Targeting and control....

[devonapple]

I can see both sides of the effects of backlash on the targeting roll.

In my games, I have opted to let backlash help the control and targeting rolls simultaneously.

[Tedronai]

@Tedronai:

If control and targeting are always supposed to be equal, why do they use separate terms for them then?

Control and Targeting are two separate variables that just happen to be initialized to the same die roll to reduce play complexity.  The fact that the control variable is then changed to a higher number through the application of backlash does not effect the targeting variable.

What do you have to say to the fact, that you have yet to address despite having it pointed out several times, now, that the writers felt it necessary to explicitly state the separation of Targeting from Control into two independently modifiable variables specifically for the purposes of Rote spells, but felt no such need anywhere else, with that absence most notable in the case of Backlash?

[UmbraLux]

Skimming through the Evocation section again, I only see control and targeting mentioned in two places:  under Attacks where the control roll is used as the targeting roll and under Rote spells where you still need to make a targeting roll even when you auto-succeed the control roll.  Have I missed any references?

Under Rote Spells, it's fairly clear you can succeed in casting but still miss.  Under Attacks it explicitly states targeting shifts don't need to be split the same as the power you're controlling when doing spray attacks. 

Personally, I'm leaning towards keeping the two 'separate' (i.e. backlash only increases control).  It only affects attacks...and the caster can always use an aspect if they really want that attack to go in.  Besides, casters are powerful enough already.   

[devonapple]

Personally, I'm leaning towards keeping the two 'separate' (i.e. backlash only increases control).  It only affects attacks...and the caster can always use an aspect if they really want that attack to go in.  Besides, casters are powerful enough already.   

I'm close to that interpretation, though I wonder if there are any instances in the canon (for what that's worth) in which Dresden:
1) casts a spell at someone
2) messes it up
3) takes backlash
but *still*
4) misses the target

That level of granularity would be hard to adjudicate in the text, I admit.

[Mr. Death]

It's still possible for the target to dodge, even if the backlash does add to the attack roll.

[devonapple]

It's still possible for the target to dodge, even if the backlash does add to the attack roll.

That is true! Which makes the question somewhat moot.

Which brings me to the question of how GMs handle transparency regarding the difficulties of certain actions. If the player knew that simply taking Backlash wouldn't equate to success, would the GM give an option to push the spell even farther (declarations, tagging Aspects, etc.) to assure a hit? At what point do the player and the GM stop invoking Aspects and consider the conflict resolved?

[Mr. Death]

Well, I play in a chatroom with the dicebot right there, so all the rolls are out in the open--that way the players know exactly what they have to meet. As for spell attacks, though, I usually have them decide if they want to take the backlash or fallout before I roll any defense, on the logic that their character doesn't know how well their target's going to dodge either. I do, however, allow them to invoke immediately following the defense roll.

[Becq]

I still don't see anything that even hints that taking backlash would add to an attack roll.  The rules say:

Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains a part of the spell and does not reduce its effect. Fallout is different: every shift of fallout reduces the effect of the spell.

So with backlash, you get to keep all of the power shifts as originally intended, including the uncontrolled ones.  In other words, your weapon:5 spell stays weapon:5.  With fallout, you lose the uncontrolled shifts, and the GM gets to play with them.  In other words, your weapon:5 spell becomes less than weapon:5, depending on how much you lose to fallout.

Where does it say for each point of backlash accepted you get a +1 bonus to your Discipline/attack/control roll?

[Mr. Death]

Because everywhere else, it equates the Control roll with the Attack roll, because they're the same thing. So it's not illogical to think that if you're taking backlash to improve control, the backlash is going to help with the thing the book just told you is synonymous with the control roll.

Going by the example in the book, for backlash, it says that it's a 5-shift spell, and he misses it by 5 shifts; i.e., his aiming roll is a flat 0. It may not specify that it's an attack, but it doesn't say it isn't either, so we can't assume that it isn't, and I fail to see the point in taking a consequence in Backlash for a spell that is all but guaranteed to miss the mark.

[Tedronai]

Which brings me to the question of how GMs handle transparency regarding the difficulties of certain actions. If the player knew that simply taking Backlash wouldn't equate to success, would the GM give an option to push the spell even farther (declarations, tagging Aspects, etc.) to assure a hit? At what point do the player and the GM stop invoking Aspects and consider the conflict resolved?

IIRC, RAW has both rolls occurring more-or-less simultaneously, with opportunities for backlash/fallout or FP expenditures on both sides to instigate a 'bidding war', only ending when both are either satisfied with the result or are unwilling/unable to allocate more resources to the exchange.

[Mr. Death]

With my group, generally, only one side tends to do an Invoke per exchange, mostly because most exchanges tend to be PC vs. Mook, and when I, as GM, spend a fate point to throw them a loop, they generally just accept it and deal with the consequences.

[sinker]

Because everywhere else, it equates the Control roll with the Attack roll, because they're the same thing. So it's not illogical to think that if you're taking backlash to improve control, the backlash is going to help with the thing the book just told you is synonymous with the control roll.

Here's the thing that I see. The book says nothing about backlash upping your control at all. It says that the uncontrolled power remains a part of the spell. It doesn't effect the roll or even the control. It only effects the shifts.

[Orladdin]

What do you have to say to the fact, that you have yet to address despite having it pointed out several times, now, that the writers felt it necessary to explicitly state the separation of Targeting from Control into two independently modifiable variables specifically for the purposes of Rote spells, but felt no such need anywhere else, with that absence most notable in the case of Backlash?

So, instead they create a whole extra term (and the associated confusion) for some small piece of mechanics that could have been easily simplified by stating "Rote spells simply don't suffer from backlash or fallout"?  Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?

You are essentially saying that if we simply ignore this one, eensy-wheensy, explicit piece of evidence that goes against your conclusion, your conclusion is proven!  There is an example in the book where the two are unattached: rotes.  You are expecting us to ignore this example to support your play preference. 

If you feel that wizards are not powerful enough in your games, by all means, play with your backlash-targetting houserule.  I'm simply saying there is significant evidence in the RAW that backlash does not apply to targeting rolls.


At this point, I would say that unless one of us comes up with further evidence, we agree to disagree.

[Becq]

Because everywhere else, it equates the Control roll with the Attack roll, because they're the same thing. So it's not illogical to think that if you're taking backlash to improve control, the backlash is going to help with the thing the book just told you is synonymous with the control roll.

I agree with your first sentence.  You make a Control roll using your Discipline (plus control bonuses), and the result is called your "Control roll" and your Control roll is also used as your attack roll.  I'm with you up to there.  My point has nothing to do with that, and I'll be repeat it here:

Where does it say for each point of backlash accepted you get a +1 bonus to your Discipline/attack/control roll?

You are implying that the rules state that backlash increases either your discipline or control roll (and therefore your attack roll).  I find no sign of it saying that.  I do see where it says that missing your control roll means that some of the spells power shifts are uncontrolled.  I see where it left as fallout (which is sort of the 'default') that you lose that many shifts from the shifts of power of the spell.  And I see the option of choosing backlash, which allows you to keep those shifts of power in the spell.  And it still refers to those as 'uncontrolled shifts' either way, though, none of which implies any improvement of control gained by taking backlash.  Invoking aspects specifically increases the discipline roll (and therefore control/attack), but where do you see that backlash and fallout do?

If backlash improved control, then I could see value in some circumstances (though certainly not all) to purposely casting a more powerful spell so that you could exploit backlash to guarantee that you achieve a certain minimum attack roll.

Going by the example in the book, for backlash, it says that it's a 5-shift spell, and he misses it by 5 shifts; i.e., his aiming roll is a flat 0. It may not specify that it's an attack, but it doesn't say it isn't either, so we can't assume that it isn't, and I fail to see the point in taking a consequence in Backlash for a spell that is all but guaranteed to miss the mark.

I can't argue with this.  However, there's is value to making sure that a spell that will hit retains as many shifts of power as possible.

Let's say, for example, that you just cast a 9 shift area attack (weapon:5, 2 zones) at a small horde of RCV mooks (base stats, no consequences).  You roll a total of 6 on your control roll, and are fresh out of Fate points.  Against an Athletics of 2, that should hit all of them, but you've got 3 uncontrolled shifts to deal with.  So now you have a choice: do you want to hit them all with a w:2 attack (and deal with whatever 3-shift fallout effect your sadistic GM decides to afflict on the fight) or do you want to take a 3-stress hit to make them all suffer a w:5?  The weaker attack will only net enough stress to take out those who roll worse than average, the rest will just mark off a physical box and proceed to eat you.  For 3 stress, however, you can ensure that only those RCVs that roll at least a +3 on their dice (total defense of 5) will stay standing. 

Seems like a good buy to me, even without adding the +3 to both the power of the spell and the control.

[Mr. Death]

We're not "implying" that the rules "state" anything. We're saying that the rules can be interpreted as meaning that, just as your targeting roll = the control roll, something that allows you to control the spell = targeting.

The only place it refers to them as "uncontrolled shifts" and part of backlash is where it says, "Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains a part of the spell" which doesn't mean they're still uncontrolled shifts, it means that you're taking backlash because they were uncontrolled--and our thinking is that by taking backlash, those shifts are, in fact, back under your control. They're part of the spell, ergo, they're controlled. If they were out of control, they'd be fallout.

The RAW doesn't come out and say, or provide an example showing, that the base Discipline/targeting roll is unaffected by backlash either. If it did, the discussion wouldn't have started in the first place.

Yes, in your example, it's a good buy, because the base attack roll is pretty good already. If he rolls worse than that, however, it's a wasted spell and the wizard is given a choice between letting the power go as fallout and potentially harming his allies, or "controlling" the power for the sake of a spell that he already is pretty sure is going to be a waste.

This doesn't quite jive with the book's assertion that "if he chooses to absorb it all himself, his spell should still go off as intended because he was willing to pay the extra cost." I imagine it's pretty rare that "miss everybody" is what the wizard intends with an attack spell.

Though the Fallout example in the book could certainly be read to support the backlash = targeting stance. In it, Harry rolls bad enough that his control/targeting roll is only a +2, for a Weapon:5 spell against a whole zone. It then says that Jim B. decides to take it as Fallout because he's taken consequences and his stress tracks are filling up--but says nothing about how a Fair attack roll is unlikely to hit anything. One would think that if that was a factor--and that he'd be stuck with the Fair even if he did take backlash--the example would have mentioned it. This omission could be taken to imply that if Harry had taken it as backlash, it would have remained a worthwhile attack both in power and in accuracy, rather than one that makes a big boom but doesn't hit anything.

Though that brings up another question I had: Say in the Fallout example, Harry rolls a solid +7, and gets his Weapon:5 attack against the zone. Is the targeting roll that the targets have to beat 5 or 7?