Error in example spell "Entanglement"?

[Tedronai]

Yes, some of the example spells do seem to ignore the rules.  I was under the impression that this was commonly understood.

[Belial666]

They don't ignore the rules. There's no rule that says athletics must be used to defend against magical effects. You use the skill that is appropriate for the flavor of the attack.

[Tedronai]

No, you use any skill that is appropriate to the flavour of your defense, with the obvious requirement that the narration of your defense make sense given the flavour of the attack.

[Belial666]

The key is to build your attack in a way that only the defense you want to target can be justified.

For example, if you nail an entire zone with a gravitic hammer or fill its air with a magical toxin or turn its air into vacuum, the victims can't justify an athletics defense - there's nowhere to dodge to. They can only justify endurance or (in the gravitic hammer case) might as a defense.

Similarly, when a vampire is manipulating your emotions at range, you can't justify an athletics defense - you got to use discipline instead. If the vampire was manipulating your emotions at melee instead, you could justify an athletics defense if you wanted to.

[Tedronai]

The key is to build your attack in a way that only the defense you want to target can be justified.

I'm sure you'll have great luck with that against unimaginative opponents.

For example, if you nail an entire zone with a gravitic hammer or fill its air with a magical toxin or turn its air into vacuum, the victims can't justify an athletics defense - there's nowhere to dodge to. They can only justify endurance or (in the gravitic hammer case) might as a defense.

The freediver rolls Discipline to avoid inhaling any of your magical toxin until such a time as it returns to its ectoplasmic origins (and, if it persists into subsequent exchanges, uses athletics to escape the cloud).

A vacuum just isn't a particularly effective 'attack' (as represented by the combat mechanic of that name), inflicting very little harm over short durations and naturally resolving itself over otherwise-effective durations unless actively maintained, and would be more appropriately represented with some other mechanic.  I would suggest a modified and balance-restored Orbius derivative.

The pixie declares that 'You Missed a Spot', tags the resultant aspect, and uses Athletics to dodge your gravity hammer by hiding under ledge you had considered to be too small for them to make use of.  They further decide to flavour any consequences that result from an insufficient athletics roll as coming from debris that your hammer pulls off the ledge and the area above, and not as from direct exposure to your spell.  Because that is their right.  (it actually took me maybe a minute of thinking to come up with this one...but then again, I did just wake up, and I've never claimed to be the most imaginative person in gaming)

[UmbraLux]

Have to agree with Tedronai here.  In many ways it's 'narrative first' and use the mechanics on a 'best fit' approach.  This is explicit with magic.

[Belial666]

Most effective airborne toxins don't care if you hold your breath - they're contact toxins, not inhaled ones.
The pixie will only declare that I missed a spot once. In every following use of the spell ever I'll remember to declare that I didn't miss a spot first.
Vacuum is a fairly effective attack. If it's physical, you get explosive decompression of targets that breathe and boiling internal fluids on targets that don't. If it is a power vacuum, you get people's lives or souls torn out. If it is an energy vacuum, you get areas and people flash-frozen.


Basically, an attack is something you introduce into the story. You get to describe the effect you want - not the defender. And if your storytelling is up to snuff, you can paint enemies into corners for their defense. Even if you don't, they'll have to expend resources (such as declarations, aspects and fate points) to avoid being cornered in that way.

[Orladdin]

... In many ways it's 'narrative first' and use the mechanics on a 'best fit' approach.  This is explicit with magic.

...Basically, an attack is something you introduce into the story. You get to describe the effect ... And if your storytelling is up to snuff, you can paint enemies into corners for their defense. Even if you don't, they'll have to expend resources (such as declarations, aspects and fate points) to avoid being cornered in that way.

You're both right.
And that's why its called a game, folks!  :-D
It's creative thought, narration, problem solving and posturing.

I'm sure you'll have great luck with that against unimaginative opponents.

^This.

[Centarion]

Note that declarations are generally free, and if I was GMing and tried to paint an enemy into a weak defense (or a player tried this to me) I would absolutely allow a declaration on the spot to justify a different defense, unless the power in the book explicitly says otherwise.

I would generally not allow anything other than discipline to defend against incite emotion at range (in mele any type of defense against mele attacks would be fine), because the power explicitly says that the target defends with discipline. On the other hand if there is a particularly good reason for some other skill (maybe conviction) to come into play that may be acceptable. However, evocation does not specify any defense. The spells in the book say what they are targeting, but I tend to think of that as a rough guideline for a "brute force" defense, a clever player or GM will get around this.

[UmbraLux]

Basically, an attack is something you introduce into the story. You get to describe the effect you want...

Agreed.  My point is simple - there are two rolls and the owner of each gets to describe the action / reaction as they wish.   Within reason! 

The actions and descriptions need to make sense in context.  This gives the initiator / attacker a significant advantage in setting the beginning criteria.  But he's not acting in a vacuum.  The reacting party also gets input...and creativity occasionally makes for some unexpected changes.  A good thing!  It'd be boring without surprises.

[JDK002]

Agreed.  My point is simple - there are two rolls and the owner of each gets to describe the action / reaction as they wish.   Within reason! 

The actions and descriptions need to make sense in context.  This gives the initiator / attacker a significant advantage in setting the beginning criteria.  But he's not acting in a vacuum.  The reacting party also gets input...and creativity occasionally makes for some unexpected changes.  A good thing!  It'd be boring without surprises.

I tend to follow this line of thought as well.  I'm typically against letting a player arbitrarily deciding what skill is used in defense of an attack they make.  It treads into areas where every player will start trying to argue why their attack should have to be blocked with (blank) skill. 

The exception for me would be of the PC had the time and forthought to make declairations and maneuvers in place to where it makes sense.  In short I would make them role play it out.  A PC saying "because it's my attack and I say so" doesn't cut it for me.

Honestly, I don't even treat the RAW of use discipline to defend against incite emotion as being absolute.  It treat it as more of the default skill to go to, muh like athletics is for physical attacks, or how dicipline also is for magical effects.  However these are by no means the ONLY skills you can use for defense against them given proper justification.