Spell for Critique: Stone Bridge

[jybil178]

While it doesn't add anything directly to the conversation, and doesn't really prove anything.... Harry did it... kinda...

In White Night  ((book 9, White Night))

(click to show/hide)

Harry used his fire evocation to take all the heat out of the water, and in turn freeze and use the ice as a bridge for the girls Thomas was protecting, Thomas and Murphy, and it ended up failing on his way over, somewhat..

What you could take directly from that then, is using it as an example as a base for what you'd need... Harry is a very Powerful wizard, and he barely managed to make the bridge.  It could only handle so much weight at a time, and was also very short lived.  I would think, that unless you could manage something self sustaining, like in the example above, the stone bridge then would maybe require your continued efforts to keep it up, even if it well, does have the duration.. that would most likely only be fluff...

Hope I'm not just rambling on without a reason ;P

[infusco]

Ah, thank you - I just found this on YS 99, under "Invoking for Effect," it says: "As with regular invocations, you can also spend fate points to invoke aspects on the scene or on other characters for effect."

So yes, you can "Invoke for Effect" on an external Aspect, but it is not a free tag - it costs a Fate Point. My apologies for the confusion.

Uhm, the point I was trying to make is that ANY Invoke can be free-tagged. It says specifically you can Invoke for Effect on someone else's aspect, and nowhere does it say you cannot free tag for an Invoke for Effect. Again, you just can't free-tag an aspect for a Compel.

The difference between an Invoke and a Compel is simple: an Invoke, whether for reroll, +2, or effect, is when you use an Aspect to advantage your's or your allies' actions. A Compel is when you use an Aspect to negatively affect someone, essentially removing their free will by either directing an action, or limiting them.

[jybil178]

Err... I was under the assumption that that was the reasoning behind the word difference.. That an Invoke is the specific expenditure of a fate point to use on an aspect, while Tagging an aspect allows you to freely take advantage of a newly placed aspect on someone, something, or somewhere...

Granted, I need to do a far more in-depth study of the rules >.<

[infusco]

Err... I was under the assumption that that was the reasoning behind the word difference.. That an Invoke is the specific expenditure of a fate point to use on an aspect, while Tagging an aspect allows you to freely take advantage of a newly placed aspect on someone, something, or somewhere...

Granted, I need to do a far more in-depth study of the rules >.<

Tagging just means it's free. That's why it's small sub-section within the bigger Invoking section. From the very first line: "A tag is a special move that you may be able to do when you're invoking aspects other than your own." (YS106)

[jybil178]

Tagging just means it's free. That's why it's small sub-section within the bigger Invoking section. From the very first line: "A tag is a special move that you may be able to do when you're invoking aspects other than your own." (YS106)

Ahh, now I see what your saying.. But you can only Tag an aspect under certain conditions, correct?

[Tbora]

Ahh, now I see what your saying.. But you can only Tag an aspect under certain conditions, correct?

Nope.

You just need to tag it quickly from the point the Aspect is introduced (the absolute longest the tag should be available is a scene).

[jybil178]

Nope.

You just need to tag it quickly from the point the Aspect is introduced (the absolute longest the tag should be available is a scene).

But isn't that the requirement in itself?  YS106, taken right after the first sentence infusco quoted,

"Whenever you make a roll to gain access
to or create an aspect, as per the list on page 105,
you may invoke it one time, and one time only, for
free—as in, you don’t spend from your pool of
fate points to take advantage of the aspect."

So technically, unless I'm getting the word wrong, the basic requirement for an aspect to be Tagged for free, is that it has to be created or made known to yourself through a roll you've previously made?

[infusco]

But isn't that the requirement in itself?  YS106, taken right after the first sentence infusco quoted,

"Whenever you make a roll to gain access
to or create an aspect, as per the list on page 105,
you may invoke it one time, and one time only, for
free—as in, you don’t spend from your pool of
fate points to take advantage of the aspect."

So technically, unless I'm getting the word wrong, the basic requirement for an aspect to be Tagged for free, is that it has to be created or made known to yourself through a roll you've previously made?

In most cases, especially in a conflict, an aspect that you create has be tagged almost immediately, either by yourself or an ally of your choosing. At worst, it has to be done within the same scene. I'd say it would have to depend on what brought about that aspect in the first place. A maneuver should definitely be within an exchange or two, but I'd say a consequence could be free-tagged anytime in that scene.

[jybil178]

And I only say this, cause I thought it was cool, and I basically got the idea from you, so I wanted to give credit where its due, hehe...

You could basically make an Aurora Borealis kinda bridge, and walk over it with all the pretty lights... maybe even invoke it a second time, to daze and confuse the bad guys as they stare on in dumbfoundedness...

But basically, using the earth element, instead of real rock ((which sounds like it may be a little scarce in the current example)) using the Earth's magnetic field, imbuing it with a lot of extra juice, then steadying it to be used as a literal bridge..

I could see it as one or maybe even two castings...

The two casting version, both would be earth evocations, meant to place aspects on the scene..

The first, staring at 3 shifts for the maneuver of "The Aurora" as it visibly gathers the earth's magnetic forces, then however many more you'd think you need for added time, though technically, you'd only need it to be tagged in the next spell mechanically.. I'd prefer to keep both spells running though, cause it would just make more sense thematically...

The second spell is where a lot more heavy lifting comes into play.. Another start at 3 shifts for the next maneuver, "Bridging the Gap".  Then another 2 shifts of energy, to create an effect large enough to effect the whole zone.  Finishing off with probably a base of at least 2, maybe even 4 or 5 for duration, so everyone can get away.  So thats a base of between 7 to 10 shifts.  Tag "The Aurora" to help you with a +2, I doubt any GM would argue that, then Invoke for Effect your Aspect of "Bridging the Gap" with your free tag for bringing it into play...

pg. 106, Tagging

"A tag is a special move that you may be able to
do when you’re invoking aspects other than your
own. Whenever you make a roll to gain access
to or create an aspect, as per the list on page 105,
you may invoke it one time, and one time only, for
free—as in, you don’t spend from your pool of
fate points to take advantage of the aspect."

It then goes on to say that a tag is only subject to the key limitation, that it must be used almost immediately after the aspect has been brought into play.  So, from this, I would assume that you Could tag for the normal +2 bonus, or you could Invoke for Effect, or any other effects normally allowed through invoking...  Anyway, sorry for the rambling...  Would love to hear if my idea is completely impossible by the rules, and if it even just sounds flat out stupid, hehe >.<

[jybil178]

In most cases, especially in a conflict, an aspect that you create has be tagged almost immediately, either by yourself or an ally of your choosing. At worst, it has to be done within the same scene. I'd say it would have to depend on what brought about that aspect in the first place. A maneuver should definitely be within an exchange or two, but I'd say a consequence could be free-tagged anytime in that scene.

I think we are pretty much on the same page.. Not sure what we are arguing about  >.< ... But I would maybe argue with a consequence aspect... Need to read up on exactly how it explains them again to say anything for sure, hehe...

[devonapple]

I think we are pretty much on the same page.. Not sure what we are arguing about  >.< ... But I would maybe argue with a consequence aspect... Need to read up on exactly how it explains them again to say anything for sure, hehe...

The crux of the recent discussion was that noretoc (and I only mention this to explain how this discussion took the latest turn, not to indict noretoc in any way for the suggestion) suggested:

If you really wanted to use a maneuver and aspect maybe something like this.  Use the spell to create a maneuver to give the zone the Aspect "Filled with rocks".  Then use your free tag to make a declaration.  "The rocks are stable enough to cross over on."  Then anyone can cross them i think?

When noretoc suggested using a free tag to make a declaration "The rocks are stable enough to cross over on" it sounded to me like the free tag was being used for an Invoke for Effect that would normally cost a Fate Point to use.

Even though that was an incorrect use of an Invoke for Effect, the subsequent discussion nevertheless revealed a flaw in my own understanding of the rules, which was mostly an academic terminology dispute.

[jybil178]

Think my biggest problem was that I misread and glossed over things >,<  I was practically just repeating what was being said for the longest time *sigh*  Feel pretty stupid now ...

So, I think we are all good as far as arguing goes... Did we come to a general consensus on how such a thing could be done?  And was my idea doable, and seeming to be right as far as shifts go, if it could work?

And did you want that spell for a game session that is going to happen, or already has happened?  If it has, how did it go?

[devonapple]

So, I think we are all good as far as arguing goes... Did we come to a general consensus on how such a thing could be done?  And was my idea doable, and seeming to be right as far as shifts go, if it could work?

I think I like it as an X-shift Evocation where X is the Zone Border, with a 2-shift premium to make it a "Zone-wide" effect (even though the Zone is just a point along a Zone Border), plus extra shifts for Duration - that reflects the spellcaster having to give it energy. I think calling it a Block on the Zone Border is an elegant way to justify the spell effect.

And did you want that spell for a game session that is going to happen, or already has happened?  If it has, how did it go?

This is a postmortem discussion - this already happened in game, as I had originally described, and I was looking for community feedback on how I handled it. It seemed like a challenge to stat properly.

The first, staring at 3 shifts for the maneuver of "The Aurora" as it visibly gathers the earth's magnetic forces, then however many more you'd think you need for added time, though technically, you'd only need it to be tagged in the next spell mechanically.. I'd prefer to keep both spells running though, cause it would just make more sense thematically...

You would want four shifts to make the Aspect Sticky - then it would last the scene without needing extra duration.

The second spell is where a lot more heavy lifting comes into play.. Another start at 3 shifts for the next maneuver, "Bridging the Gap".  Then another 2 shifts of energy, to create an effect large enough to effect the whole zone.  Finishing off with probably a base of at least 2, maybe even 4 or 5 for duration, so everyone can get away.  So thats a base of between 7 to 10 shifts.  Tag "The Aurora" to help you with a +2, I doubt any GM would argue that, then Invoke for Effect your Aspect of "Bridging the Gap" with your free tag for bringing it into play...
It then goes on to say that a tag is only subject to the key limitation, that it must be used almost immediately after the aspect has been brought into play.  So, from this, I would assume that you Could tag for the normal +2 bonus, or you could Invoke for Effect, or any other effects normally allowed through invoking...  

And this is where the confusion is. You can "Invoke" for a free re-roll or a +2 to a roll. And you can get that for free using the "free tag" rule for creating or discovering a new Aspect.

You can "Invoke for Effect" as well, but it is going to cost a Fate Point no matter what. Any time you are using an Aspect to make something happen without a die roll, a Fate Point has to change hands.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on an NPC's Aspect, it is equal to a Compel, and they get a Fate Point from you.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on a Scene Aspect - even one you created - you give the GM a Fate Point.
If you "Invoke for Effect" on one of your own Aspects, you give the GM a Fate Point.

I think we're all on the same page now.

[devonapple]

I think we are pretty much on the same page.. Not sure what we are arguing about  >.< ... But I would maybe argue with a consequence aspect... Need to read up on exactly how it explains them again to say anything for sure, hehe...

The easiest way to visualize how the Consequence Aspect works is a brutal melee fight. You do X-shifts of damage to an opponent, and they take the Consequence "Broken Arm" - the next time you act, you can:
a) free tag that "Broken Arm" Aspect for a +2 to an Intimidation check because they are wounded and easier to cow
b) free tag that "Broken Arm" Aspect for a +2 to another attack as you target the weak arm
c) Invoke for Effect/Compel the "Broken Arm" aspect and say "My opponent's arm is broken - he's not sure he wants to fight me anymore, so he surrenders and agrees to tell me what he knows" - if the GM accepts, you hand him a Fate Point and he gives it to the NPC, who may or may not get to use it in a later conflict with you

[Drachasor]

You could basically make an Aurora Borealis kinda bridge, and walk over it with all the pretty lights... maybe even invoke it a second time, to daze and confuse the bad guys as they stare on in dumbfoundedness...

But basically, using the earth element, instead of real rock ((which sounds like it may be a little scarce in the current example)) using the Earth's magnetic field, imbuing it with a lot of extra juice, then steadying it to be used as a literal bridge..

I think this and stuff like it (stairs of starlight, so forth) would be better done with spirit.