Spell Effects Question

[JediDresden]

Can a spell do damage and have a 'secondary effect'?  For example a 'windstorm' spell that does damage and make those effected make a check to keep things from being pulled from their hands?  I thought there was something in the books about an option where they could do both, but I am not finding it this morning.  I guess this could be spin on a good roll, but it just makes sense that things could get lost in a windstorm. 

I also believe you can do damage and place an aspect on a target - it would just be the damage you want to do plus 3, at least, for an aspect, right? Like a lightning spell that does Weapon:3 and place the aspect 'tazed' on the target would be at least a power 6 spell, right?

[admiralducksauce]

That's how I'd rule it.  +3 shifts for an aspect with whatever other damage you want.

[Todjaeger]

It would also depend somewhat on the spell, the type of effect desired, and the environment and/or pre-existing scene Aspects.

For example, if a practioner was doing a 'Dresden' and shouting out "Fuego" with the accompanying gouts of fire while inside an old wooden building or perhaps a warehouse full of lumber or paper, then I'd likely Compel the Aspect 'The building is on fire'.  If the player is looking to get something like that as a side effect of their casting, then I wouldn't require extra shifts of power to achieve that.  Now if the player was looking to just make a specific target within a building on like, then yes, I would likely require extra shifts of Discipline at least, if not Power.

-Cheers

[JediDresden]

So going with the windstorm example just add 3 to place the aspect disarmed on the targets, that was what I was thinking as well.

[Sanctaphrax]

I worry that that could get abusive. Why would you ever make a normal maneuver when you can combine a maneuver with an attack?

Also, it might allow multiple aspects with one evocation maneuver, which is slightly worrying.

Eh, I dunno. It just seems risky from a balance perspective.

[devonapple]

One can't actually combine those things in Evocation: only in Thaumaturgy, or in the case of Sponsored Magic, Thaumaturgy at Evocation's speed. Allowing that with standard Evocation is ludicrously powerful. A GM may opt to use the Spin rules and give out a bonus Aspect if the player overshot the target roll by a lot.

But adding in a Maneuver to an Attack should come with a 4-shift premium, on top of the shifts for the Attack and for the Maneuver. So the lightning spell example would be 10 shifts. But I still think it would be open to abuse.

[JediDresden]

That makes sense I guess, now that I think about it.

Thanks, I was just wondering about secondary effects like that.

[Discipol]

A maneuver/aspect does what you write in the title.

A "Frozen by Ice" could mean he has frostburn, the area around the ice is now very cold, he is stunned, he is bound in place, and when it expires, the area will still be cold, there will be cold water on the floor, etc.

The game is defined as metagaming is gaming, so just use common sense. For example if I shoot with fire and miss, behind my target the room gets "On fire" aspect, just cause logic dictates. Isaac Newton agrees.

[TheMouse]

I agree with those who've said that an attack and maneuver in the same evocation is too much. I mean, that's really, really good.

Take a Maneuver to put an Aspect like, "Off balance," on your foe. Spend your free invocation the next turn to invoke for effect to either prevent any sort of action or to prevent your enemy from running toward you. That of course stacked on top of doing damage. Congratulations. You've either got a lock down, or you're going to drain your enemy of all their fate points by repeating that action over and over.

It really just looks like a maneuver to me. Spend the 2 other shifts of power to target a whole zone and you're sitting pretty. You can knock people around, strip things out of their hands, or whatever. If you have some good mojo rocking, you can even hit multiple zones of enemies.

[UmbraLux]

Can a spell do damage and have a 'secondary effect'?  For example a 'windstorm' spell that does damage and make those effected make a check to keep things from being pulled from their hands?  I thought there was something in the books about an option where they could do both, but I am not finding it this morning.  I guess this could be spin on a good roll, but it just makes sense that things could get lost in a windstorm. 

There's an optional rule giving spin to "defensive rolls".  Depending on how you interpret reactive magic, it may apply to some block spells.  Since control rolls don't add to a block's strength, I'm not necessarily against it.

It does bring up another idea...what impact would a house rule allowing spin for all evocation but not adding the control roll to power have?

[ARedthorn]

I'd actually allow it with the side-note that each effect is resisted separately, more or less... ie, if you're doing an attack at 3 shifts and maneuver at 3 shifts, resolve the damage... then determine if the maneuver works... odds are, that a lot of the time, it won't with only 3 shifts... it'd be pretty easy to resist and fragile even if they don't resist.
On top of that, you can think about it this way- if 3 shifts is the standard minimum- you're trading 3 shifts now for a 2-shift tag later. I don't know that that's too unbalancing.

Certainly, you're able to split up spell effect under attacks- multiple weapon effects against multiple targets- and I've seen a couple rotes along those lines that talk about being able to have the split effects hit the same target when there aren't as many targets around as the rote's max... I'd just taken a parallel ruling with blocks and maneuvers.

Example: I want to throw up a wall of ice around my group that blocks movement- we're outside and exposed, need some breathing room.
Block 5 + zone costs 7 shifts, easily doable... but block movement doesn't help against ranged attacks, and I know a player in my group who's finicky about that sort of thing- not letting anyone at the table, even an ally, get an effect free of cost. Even if it makes no sense that bullets would safely, cleanly pass through a block of ice, he'd demand they do so if the rules didn't allow me to add a zone armor effect... and if they did, he'd expect me to add it to the spell difficulty.
So, for an extra 4 shifts (taking me a few points past my spell power, but the backlash and overcharge are worth it to protect the entire group), I add Armor:2 to the zone effect. I can understand if you'd want it to be 6 shifts instead (to include the zone cost)... but otherwise?

Is this reasonable? If so, what's good for the goose... and the gander... may as well be good for the gosling?

[devonapple]

The simple answer to the ice block spell is that it's a Block versus attack AND movement, so either an attack or movement effect could overcome it. Blocks can be as specific or broad as you want, but the price is more skill checks can overcome them.

I'm not sure how to balance that with "Zone Armor" since it isn't overcome by attacks. Any thoughts?

[stitchy1503]

YS 326 Special Effect Attack covers this i believe.

[devonapple]

YS 326 Special Effect Attack covers this i believe.

"instead of applying the Weapon rating as stress on an attack. the attacker might instead opt to impose a temporary aspect on the target... in addition to the stress from the attack roll"... "Weapons used to bind or capture... can have their rating sacrificed to enter the target in a grapple... in addition to the inflicted stress... the rolls to overcome these secondary effects are made against the weapon's rating" (YS 236) (emphases mine)

It's like I'm reading this section with new eyes. If this is correct, then a Stun Gun (weapon 1) or a Tranquilizer Rifle (Weapon 3) has an innate "secondary effect" which can lay a Maneuver Aspect like "Tazed" or "Drugged."

If I am parsing this correctly:
So assume a guard with Guns 3 using a Tranq Rifle Weapon:3, shooting at a target with Athletics 2.
The attack dice come up as 0, +3 for the Guns skill, resulting in a final attack of 3.
The target with Athletics 2 rolls a 0, resulting in 2 on the defense roll (which fails to evade the attack).
The guard could either inflict 4 stress, or inflict 1 stress and place the Aspect "Tranquilized" on the target.

And if the guard got a total attack roll of 7, he could either inflict 1- stress, or inflict 7 stress and place the Aspect "Tranquilized" on the target.

To remove the Aspect, the target could roll Endurance (for instance) against the Rifle's rating of 3 on his next Exchange, to try to shake off the Aspect (or theoretically a medic could roll Scholarship against that Weapon:3 to provide an antidote/stimulant effect to remove the Aspect.

The stun gun's secondary Aspect would be easier to shake off than the Tranq Rifle's secondary Aspect.

[stitchy1503]

"instead of applying the Weapon rating as stress on an attack. the attacker might instead opt to impose a temporary aspect on the target... in addition to the stress from the attack roll"... "Weapons used to bind or capture... can have their rating sacrificed to enter the target in a grapple... in addition to the inflicted stress... the rolls to overcome these secondary effects are made against the weapon's rating" (YS 236) (emphases mine)

It's like I'm reading this section with new eyes. If this is correct, then a Stun Gun (weapon 1) or a Tranquilizer Rifle (Weapon 3) has an innate "secondary effect" which can lay a Maneuver Aspect like "Tazed" or "Drugged."

If I am parsing this correctly:
So assume a guard with Guns 3 using a Tranq Rifle Weapon:3, shooting at a target with Athletics 2.
The attack dice come up as 0, +3 for the Guns skill, resulting in a final attack of 3.
The target with Athletics 2 rolls a 0, resulting in 2 on the defense roll (which fails to evade the attack).
The guard could either inflict 4 stress, or inflict 1 stress and place the Aspect "Tranquilized" on the target.

And if the guard got a total attack roll of 7, he could either inflict 1- stress, or inflict 7 stress and place the Aspect "Tranquilized" on the target.

To remove the Aspect, the target could roll Endurance (for instance) against the Rifle's rating of 3 on his next Exchange, to try to shake off the Aspect (or theoretically a medic could roll Scholarship against that Weapon:3 to provide an antidote/stimulant effect to remove the Aspect.

The stun gun's secondary Aspect would be easier to shake off than the Tranq Rifle's secondary Aspect.

That's also how I read it, so it isn't like the person is taking the full stress as well as a maneuver, the weapon rating is eaten up by the maneuver and only extra shifts do any stress.