Elements: Why build a wizard?

[ARedthorn]

Asking an honest one here- since it's come up in another thread of mine- and probably should be it's own thread...

Neither I nor my players had ever considered the possibility that elements might be pointless, but it seems that's the dominant opinion hereabouts... ie, that since a block is a block is a block, any given element is as good as any given other element for any given effect whatsoever.


My GM, and me in the game I run (2 seperate groups, with me as the only intersect), tend to force any magic users to pay heed to the fluff of elements... for lots of reasons.

1- the books do, and this is a game world built on those books.
2- it helps limit mages and forces player creativity.
3- it makes mages worth playing. If, after all, I can use fire to do anything I might ever normally think of as fitting within the scope of Air/Water/Earth/Spirit, why would I ever spend an extra point on Evocation's multi-element versatility, when Channeling works just as well, cheaper?

Me, I read that side-bar on blocks to mean something completely different- ie, that direct damage shields, which is the only kind of block it references, can be effective regardless of element... I read it to mean that any element is capable of creating blocks, but that they would simply work differently. A spirit shield is raw force, fire would consume incoming attacks, water would dissolve them, earth would block or ground them, and air would deflect them... A block is a block is a block means that they all work even though they have their own distinct flavors, visuals, and possibly side effects.
Now, for direct damage and direct damage blocking, this is relatively straight-forward... flavor matters less in these cases... but when it comes to just about anything else, it matters a lot more. It stands to reason that bringing up a wall of fire in a door (block movement is a block is a block) might, you know, set the building on fire. Although I can't recall it specifically coming up in the core-book, it comes up in dresden often enough that the really neat thing about fire is that once you point it, and let it loose... it tends to be self-sustaining. The other less neat thing, is that it tends to sort of do it's own thing.

Now, mind, a good GM will probably give the player who tried it a fate point for the introduced complication (if it affects the player in any negative way, which it won't always)... and hopefully, a good player won't see that as a free supply of fate points.

But to me- it matters. If I were interested in running a game where that kind of fluff didn't come up at all, and elements didn't matter, we could play risk... not run a Story, with emphasis on the STORY.

Edit: almost forgot the question...
So then- how and when should/shouldn't elements matter to you in game, and why?

[KOFFEYKID]

Element choices are very important. Though in the last discussion (and this one) you are going from one end of extremism to the other.

It is important to keep in mind that the elements *are very versatile* but *are still limited to effects under their purview*.

For example, making lightning would be very difficult to do with fire water and spirit, but easy to do with air, and probably slightly less easy to do with earth.

[Farbot]

When I run a game I like to reward my players for creativity, so if my player can come up with a creative explanation/description as to why a certain element will work/function I will generally allow it (as long as it makes sense). But some times you've got to pull out the GM hammer and say no to that fire spell being able to put out the fire

[ARedthorn]

Element choices are very important. Though in the last discussion (and this one) you are going from one end of extremism to the other.

It is important to keep in mind that the elements *are very versatile* but *are still limited to effects under their purview*.

For example, making lightning would be very difficult to do with fire water and spirit, but easy to do with air, and probably slightly less easy to do with earth.

Umm... this is actually more or less my standpoint... but when I tried to give a couple examples of occasions when those purview limits would/should come into play, the response suggested to me that I was entirely off my rocker to suggest that they ever would come into play, or require my players to pay heed to them. (Unless I'm misreading those replies).

There is really no good reason, from a mechanical perspective, to use more than one element for evocation.

(Barring deliberate and highly specific attempts by the GM to force you to use or not use a given element.)

So your players' situation is a bit odd.

In which case, there's really no good reason from a mechanical perspective to play a wizard, hence the essence of this thread.

I don't really know why the developers chose to include the elements however they repeat the following concept over and over. A block is a block is a block. Same applies to any other concept (attacks, maneuvers, aspects, counterspells). What this means is that every block prevents the thing it was meant to prevent unless broken. Every aspect provides a +2 when invoked. Every attack functions in exactly the same way. There are no "better" aspects, no blocks that are less effective at blocking, no counterspell that is more effective than another. You can surmise the developer's intent all you like but they felt that this concept was important enough to clearly state repeatedly, so I expect they felt it was important to the game core.

Even established members of this community don't know why there are different elements in the game... sounds like it needs discussion.

Established players on this community, with loads of experience with this game, have commented that I seem to be off my rocker. I'm not trying to be bullheaded, or pick fights... I respect those other perspectives and want to understand them... if I'm unique in my perspective, then it's probable that I'm also wrong in it... the only way to find out is to explore it.

[Blackblade]

When I run a game I like to reward my players for creativity, so if my player can come up with a creative explanation/description as to why a certain element will work/function I will generally allow it (as long as it makes sense). But some times you've got to pull out the GM hammer and say no to that fire spell being able to put out the fire

Actually, I think using a "Fire" evocation to put out a burning building would be perfectly legitimate.  Not sure how you would model it, but fluff-wise, you could say that you were redistributing the heat within evenly across the entire street. 

[NicholasQuinn]

Elements are important for several reasons. Narrative effect, naturally; Wizard's themantically shouldn't, and aren't under the current system, equally skilled with every element. There are limitations as-to what each element can do, although these usually come down to the soft side of things; sound (air), light (spirit), mental effects (spirit), etc. Manoeuvres might also differ between the elements, or at least, give you a guideline as-to what is usual. Naturally inventive players (and just as importantly, inventive characters) might come up with interesting ways of doing things outside of an elements usual scope.

More over, elements can also act as aspects! At least, I deduce that from hints in the text, and run it as such. Might not actually be per RAW, but it seems to work. As such, compels can be thrown in to complicate things. "Oh, nice fire spell, shame about the flamable objects in the building..." This also means that in differentiating them, Assessments and Declarations are your friend. A block is a block is a block, but hey look, that block is specified to be using kinetic force to block moving objects; doesn't seem like it'd be much use against a flamethrower! Now you've an aspect to tag, to help you over-come the shield; and +2 is nothing to sneer at, it often makes up the difference. Or, you could try to tag for effect, inducing a compel, thus helping out in other ways.

Just remember, Wizard's specialised in elements learn to over-come such weaknesses. Fool them once, they might tweak their shield a little, like Harry did to make it more resistant to raw energies. Which would in essence, remove the aspect that had been discovered/created.

Just a few thoughts, hope it helps.

[KOFFEYKID]

Yes but then this came up:

The restrictions you use for what elements are capable of are rather harsh, it seems to me. I would certainly let someone push something around with a jet of water or use spirit to disrupt the emotional energies that hold a spell together. And so on.

My experience suggests that most people do not restrict the elements as heavily as you. And I don't think that the rulebook is on your side either.

In essence, you have changed the rules. It is not surprising that the consistency of the related rules is affected negatively by this.

And in response you said:

On a related note:Water, specifically... hell no. Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.

Which is patently absurd .

This is why people were saying your interpretation on the versatility of the elements is too narrow. Shooting a jet of water with a water evocation is *abolutely* within the purview of the water element. I've seen people use the water element to condense water out of thin air and cause people to slip, to move snow, to freeze things, to pick up traces of blood, and other such things. These are all things water should be able to do fairly easily, but water wont be throwing out gouts of fire any time soon.

[Haru]

I think they will come into play at the very least, when taking aspects into account. A fire attack could invoke an aspect like "flammable", "puddle of gasoline", etc, that would do nothing for other attacks. On the other hand, an aspect like "dripping wet" might be invoked to help defend against a fire attack, but it would do nothing against any other element.

And then, as you said already, there are secondary effects and fallout, that will be different for every element.

And of course, the different elements will get you different consequences, when they inflict enough stress.

But some times you've got to pull out the GM hammer and say no to that fire spell being able to put out the fire

I have to disagree. A specialisation in fire magic does not have to only result in creating fire, it can also result in controlling fire. And if you don't control the fire directly, you could create sort of a fire bubble above it to burn all oxygen before it can reach the fire, so it will suffocate.

making lightning would be very difficult to do with fire water and spirit

Again, it all comes down to how the character understands the world and his magic.
Water magic can create and manipulate entropy, even more: lightning usually is created in clouds, which in return are composed of billions and billions of water molecules.
Fire might create enough heat to separate enough electrons from the molecules in the air to make it conductive for a nearby source of electricity to jumps to the target.
For Spirit, it might just be the way the magic manifests for this character. Sort of like the dark force lightning thing instead of just telekinesis.

Yes, sometimes it might require a lot of technobabble to work, and if the character does not have an appropriate background, I would of course deny it. But with the right setup, almost everything could work, and if a player can pull something out of their hat to save the day, I would go with the Rule of Cool and let him at it. That is, if the explanation as to why it should work makes sense. "I drench him in water, so he will burn to death" and explanations like that are, of course, nonsense.

[computerking]

These are all things water should be able to do fairly easily, but water wont be throwing out gouts of fire any time soon.

This brings up a question I have: Can Evocation be used to perform magic that combines 2 or more elements? Water won't make a gout of flame, but Using Earth to make pure Sodium and add water... Boom, fireball! I'm not advocating allowing something that technical, but something simpler, like Fire + Earth = Lava might be more in line with the Dresdenverse.

[ARedthorn]

Koffey:

first off- the reference in the water section on shooting out a jet of water... was frankly something I overlooked. I don't know how, but my eyes completely glazed over for that sentence. Now that I've had it pointed out to me, I'm ok with it. Not entirely comfortable, since the fluff seems like it contradicts itself a little on water, but I can work around it. Water as I knew it from the books and from the RPG was explicitly not about actual water, but about the philosophical context as it were... erosion, change, decay. Seems the game writers decided to include a little literal in with it, and I can deal.

Text-book example of a misread on my part... and I took it back as soon as someone pointed it out.

My other two points still stand- if an established player thinks there's no mechanical advantage to multiple elements, and another doesn't even know why they bothered to put them in the game... then I'm thoroughly lost... because the whole reason my groups take the approach we do is to apply that advantage and give them a reason.


Like I said- my opinion and yours on this seem to be the same. It comes down to fluff, but fate is a system where fluff matters.

[Tsunami]

Elements have meaning.

That does not however mean that certain effects are prohibited "just because".
As long as you can describe an effect in terms of your element, you can use this element to create the effect.

Now, what is a valid description is of course open to debate, and only limited by the players' creativity.
If for your group there is no water throwing with water magic, that's valid too. Personally i don't think that's in keeping with the novels, but as long as all people around the table are on the same page about what's allowed and whats not i don't see a problem with it.
Edit: The Water example is obsolete, i know. But i'm too lazy to think up a different one 

However, i think we can agree that you will not be throwing fire, or creating windstorms by casting a Water Evocation. Or irrigating a garden with a Fire spell.

Elements give you justification for certain effects.

The technical part on the other hand is identical for all of them. Once placed, an aspect created with Water, is just as effective as one created with Fire.

There also is one part where elemental differences have a technical effect, and that's catches. Fire evocation is a lot more effective than a Kinetic blast against a Black Court Vamp for example.

[sinker]

You have to keep in mind that there are two sides to this; the mechanical side and the thematic side.

Mechanically all elements do the exact same things in the exact same way with no difference between them. They all attack, maneuver or block and they are all equally good at doing those things. There is no mechanical difference between a fire maneuver and an air maneuver, or a spirit block and an earth block.

Thematically they have differences. Thematically the air maneuvers will be about movement, the fire maneuvers about fear of damage, the earth maneuvers about physical impediments, the water maneuvers about weakness or change. But mechanically these all provide a +2 to whatever I'm doing.

In the other thread you spoke about moving something with air. Can I do that with fire? Not without a very creative solution (I'm thinking vacuums, but that's beside the point). But what am I doing when I move something with air? Am I trying to actually move something? We are likely not in conflict and it can be done via thaumaturgy. Am I trying to make that something an impediment to attacks or anything else? Then I'm blocking, which can be done just as effectively in other ways with other elements. Am I trying to assist or influence a future action? I'm maneuvering, which can be done just as effectively in other ways with other elements.

This is the point. Mechanically there is no difference between elements. If that bothers you, then you're using the wrong system, because this system is all about the theme and the narration over mechanics. If you're setting the narration above mechanics than this a complete non-issue.

[Haru]

This brings up a question I have: Can Evocation be used to perform magic that combines 2 or more elements? Water won't make a gout of flame, but Using Earth to make pure Sodium and add water... Boom, fireball! I'm not advocating allowing something that technical, but something simpler, like Fire + Earth = Lava might be more in line with the Dresdenverse.

Harry did something like it in WN. He created a wall of fire and combined it with earth magic to create a wall of fire that would be kept up by earth stability for a longer time without him having to keep pouring power into it. Mechanically, it would probably just be a declaration to be able to control 2 more shifts put into the duration of the spell. It is however not possible to add up the different specialisations or foci to boost your double element spells.

[sinker]

Also something I forgot. You asked why build a wizard if a focused practitioner is stronger, and the answer is that they aren't. A focused practitioner can't take any specializations and even if they could they would have a max pyramid of +2,+1. They are completely limited by their lore and their foci.

Of course that doesn't answer why you wouldn't specialize in one element as a wizard, but then again I would think you would. Seems like a good idea to me.

[computerking]

My other two points still stand- if an established player thinks there's no mechanical advantage to multiple elements, and another doesn't even know why they bothered to put them in the game... then I'm thoroughly lost... because the whole reason my groups take the approach we do is to apply that advantage and give them a reason.

Mechanically, as I see it, the advantage to multiple elements comes from the narrative possibilities put before the players. If you have a team of Fire Channelers, for example, They're going to either get their butts handed to them or do a lot of damage to themselves if sent to retrieve an object from a section of the NeverNever with the "Combustible Mists" aspect, where Fire magic will cause a catastrophic chain reaction, and getting into a fight there may result in the characters avoiding use of their main defense and offense. Yeah, the one that casts the Fire-based block may get the fate point for starting the explosion, but the whole team would probably be conceding in short order.

Another advantage involves using Declarations or Assessments to gain Aspects that can be tagged for advantage.  Fire and Earth magic may both do the same thing mechanically, damage-wise, but guess which one gets the +2 to get through the wall with the "Solid Stone" aspect on it?

The imaginative use of aspects can make the difference in showcasing the advantages that you (Or your players) don't see in Evocation's flexibility.