Help with a Player's Item

[Deadmanwalking]

He's just a specific example. Point was, spells in general are not and should not be portrayed as non-dodge-able.

Infrigia. Cold Days. First fight scene.

I tend to find unnecessary courtesy a bit grating.

I'd apologize...but that seems like a bad idea in context.

I'll keep pace with your moving goalposts by again asking you how you're formulating your spell to 'lock on' to your target's location without making use of sympathetic links, to which evocation does, by default, have access.

First off, that wasn't moving the goal posts, Re-read my first post, my core argument has not changed. The precision thing was a side argument that was only tangentially related to the main one.

Second, I'll repeat, line of sight.

Again:  It takes time to formulate a spell, even for skilled practitioners casting a spell for the thousandth time that month.  Evocation spells have to be targetted manually; they do not get to make use of sympathetic links.  The world can change between the time the practitioner begins formulating the spell and the time it takes effect.  Such changes can include the target of the spell no longer being where they were.  If the target of a spell not making use of sympathetic links is no longer in the area the spell will affect, then the spell will fail to affect them.

Not if you're specifically visualizing and focusing on a creature, not an area, when you cast the spell. This is...not typical, especially of Harry, but it remains doable, IMO.

But we're really just repeating the same exact points over and over again here. Let's just stop and move on, shall we?

[JDK002]

Infrigia. Cold Days. First fight scene.

I'd apologize...but that seems like a bad idea in context.

First off, that wasn't moving the goal posts, Re-read my first post, my core argument has not changed. The precision thing was a side argument that was only tangentially related to the main one.

Second, I'll repeat, line of sight.

Not if you're specifically visualizing and focusing on a creature, not an area, when you cast the spell. This is...not typical, especially of Harry, but it remains doable, IMO.

But we're really just repeating the same exact points over and over again here. Let's just stop and move on, shall we?

Using the books as a justification to bend or break the rules of the game is a failing arguement.  The novels do not follow the RAW, it does not have to take game balance and dice rolls into consideration.  If you want to incorporate something from the books into the game you find a mechanic that fits, you don't ignore rules wholesale.

Second: you keep saying you disagree, but fail to support if with little more than you own opinion and some narrative fluff.  Fluff that's only support is your own opinion.  It's circular logic and mental gymnastics.

Third: I'm reminded of a little blurb in the YS rulebook.  "magic doesn't make things easier, it makes things more complicated".  I would claim it would take a significantly more power, focus, and percision to magically choke someone out from 30 feet away than it would be to just choke them out with you bare hands.

Fact is the RAW for evocation is a lot simplier than you're making it out to be.  It's point, aim, shoot, regardless of the narrative flavoring.  Cold hard logic would dictate that if you have to aim, it means you can miss.

[Tedronai]

Infrigia. Cold Days. First fight scene.

Evothaum.  Irrelevant to this discussion.

First off, that wasn't moving the goal posts, Re-read my first post, my core argument has not changed. The precision thing was a side argument that was only tangentially related to the main one.

Your primary (whether or not you call it your 'core') argument for some time was predicated on the assertion that someone with more finesse than Harry could do this.  When challenged to state just how much more finesse would be required, you instead claimed that finesse was not, in fact, at issue.  Looks like moving goalposts to me.

Second, I'll repeat, line of sight.

This is a nonsensical argument.  It makes no sense.  It says nothing.  It means nothing.

Not if you're specifically visualizing and focusing on a creature, not an area, when you cast the spell. This is...not typical, especially of Harry, but it remains doable, IMO.

And if you've got the Evothaum to support such symbolic targetting, then you're going to be just fine.  Standard evocation has no such capability, though.

But we're really just repeating the same exact points over and over again here. Let's just stop and move on, shall we?

Unless you want to actually support your position with something more than a simple reassertion of it, then I'd say that's the only real alternative.

[UmbraLux]

Using the books as a justification to bend or break the rules of the game is a failing arguement.  The novels do not follow the RAW, it does not have to take game balance and dice rolls into consideration.  If you want to incorporate something from the books into the game you find a mechanic that fits, you don't ignore rules wholesale.
<snip>
Fact is the RAW for evocation is a lot simplier than you're making it out to be.  It's point, aim, shoot, regardless of the narrative flavoring.  Cold hard logic would dictate that if you have to aim, it means you can miss.

Isn't 'using the books' (and perhaps some trappings in the rule book) the justification for stating magic requires line of effect?  (Starting at the caster and flying out in a targeted fashion as a completed effect.)  The rules themselves don't say much more than 1) determine desired effect; 2) choose mechanic; 3) specify shifts of power; 4) roll to control. 

I think arguing the physics of magic is pointless (It is magic after all.) but most of the spell types work without requiring the effect to travel from one point to another.  Counterspells work directly against another spell's energy, maneuvers do just about anything you can think of...shouldn't be hard to think of some that don't travel from point to point ("Distracted by <whatever?" perhaps.), and blocks affect someone's actions (How would a "you can't maneuver against me" block move from the caster to the target?).  Evocation in general obviously doesn't need line of effect.  It's also worth noting attacks need 'line of sight' but don't need 'line of effect'.  Attacking through a window is perfectly acceptable. 

In the end it's magic.  We'll each filter it through our own preconceptions and apply individual interpretations.  The "my interpretation must be Right" dogmatism is simply silly. 

[Deadmanwalking]

Using the books as a justification to bend or break the rules of the game is a failing arguement.  The novels do not follow the RAW, it does not have to take game balance and dice rolls into consideration.  If you want to incorporate something from the books into the game you find a mechanic that fits, you don't ignore rules wholesale.

I'm not using them as a justification, but as an example of how that sorta thing works. There's a hell of a difference...as is demonstrated by me not even having brought up that spell till now, and having had this opinion years prior to the existence of Cold Days.

Second: you keep saying you disagree, but fail to support if with little more than you own opinion and some narrative fluff.  Fluff that's only support is your own opinion.  It's circular logic and mental gymnastics.

I gave rules arguments. No really, several of them, and we determined the rules were unclear (several examples do it, the rest of the rules are less than supportive). So thereafter I was opposed by "But logically, you have to dodge." style arguments so I started arguing the in-world logic. Seriously, go back and read my first few posts on this subject, they're almost all rules. I responded to the nature of the arguments used against me...because given the unfortunate lack of clarity in the rules, whether it works logically does strike me as a good criteria for whether it works.

Third: I'm reminded of a little blurb in the YS rulebook.  "magic doesn't make things easier, it makes things more complicated".  I would claim it would take a significantly more power, focus, and percision to magically choke someone out from 30 feet away than it would be to just choke them out with you bare hands.

Uh...I'm not arguing that isn't harder. Choking someone out from 30 feet away is harder than doing it with your bare hands. Hence Mental Stress for doing it, among other things. And only a wizard who knows how to do so can manage it (much like only people who know how can do it with their hands).

None of that makes it impossible, though.

Fact is the RAW for evocation is a lot simplier than you're making it out to be.  It's point, aim, shoot, regardless of the narrative flavoring.  Cold hard logic would dictate that if you have to aim, it means you can miss.

Explain those examples, then. Especially the entire box on each and every spell for what skill it targets.

Evothaum.  Irrelevant to this discussion.

Unseelie Magic doesn't do Evothaum for anything but entropomancy (which this isn't). So how is it evothaum?

Your primary (whether or not you call it your 'core') argument for some time was predicated on the assertion that someone with more finesse than Harry could do this.  When challenged to state just how much more finesse would be required, you instead claimed that finesse was not, in fact, at issue.  Looks like moving goalposts to me.

I'm going to respond to this in a separate post.

This is a nonsensical argument.  It makes no sense.  It says nothing.  It means nothing.

Not sans context, but I was sort of assuming participants would've read my previous statements on the subject. I described my point on this issue in detail at least twice previously, I just didn't want to do it again.

And if you've got the Evothaum to support such symbolic targetting, then you're going to be just fine.  Standard evocation has no such capability, though.

I disagree. I've explained how and why I disagree previously.

Unless you want to actually support your position with something more than a simple reassertion of it, then I'd say that's the only real alternative.

I'm tired of the same points coming up over and over again. You want explanations of my points, check my earlier arguments in the thread, they haven't changed.

[Deadmanwalking]

Your primary (whether or not you call it your 'core') argument for some time was predicated on the assertion that someone with more finesse than Harry could do this.  When challenged to state just how much more finesse would be required, you instead claimed that finesse was not, in fact, at issue.  Looks like moving goalposts to me.

My original argument:

This I'm skeptical of. The example spells are really clear that this is how they work, and I can think of a dozen other easy examples that don't make sense to defend against with Athletics [such as being frozen in ice (it's a Block, not an attack, but Might's the obvious skill to escape...and Athletics makes no sense at all if the block materializes around you) or being overheated from the inside via an effort of will (Endurance is clearly your defense here...how does moving help?), etc. etc.]

It's clearly intended that other skills can come into play when defending against magic. Anything else is, well, both clearly illogical and against the game's intent. An argument can be made that Athletics is always applicable per the RAW...but an equally strong one can be made that it can't. So...I'm going with logic and intent here.

No mention of finesse anywhere.

The finesse discussion came up much later, here, in a very specific sub-argument about force-choking:

Pressing on the right part of the neck requires precision.

Yeah, but not a whole lot of it. Certainly no more than Luccio's finger-thin whip of fire, which is a demonstrated Evocation effect.

It requires enough precision to hit the neck with the fire whip.

Simply making the fire whip is comparatively easy.

I disagree. Making a band around someone's throat isn't any harder than making it in your hand, IMO.

The fact that people dodge Evocations all the time in both novels and gameplay contradicts that, I think. If hitting your enemy was easy as hitting your own hand, Harry would demolish fewer buildings.

Harry's control is notably poor (just like his power is notably awesome)...his not being able to manage something requiring finesse isn't really surprising.

Now, I guess I can see how you'd think I was trying to make a general statement there. I wasn't, it was purely in reference to the ongoing discussion on a specific rote/methodology.

[Tedronai]

Unseelie Magic doesn't do Evothaum for anything but entropomancy (which this isn't). So how is it evothaum?

What examples of Unseelie Magic had actually been seen at the time that section of YS was printed?
He was using Sponsored Magic, not regular Evocation.  He doesn't (/isn't capable of) do(ing) that sort of thing normally, using his regular evocation.  Sponsored Magic is capable of doing things of which regular Evocation is not.  Mechanically, the major source of this is represented by what has become known on these boards as 'Evothaum'.
Unless you can come up with some better examples (ie. involving standard Evocation), the logical assumption, here, is that Harry gained this capability via his access to Unseelie Magic, ie. Evothaum.

Not sans context, but I was sort of assuming participants would've read my previous statements on the subject. I described my point on this issue in detail at least twice previously, I just didn't want to do it again.

I disagree. I've explained how and why I disagree previously.

You've not provided, that I can find, a meaningful explanation of how you're managing to use symbolic targeting (ie. sympathetic links) in a basic evocation (without relying on Evothaum or some similar additional capability).  Without that, your assertion of 'line of sight', even taken in context, is circular, nonsensical, and worthless.

[Tedronai]

Now, I guess I can see how you'd think I was trying to make a general statement there. I wasn't, it was purely in reference to the ongoing discussion on a specific rote/methodology.

So going from, 'finesse matters in this example of what I'm talking about' to 'finesse doesn't actually matter'.
Gotcha.  Good to know.

[Deadmanwalking]

What examples of Unseelie Magic had actually been seen at the time that section of YS was printed?

True enough. On the other hand they did get to talk to Jim about some of this stuff. Very possibly not this one specifically, I admit.

He was using Sponsored Magic, not regular Evocation.  He doesn't (/isn't capable of) do(ing) that sort of thing normally, using his regular evocation.  Sponsored Magic is capable of doing things of which regular Evocation is not.  Mechanically, the major source of this is represented by what has become known on these boards as 'Evothaum'.

This doesn't necessarily follow. Ice is a lot easier to justify doing this with than most elements and Harry didn't use it much if at all in his pre-Winter Knight days. You could as easily argue that he didn't lift heavy things before, so he was incapable of lifting. It's very possible it's a matter aided but not enabled by the whole "Being the Winter Knight'" thing. Besides...given how Thaumaturgy attacks work, using one in this circumstance makes no sense. It's notably less effective, so why would he bother? Yeah, yeah, fictional character not game character, yadda, yadda, yadda...it's still a weird choice if that's what he needs to do to manage it.

Unless you can come up with some better examples (ie. involving standard Evocation), the logical assumption, here, is that Harry gained this capability via his access to Unseelie Magic, ie. Evothaum.

I haven't read anything pre-cold Days in a while. I've been planning on re-reading them, but I'm not coming up with anything off the top of my head.

You've not provided, that I can find, a meaningful explanation of how you're managing to use symbolic targeting (ie. sympathetic links) in a basic evocation (without relying on Evothaum or some similar additional capability).  Without that, your assertion of 'line of sight', even taken in context, is circular, nonsensical, and worthless.

No more than your assertion that you need line of effect. Both make sense given how magic is presented and neither require symbolic targeting. All you've really got I don't is the fact that in the books, Harry usually uses spells with line of effect...of course, he usually uses Fire or Spirit spells, too, but that doesn't mean other elements don't exist.

So going from, 'finesse matters in this example of what I'm talking about' to 'finesse doesn't actually matter'.
Gotcha.  Good to know.

No, finesse very definitely matters to that specific example. Just not in general...which is what you were talking about, so I said finesse wan't the real issue.

Also, I'm starting to get annoyed with your tone. I can be every bit as condescending and dismissive as you, but I'm trying to keep this civil. Please try to do the same.

[Sanctaphrax]

Tedronai, Deadmanwalking, your avatars are way too similar. Makes your arguments hard to follow.

I can't really comment on the Infrigia thing because I don't remember it that well. But I don't recall any reason to assume that it was non-evade-able. My impression was that it was just really fast and really lethal, like powerful Evocations tend to be.

Isn't 'using the books' (and perhaps some trappings in the rule book) the justification for stating magic requires line of effect?

I'm pretty sure he was referring to using the novels.

Also, I'm starting to get annoyed with your tone. I can be every bit as condescending and dismissive as you, but I'm trying to keep this civil. Please try to do the same.

You know, this quote is pretty condescending and dismissive too.

I think that's okay, though.

Telling people they're wrong is inherently aggressive. So aggressive tones are to be expected in an argument like this one.

[Deadmanwalking]

Tedronai, Deadmanwalking, your avatars are way too similar. Makes your arguments hard to follow.

We have entirely different words, though. It's totally different. 

I can't really comment on the Infrigia thing because I don't remember it that well. But I don't recall any reason to assume that it was non-evade-able. My impression was that it was just really fast and really lethal, like powerful Evocations tend to be.

Another possible interpretation...but it still struck me as what I'm talking about.

I'm pretty sure he was referring to using the novels.

I think so was UmbraLux.

You know, this quote is pretty condescending and dismissive too.

Well, yes. I considered trying to moderate it...but couldn't come up with a good wording to do so that still got the point across, and was less motivated to do so than I might've been.

I think that's okay, though.

Telling people they're wrong is inherently aggressive. So aggressive tones are to be expected in an argument like this one.

I disagree, there's a difference between aggressive and condescending/dismissive or otherwise insulting. It can be summed up as the difference between "You are completely wrong." and "You are wrong and stupid." The first is aggressive, the second is distinctly insulting. Aggressive is fine, insulting is...less so.

There's often a bit of the second creeping in over long arguments, but it seems to me that minimizing it is a good and productive thing to do to avoid hard feelings and generally make the conversation about the issues as opposed to people's personal animosities.

[UmbraLux]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to using the novels.

That was obvious, so was I.  Was there a point or objection?

[Tedronai]

@DMW:

Thaumaturgy attacks are 'less effective' in that they lack weapon ratings.  Evothaum attacks use evocation's methods, which include weapon ratings (see the 'Shell Game' sidebar), and so are not less effective.

The example being used from Cold Days is suspect at best.  As such, it makes a poor support for your argument.  It's full of holes.  Some other example might be better suited to your argument, but since apparently none of us can think of one, it seems reasonable to conclude for now that one does not exist.  In the absence of even a single solid example from canon, your assertion rests solely on your own opinion.

I'm not asserting that 'you need line of effect'.  Those are your words.  I'm asserting that it takes time to cast spells, that the target of an evocation is not based sympathetic principles such as those required to target an individual wherever they may be or wherever they may go, and that the location of an evocation's intended subject might change between the formulation of a spell and its taking effect in the world.


If finesse matters in that one particular example, then answer the question for that example.  Just precisely how much finesse is required to take a spell using that methodology from 'eminently dodgeable' to 'attempts to dodge have no chance of success'.
How high does my Control roll have to be before I can unilaterally demand that my victim use a different skill for their defense?

[Haru]

I can't really comment on the Infrigia thing because I don't remember it that well. But I don't recall any reason to assume that it was non-evade-able. My impression was that it was just really fast and really lethal, like powerful Evocations tend to be.

Pretty much this, where the whole Infriga thing is concerned. Evothaum let's you do some amazing things, but they are still limited to evocations methods, meaning they are targeted by sight, not by symbolic link.

[Sanctaphrax]

That was obvious, so was I.  Was there a point or objection?

I was misreading you. My apologies.

I disagree, there's a difference between aggressive and condescending/dismissive or otherwise insulting. It can be summed up as the difference between "You are completely wrong." and "You are wrong and stupid." The first is aggressive, the second is distinctly insulting. Aggressive is fine, insulting is...less so.

I prefer active aggression to the passive sort, though, and tone rules tend to make people passive-aggressive.