Targeting and control....

[UmbraLux]

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.

You paint with too broad a brush.  It's only a "waste" if 1) it was an attack spell and 2) the attack roll wasn't already higher than defense.  It's not a waste if it's a block, maneuver, or counterspell.

Personal opinion time:  casters don't need more attack power.   

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, 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.

It could also be taken to imply he didn't bother taking backlash because it wasn't going to raise the targeting roll and consequently would have had a good chance of missing even if he had.  It even states the +2 is "dodged easily".    I suspect which implication we choose will depend on what each of us wants to see.  There's no concrete language, just statements in other sections we've alluded to previously.

[EdgeOfDreams]

Just to add my 2 cents...

My group has always played that Backlash prevents you from losing shifts of power, but does NOT affect your aim.  We have found backlash to be a useful option for some spellcasters in certain situations. Once, the GM ran some spellcasters and had them add backlash to their aiming rolls (because he hadn't done spellcasting in a long time and forgot how we ran it), and multiple PCs ended up dying.

I feel that, regardless of rules interpretations, adding backlash to aim rolls is just too powerful.  It's too easy under that rule for a caster to intentionally summon up 10 more shifts of power than he can actually control, take 3 consequences as backlash, and thereby create an almost undodgeable attack.

[Mr. Death]

You paint with too broad a brush.  It's only a "waste" if 1) it was an attack spell and 2) the attack roll wasn't already higher than defense.  It's not a waste if it's a block, maneuver, or counterspell.

Personal opinion time:  casters don't need more attack power.   

What I was trying to say was that any example we came up with would be pointless, as we could each tailor it to support our own position.

It could also be taken to imply he didn't bother taking backlash because it wasn't going to raise the targeting roll and consequently would have had a good chance of missing even if he had.  It even states the +2 is "dodged easily".    I suspect which implication we choose will depend on what each of us wants to see.  There's no concrete language, just statements in other sections we've alluded to previously.

My point was that if that was an argument against taking it as backlash, it's odd that the narration doesn't mention it--instead, it focuses on the stress and consequences. As the example doesn't mention a lackluster targeting roll, even with backlash, as a factor, it seems to imply that it wouldn't be lackluster if backlash was taken.

I feel that, regardless of rules interpretations, adding backlash to aim rolls is just too powerful.  It's too easy under that rule for a caster to intentionally summon up 10 more shifts of power than he can actually control, take 3 consequences as backlash, and thereby create an almost undodgeable attack.

Yes, but then the caster's got all those consequences, and they're not going to go away in a hurry--and he's paying for it twice, once to summon up the power, and once to control the backlash. If you're going 10 shifts above your base Conviction, that means at least 7 shifts over your stress track just to call up the power, eating up, if you're lucky, two Mild and one Moderate consequence, leaving you only Severe and Extreme consequences to make up the attack roll. And at that point, you might as well be casting a Death Curse instead.

[Tedronai]

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.

Please read my posts on this topic more carefully so as to avoid putting words in my mouth.

I have not once stated that I believe that backlash increases the 'accuracy' of an attack spell.
What I have said is that, since Rotes explicitly state that Targeting and Control are handled separately for the purposes of Rote Spells they are not useful as a precedent for a rule where no similar statement is present.

Further, your comment re: Occam's Razor is undermined by your apparent lack of understanding even of what Rote spells do.

[UmbraLux]

My point was that if that was an argument against taking it as backlash, it's odd that the narration doesn't mention it--instead, it focuses on the stress and consequences.

The section on backlash doesn't mention adding to either control (except lack of) or targeting (at all).  It simply states "Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains part of the spell and does not reduce its effect." 

Think I'll step away though...don't think we'll convince each other.   

[wyvern]

You know, this whole debate reminds me of the D&D rules lawyers who say "Well, since the rulebook never says that a dead person can't act, obviously they can."

Slightly more on topic, I strongly agree with those who say that neither backlash nor fallout increase attack spell accuracy.  IMO, if it was going to do that, it would have been explicitly called out.

[Becq]

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?

YS257: "The Discipline roll also controls spell targeting and sets the difficulty for defending against it."

[devonapple]

Alright, having had to Concede my way out of a Ghoul assassination attempt, I now have a little more of a personal stake in this question. I was fighting alone against a Ghoul who had been slowly whittling me down, and I had to take her out. I rolled a horrendous Control check trying to place a 6-shift Maneuver on it: even tagging a Declaration I had placed on the scene (accessibly arcane foci, in an occult bookstore) for a re-roll only got me 3 of the 6 shifts I needed to control it.

The GM did not tell me how much I needed to actually hit the Ghoul, so I prayed and took enough Backlash to make the spell go off. It missed.

Should I have insisted on knowing whether I would have hit?
Or is this truly one of those situations when you roll the dice and hope for the best?
Or was it foolish to put more than shifts into an Evocation Maneuver in the first place?

[Mr. Death]

With my groups, it's a given that the players almost always know what targets they have to hit as far as rolling goes, since the bot we use is in the chatroom we do for all OOC stuff. If nothing else, the player ought to so they can judge whether it's worth it to burn a fate point. As a player, it's frustrating if you sacrifice a resource to no real affect, and as a GM I want the players to get bang out of their buck--generally speaking, if they're willing to spend fate points, I'm willing to let them succeed. Even if it's only the GM saying, "That's not gonna be enough," the player ought to be making an informed decision, even if the character's oblivious.

[wyvern]

As a general rule, I assume that a spent fate point / tag / whatever has to do something.  If someone tries to spend a fate point but would still miss, I let them know, and give them the option of either having the point refunded, or spending more points to hit.  I'll also refund a fate point if someone would have taken out the target without it.

The exception to this is if the defender also has fate points or tags to spend.  If you miss by one, spend a fate point to hit, and then the defender spends a fate point to be able to dodge - both fate points are gone.

Magical maneuvers are a wonky thing, though, since it's a set power against some (un-rolled!) defensive skill.  In this case, I'd typically tell a player outright "You're going to need a power 7 effect to hit this guy with your maneuver-that's-defended-by-athletics" - or, at worst, allow the PC to roll an assessment as a free action to know the right power value.  In the latter case, I could see allowing someone to eat backlash to get off a spell that can't work even at its best, if they failed that assessment.

[Orladdin]

Alright, having had to Concede my way out of a Ghoul assassination attempt, I now have a little more of a personal stake in this question. I was fighting alone against a Ghoul who had been slowly whittling me down, and I had to take her out. I rolled a horrendous Control check trying to place a 6-shift Maneuver on it: even tagging a Declaration I had placed on the scene (accessibly arcane foci, in an occult bookstore) for a re-roll only got me 3 of the 6 shifts I needed to control it.

The GM did not tell me how much I needed to actually hit the Ghoul, so I prayed and took enough Backlash to make the spell go off. It missed.

Should I have insisted on knowing whether I would have hit?
Or is this truly one of those situations when you roll the dice and hope for the best?
Or was it foolish to put more than shifts into an Evocation Maneuver in the first place?

Sometimes bad rolls do happen.  If they didn't, we might as well be playing a diceless (see: boring) system.  I know, it sucks when it happens.  When it happens to me I have to remind myself that its just a game: You win some, you lose some. 

[Becq]

I'm not sure that knowing the defense roll factors into the equation.  Bad rolls happen.  Once they happen, your only choices are to accept the failure or buy success (with Fate points).  I'm assuming that you had no Fate available (other than the quasi-Fate built into your scene aspect), so that leaves dealing with the failure.  You missed the control roll, and had no choice but to accept backlash or fallout.  Would going with fallout have changed the scene's outcome?

[Mr. Death]

I'm not sure that knowing the defense roll factors into the equation.  Bad rolls happen.  Once they happen, your only choices are to accept the failure or buy success (with Fate points).

Ah, but determining the price of success would necessitate knowing the defense roll--if you've got two Fate Points, and you'd have to make up 6 shifts to make it a success, it's unfair to the player to have him pay those two fate points and then fail anyway.

[Becq]

Ah, but determining the price of success would necessitate knowing the defense roll--if you've got two Fate Points, and you'd have to make up 6 shifts to make it a success, it's unfair to the player to have him pay those two fate points and then fail anyway.

Good point.

[Orladdin]

Ah, but determining the price of success would necessitate knowing the defense roll--if you've got two Fate Points, and you'd have to make up 6 shifts to make it a success, it's unfair to the player to have him pay those two fate points and then fail anyway.

Yeah, I'd def. agree that the player should be kept informed about where the success/fail line is.  If you were informed, there wouldn't be a decision as to whether or not to take "useless" backlash.  You'd get to make that decision and shoulder the blame for the outcome.  Very FATE.  Very Dresden.