Focus Items -- For Non-Combat Evocation?

[Malkyne]

It's clear in the rules that evocation Focus Items apply specifically to either Defensive or Offensive evocation.  But, does that mean we can't use Foci for non-combat evocation?  This might include things like Harry's "Flickum Bicus," which are certainly quick-evocation, but also don't really have a combat purpose.  One might argue that it's not worth even bothering using the evocation mechanics for trivial spells like that, but non-combat evocations are not necessarily trivial, and could mean the difference between life and death.

[GryMor]

It's clear in the rules that evocation Focus Items apply specifically to either Defensive or Offensive evocation.  But, does that mean we can't use Foci for non-combat evocation?  This might include things like Harry's "Flickum Bicus," which are certainly quick-evocation, but also don't really have a combat purpose.  One might argue that it's not worth even bothering using the evocation mechanics for trivial spells like that, but non-combat evocations are not necessarily trivial, and could mean the difference between life and death.

Flickum Bicus is covered by 'mundane applications' and doesn't need any foci as it needs no power (no stress!) and requires no roll (just like using a lighter would not require a roll).

For purposes of foci, each maneuver is either offensive or defensive, and the same applies to counter spells.

[JDK002]

Flickum Bicus is covered by 'mundane applications' and doesn't need any foci as it needs no power (no stress!) and requires no roll (just like using a lighter would not require a roll).

For purposes of foci, each maneuver is either offensive or defensive, and the same applies to counter spells.

What he said.  Even if an evocation is out of combat, it's still offensive or defensive.  It's up to you and the GM to determine which.  Basic guideline I use is if the intent of the spell is to destroy or disrupt, it's offensve.  If the intent is to fortify or protect, it's defensive.  Also if the spell isn't going to cause stress/consequences or create an aspect, then I wouldn't even bother rolling.

[Malkyne]

Basic guideline I use is if the intent of the spell is to destroy or disrupt, it's offensve.  If the intent is to fortify or protect, it's defensive.

Yeah, I get where you're coming from, with the intent thing, but there are definitely some ambiguous situations.  Amusingly, in YS, under the "Hyperawareness" spell, it says "defensive (sort of) maneuver."  Yeah, exactly... sort of. 

If you base the distinction on intent, I don't think it's a good idea to specify offensive/defensive in advance, on a per-spell basis, the way the YS spell examples do.  For example, a simple gust-of-wind spell has both offensive and defensive applications.

[Tedronai]

If you base the distinction on intent, I don't think it's a good idea to specify offensive/defensive in advance, on a per-spell basis, the way the YS spell examples do.  For example, a simple gust-of-wind spell has both offensive and defensive applications.

The Rote rules, unfortunately, absolutely necessitate that such be spelled out in advance if Foci are to be used in the casting (which also happens to be the only time that the distinction matters at all).

[Chrono]

My understanding is that you either have to justify it as defensive or it falls under thaumaturgy, even if it is low complexity. Most spells that affect the caster or put a maneuver on a scene is considered defensive, while effects such as stress and maneuvers on another target are usually considered attacks. Whether the spell means life or death is hard to justify outside of combat, since technically the only time a player can 'die' is by risking it all in a conflict.

[JDK002]

The Rote rules, unfortunately, absolutely necessitate that such be spelled out in advance if Foci are to be used in the casting (which also happens to be the only time that the distinction matters at all).

Even from a narrative perspective it holds true.  Rote spells always have to be done the EXACT same way ever time.  The logic being that the character has spent several weeks or even months attuning their mind to the spell, or have just done it so often over the years that It's like second nature.  To flip a spell from being defensive to offensive on the fly would be a pretty big deal with a rote, which is basically just magical muscle memory.

But already mentioned, It really only matters with rote spells are involved due to the creative nature of magic in the game.

[Tedronai]

Even from a narrative perspective it holds true.  Rote spells always have to be done the EXACT same way ever time.  The logic being that the character has spent several weeks or even months attuning their mind to the spell, or have just done it so often over the years that It's like second nature.  To flip a spell from being defensive to offensive on the fly would be a pretty big deal with a rote, which is basically just magical muscle memory.

I'm not entirely convinced that this is or even should be true.
At the very least, from a narrative standpoint, I see no substantial difference between 'offensive' and 'defensive' versions of a spell like 'ventas servitas' beyond what it targets.

[UmbraLux]

I'm not entirely convinced that this is or even should be true.

Per the book, rote spells can't be changed from one casting to another.  "...always manifests in exactly the same way each time, has the same power level, places the exact same aspect, etc. Any change in the parameters of the spell disqualifes it from being a rote."  (YS257)

[JDK002]

I'm not entirely convinced that this is or even should be true.
At the very least, from a narrative standpoint, I see no substantial difference between 'offensive' and 'defensive' versions of a spell like 'ventas servitas' beyond what it targets.

it's not the greatest arguement narrativly I agree.  But it does explain why Harry doesn't use Feugo to say, make a wall of fire, or to use his kenetic shield to barrel through a group of thugs.

As far as Ventas Servitas goes, in most (not all) cases in the books itwould probably be a Maneuver on the scene.  Now a picky GM may be critical of using the rote for certain types of maneuvers (offensive or defensive), I probably wouldn't as long as it fits the general theme of the rote, and still followed all other paramaters.

[Haru]

Usually, magic you do outside of combat will be covered by thaumaturgy, since you can do pretty much the same thing, only safer. Picking a lock instead of busting the door open, for example.

If you don't have thaumaturgy, just treat the scene as a conflict and do what you would do in a conflict. Busting open a door would be offensive, obviously. Cushioning the blow from a 3 story fall would be defensive. But those would be quick and dirty spells, you would not really be able to pick the lock with an evocation spell, because it is too delicate a task. By the same logic, you could conjure up a gale of wind to slow your fall, but you could not actually make a "slow fall" type of spell, where you glide safely to the ground. Those would be thaumaturgy only.

[JDK002]

Heck I would go as far as saying a "slow fall" spell would be enchanted it's or potions only.  Unless you actually planned on jumping off a building ahead of time and performed the spell.

[Tedronai]

Per the book, rote spells can't be changed from one casting to another.  "...always manifests in exactly the same way each time, has the same power level, places the exact same aspect, etc. Any change in the parameters of the spell disqualifes it from being a rote."  (YS257)

I'm well aware of that.  I was arguing against a narrative explanation of that rule that ignores the fact that the exact same (narrative) action, taken in different circumstances, might be represented in this system by a different mechanic.

it's not the greatest arguement narrativly I agree.  But it does explain why Harry doesn't use Feugo to say, make a wall of fire, or to use his kenetic shield to barrel through a group of thugs.

I could have sworn that he uses it to purposefully blow through a wall or somesuch on at least one occassion.  And doing so would make perfect narrative sense, while being wholeheartedly forbidden by the Rote rules.

As far as Ventas Servitas goes, in most (not all) cases in the books itwould probably be a Maneuver on the scene.  Now a picky GM may be critical of using the rote for certain types of maneuvers (offensive or defensive), I probably wouldn't as long as it fits the general theme of the rote, and still followed all other paramaters.

You might allow it, but a change from offensive to defensive or vise versa disqualifies the spell from being a Rote in the RAW.

you could conjure up a gale of wind to slow your fall, but you could not actually make a "slow fall" type of spell, where you glide safely to the ground. Those would be thaumaturgy only.

I can readily imagine a skilled earth mage making a quick manipulation of gravity, or, if they're wearing enough ferrous metal, magnetics, that the result sees them to the ground gently and safely.

[JDK002]

The only time I can think of Harry using his shield to knock down a wall is when he's getting thrown through one. xD Using it to prevent his spine from getting shattered.  Any other situation I can think would be him using Fozare (sp), which would be an entirely different rote.

Also keep in mind the rules for repurposing energy spend on unused block spells can be turned into attacks.  Which could also be a narrative loophole. 

[Tedronai]

The only time I can think of Harry using his shield to knock down a wall is when he's getting thrown through one. xD Using it to prevent his spine from getting shattered.  Any other situation I can think would be him using Fozare (sp), which would be an entirely different rote.

Poor quote pruning on my part.  I was referring to 'fuego' being used to punch through a wall.