. Frankly, it is easier and applying aspects on objects is covered by the rules as well. They can later use craftmanship to remove the "broken" aspect by repairing if they want - of course, repairs take a long time so for the purposes of combat the aspect can't be removed. Which is the whole point here.

I don't think you can put the aspect "Broken" on a weapon. It's a bit like putting the aspect "Dead" (or at least "Incapacitated") on an enemy. Since objects have a stress track, you have to destroy it via attacks. You also have to go through the stress and consequences when you want to kill someone via magic, so why shouldn't you have to go through the stress track of weapons?

[dlw32]

Okay, all interesting points, but getting back to my start... well, maybe let's simplify. I want a spell to use magnetism to pull a metal object I can see to me.  What would that look like?

Part b, what changes if the object is being held by someone?

[Bernd]

Okay, all interesting points, but getting back to my start... well, maybe let's simplify. I want a spell to use magnetism to pull a metal object I can see to me.  What would that look like?

Part b, what changes if the object is being held by someone?

Part a: It's a maneuver. Depending on the weight of the object, it requires at least 3 shifts. Maybe modified by the Lifting table on page 321.

Part b. The same, but the target has a Might resisting roll.

In both cases: I'd say the aspect is "Lost the Object". If it's fragile, the target can get it back after a few exchanges or after it was tagged (or, of course, with a counter-maneuver). If it's sticky, the target has to do a maneuver to get it back (it's like in the other corner of the room or maybe the caster of the spell has it in his hand, what would lead to a resisting roll against the counter-maneuver). In my opinion, the aspect "Disarmed" can only be used, if the target has no other weapon at hand.

[wyvern]

Well, if it's in your zone, relatively small, and unattended, I'd say that falls under the Mundane Effects category.  I.E. if there's nothing that would've prevented you from walking over and grabbing it in the same time frame, it's not a serious spell, and doesn't even cost stress; at worst, this sort of thing is a supplemental action.

If it's bigger, or farther away, or there's something else complicating things (like trying to grab the keys to the cell you're stuck in), it becomes a maneuver - as posted by Bernd.

If somebody is holding the thing, it becomes a two-part operation: a maneuver to disarm, opposed by... probably might, but maybe alertness (if it's something they might not notice moving, like a key hanging off their belt), or potentially weapons or guns for appropriate items.  Maybe even athletics, if they describe a defensive action like turning around to impose their body mass between you and the suddenly mobile item.

And then a second action to actually grab the item yourself; if it's relatively small, that's probably a supplemental action, doable as part of the same exchange at the normal cost of -1 to the initial maneuver; if it's large, bulky, critically important for you to have (like a weapon of any stripe), or farther away, I'd require a second full action to actually get the item to you - though if you put a duration on your initial spell, I wouldn't charge extra mental stress for doing so.  Though, if you've got a fate point to spare and an appropriate aspect to tag for effect...

This is likely to change with GM, though; some will be more (or less) lenient.  It'll also vary by game type; if you're running a more cinematic game, where people casually use guns to disarm folks, drive off bridges and somehow land right-side-up and keep going, etc - then directly grabbing an enemy's weapon off a maneuver is totally appropriate.  (And they'll happily do the same to you, given the opportunity.)

[greycouncilmember]

Ok, so based on some discussions I'm trying to understand this.  dlw32 and I had talked and we're still confused.  There are two possible situations that each seem to need to be treated as separate spells.  The reason this matters is because they would be two different rotes I think.

Spell a.  Electromagnetically pull a metallic object out of a person's hand would be done as a maneuver of something like disarmed.  I think this works well.

Spell b.  If you wanted to take that same metallic object and throw it at the person to hurt them, that would be an attack. 

They can't be the same rote right?

[wyvern]

Correct.  Mechanically, they can't be the same rote due to the different thing you're doing.

IC, you could justify this as the difference between pulling something (which requires only a strong magnetic field), and pushing something (which requires a much more carefully shaped magnetic field, as well as an actual flowing current to produce the appropriate force, not to mention the much finer requirements needed to aim it).

That said, if there was a metal spear on the far side of the guy, pointed directly at him, I'd let a player use rote a to attack, as a weapon rating equal to the normal power of that maneuver.  However, setting up this sort of situation would probably require some form of declaration or assessment to generate an appropriate "standing in front of a spear" aspect that you could tag for effect in order to make your rote function differently from normal.

[greycouncilmember]

Correct.  Mechanically, they can't be the same rote due to the different thing you're doing.

IC, you could justify this as the difference between pulling something (which requires only a strong magnetic field), and pushing something (which requires a much more carefully shaped magnetic field, as well as an actual flowing current to produce the appropriate force, not to mention the much finer requirements needed to aim it).

That said, if there was a metal spear on the far side of the guy, pointed directly at him, I'd let a player use rote a to attack, as a weapon rating equal to the normal power of that maneuver.  However, setting up this sort of situation would probably require some form of declaration or assessment to generate an appropriate "standing in front of a spear" aspect that you could tag for effect in order to make your rote function differently from normal.

But could you do spell A (taking a weapon) as an attack instead of a maneuver? 

[wyvern]

Generally speaking, no.  By the base rules, no.  Were I GMing, I might allow it in some unusual circumstances, as I outlined in the third paragraph of my previous post.

Or am I misreading your question, here?  What exactly do you think you're doing where taking a weapon away from someone is an attack?

[Ophidimancer]

Hmm ... what if you cast it as a Maneuver to apply an Aspect of In My Magnetic Grip to the weapon?  Thereafter, as long as the Aspect is still on the weapon, the caster can use his Weapons rating to make bludgeoning attacks or throw the weapon away.  The initial spell would be defended against with the target's Might, and the bludgeoning attacks would be defended against with Athletics as normal.  Does that sound ok?

[greycouncilmember]

It was all about trying to get the two spells to be a single rote.  If I could make the maneuver of disarming an attack that would make it a single attack rote. if it doesn't work at all in that way then that's fine.  Thanks.

[Belial666]

Just make a telekinesis Rote that replicates throwing things.

Ridiculously Efficient Throwing Rote MkVIII
Spirit (Force) or Earth (Gravity/Magnetism)
8 shifts of power, requires something to be thrown.
With a word and a gesture you throw the target of the spell, using the object (or creature!) as a thrown weapon. The Power of the spell is your effective Might to judge what objects you can throw; the current spell could throw up to heavy furniture. Your skill for throwing the object is your Control roll. Weapon Rating and other effects depend upon what you are using as a thrown object. Typically, keys, small stones and other light objects are weapon 0. Knives, average stones, glass bottles and the like are weapon 1. Baseball bats, heavy stones, chairs, dogs and the like are weapon 2. Axes, swords, spears, small boulders, most adults and light furniture are weapon 3. Medium boulders, heavyset adults, heavy furniture, bikes, ponies and the like are weapon 4. Therefore, about the limit of the effective weapon rating is half your Power or less. You could substantially increase that if you are creative; a 200-pound boulder may only be weapon 4 against a vampire but a couple of gallons of Holy Water might not. And 20 pounds of TNT rigged to go boom if thrown would ruin most peoples' day.



Disadvantages;
1) You got a crappy Weapon Rating.
2) You need a lot of Power to throw really big things. Throwing even a small car would require a 10 power rote.

Advantages;
You can both attack and disarm. Attack by throwing the target into a wall or something big into a target. Disarm by throwing the target's weapon. If they want to keep their weapon, that's OK; they get thrown along with it.
You can effectively attack two targets at once; just throw one into the other. You're technically attacking only one and using the other as a weapon but both should take the damage.
You can totally hose someone in specific situations; throw off a bridge or high building, throw before a passing car/train, throw into the sea/magma and so on.
Magic Immunity does not defend against throwing objects into somebody.
You can get creative; the rote allows you to throw much bigger stuff than you normally could. Bombs away!
You could totally use this as a social attack; throw their pants off. (OK, I got a bit carried away)