variance in manouvre strength

[ways and means]

It seems to me that there is an awefully large of variance in the effectiveness of manouvres on the one hand a +2 to a roll isnice but it pales in comparison to some of the invoke for effects for example a illusionist I'm my party placed the aspect friends look like enemies on a troll (he made the troll unsure of who his friends or enemies where) and I invoked it for effect to make the troll use idea turn to attack its alli.  es
which turned out to be far more effective than any two shift effect even if it did give the troll a shiny fate point, am I doing this wrong or are manoeuvres meant to be thst effective for three shifts?

[devonapple]

3 shifts is probably too cheap. If you are placing that maneuver on the troll, then the troll gets to save against it. Also, you need to beat the troll by at least 1 to make the Aspect "sticky" and available to be tagged in future exchanges.

In this case, it sounds like a maneuver which the troll might resist using Conviction. Probably not the troll's best skill, unless it is a spellcaster or has other reasons to be particular resolute. So a lucky spellcaster's roll against an unlucky target's roll might make a simple 3-shift effect work. But to guarantee success, the caster has to overcome the target's best possible resistance roll, plus 1 to make it sticky.

If the troll has Conviction at +1, then the Maneuver should probably be at least 6 shifts (in case it rolls a 4) and possibly more (if it stands a chance of invoking any Aspects to increase its roll).

But, yes, as far as how useful Aspects can be, there can definitely be a wide variance in potential effect, and I think that rewards creativity.

[Taran]

I read somewhere on these boards that, for a maneuver to be effective, the power must at least equal the resisting skill. (correct this if it's wrong).

So if I'm doing an illusion spell vs someones conviction the power of the spell dictates who needs to roll.  So a power 5 illusion would force everyone with 5 or less conviction to make a roll vs the illusion.  Anyone with 6 or higher conviction is immune.

I'll try to find the thread in which I read this.

EDIT: here it is:  http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23886.0.html

[Tsunami]

I read somewhere on these boards that, for a maneuver to be effective, the power must at least equal the resisting skill. (correct this if it's wrong).

So if I'm doing an illusion spell vs someones conviction the power of the spell dictates who needs to roll.  So a power 5 illusion would force everyone with 5 or less conviction to make a roll vs the illusion.  Anyone with 6 or higher conviction is immune.

I'll try to find the thread in which I read this.

EDIT: here it is:  http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23886.0.html

that's incorrect.

You simply cast your maneuver at whichever power you feel appropriate.
With 3 shifts being the minimum for almost any maneuver possible.

The Target then gets to roll with the resisting skill, and if it beats the power of your maneuver, it gets to avoid it.
Otherwise the aspect is placed. (Non-Sticky if defense equals maneuver power, Sticky if defense is less than maneuver power)

Just like normal maneuvers.

[devonapple]

for a maneuver to be effective, the power must at least equal the resisting skill. (correct this if it's wrong).

Emphasis on "effective." You are free to lowball the shifts on an Evocation Maneuver, or put in many extra shifts to account for die rolls, unknown resisting skill, and Fate Point expenditures. Three is still the minimum of 3 shifts to get the ball rolling (though a net result of 0 still lands the Aspect, albeit a fragile Aspect).

[Tallyrand]

I agree that Invoking for effect is more powerful than gaining a +2, but personally I prefer it that way.  Invoking for effect is taking narrative control in the game and thinking of something that makes the fight more interesting, getting a +2 is basically just the easy way out.

[Haru]

The 3 shift maneuver is the minimum requirement of shifts to do a magical maneuver. To be honest, I don't really see the point in this rather arbitrary number there. Any half decent caster is easily going to control 3 shifts of power with ease. And since you can put more shifts into a maneuver spell to make it harder to resist, which you probably should do anyway, if you don't want the spell to be resisted. If you remove the minimum-3-shift-maneuver rule, spray maneuvers would be easier to handle, but they would not be near as effective against anyone with any points in the resisting skill.

So if I'm doing an illusion spell vs someones conviction the power of the spell dictates who needs to roll.  So a power 5 illusion would force everyone with 5 or less conviction to make a roll vs the illusion.  Anyone with 6 or higher conviction is immune.

I guess, you could do it like that to reduce the need to roll, but a character with conviction 6 can still roll a -2 or less and therefore fall for the illusion, it is just very unlikely.
I would certainly let you try a lesser maneuver against a stronger opponent. You might get lucky, or you wasted an exchange, which could have been avoided by spending a fate point for a more powerful spell. A 2 shift maneuver against a character with an opposing skill of 5? Go for it, he might just roll that -4. More likely you just missed your one chance to do something useful to save you life.

If you then invoke for effect, you have an approximate measure of the power by simply looking at how much shifts were dedicated to the spell.

[Becq]

Keep in mind that when you invoke an aspect (maneuver-placed or otherwise) to trigger a compel, the target can always simply buy out of the compel for a Fate point.  This assumes the target has a Fate point, of course ... but if he didn't have one before the compel, he will on the next exchange.

[toturi]

Why would the illusion maneuver be resisted by Conviction? Wouldn't it be Discipline (if it is some form of mental compulsion) or Perception/Lore (if it plays with the victim's senses) be more appropriate? The spell isn't forcibly wearing down the target, is it?