Purview of Evocation

[Wordmaker]

Cool. Yeah, that'd definitely work.

I wonder, would hexing an electronic lock be a viable way to open it? In the books Harry describes hexing as making "anything that can go wrong, go wrong" when it comes to more modern technology.

[Cadd]

Cool. Yeah, that'd definitely work.

I wonder, would hexing an electronic lock be a viable way to open it? In the books Harry describes hexing as making "anything that can go wrong, go wrong" when it comes to more modern technology.

Really depends, most places where an electronic lock is used also defaults to locked status if there's any malfunction (such as power outage etc), so hexing should probably not open it; on the other hand Hexing can also just cause something to act wierdly rather than stop working (See the GPS-incident), so it might... I'd saythat if allowed, it'd definitely cost a FP though, as an invoke of High Concept...

[cold_breaker]

Really depends, most places where an electronic lock is used also defaults to locked status if there's any malfunction (such as power outage etc), so hexing should probably not open it; on the other hand Hexing can also just cause something to act wierdly rather than stop working (See the GPS-incident), so it might... I'd saythat if allowed, it'd definitely cost a FP though, as an invoke of High Concept...

Err. hexing is an active skill. You don't need to spend fatepoints to do it, any more than you need to spend fatepoints to cast spells. It could theoretically be done as a declaration though, depending on how generous your GM wants to be about it.

I think hexing an electronic lock would realistically have a 50/50 chance of working. GMs call. The player could declare the lock is hexed open if the GM allows it, or he can try to hex it into opening, in which case I'd personally allow it instead of a lock picking check. Beyond that? It'd work if the narrator wants it to work.

[Tedronai]

I do not believe Cadd was suggesting requiring an invoke to cause the hexing, but rather to control the manner of the failure caused by the hex.

[Lavecki121]

Which would probably follow declaration rules in which you can spend a fate point to actually have it happen (pending GM approval) so that should work anyway.

[blackstaff67]

Making sense of this game often requires ignoring parts of the book. It's not the most consistent document.

This is one example of that. The book says that you can pick locks with air. But it also says that Evocation is for unsubtle thug stuff. And it says Evocation can only be used for four types of action. None of those action types works well for lock-picking.

Ultimately, you have to make up the rules for yourself to some extent. And as a general rule, the interpretation that makes spellcasting less powerful is the more balanced one.

Interesting interpretation. Not sure where you got it from, but I think it could work fine in play.

PS: I'm honestly not sure whether Evil Hat intended any form of emotional manipulation to be possible with Evocation.

When Harry's manipulating a bottle of liquor, I'm pretty sure we've gone from Evocation vs Thaumaturgy to the Effects area of Spellcasting--rather like "flicum bicus."  I try to delineate the difference 'tween the two in games and point out examples in the books as well--great flavor, but not something I try to extrapolate much from.

[Lavecki121]

I actually like (I think it was Haru)'s explaination that it was a evocation maneuver to set up intimidation.

I feel as though maneuvers might have more sublty than straight attacks simply because they set up the attack as opposed to being the attack.

[Dougansf]

Is it feasible for a wizard to have a mystical blind spot so that he or she turns out to be something like an elementalist? Thaumaturgy is not bound by the themes or restrictions of the Five Elements used in Evocation, but isn't it possible that a would-be wizard or an auto-didactic sorcerer might believe in those themes and restrictions and carries them over into her Thaumaturgy practices? Would that be your standard Wizard Template with an Aspect to reflect such a mystical blindspot or would that be a Focused Practitioner or something?

It's absolutely feasible to have blind spots.  It's repeated several times over in the fiction that Dresden is just bad at Veils.  He gets better over the course of time, with help from Molly.  This could be reflected (or Compelled I suppose) through Aspects, but more importantly it should be a part of the characters personality makeup, even without an appropriate Aspect to back it up.

Frex: If your character is very self reliant, then they might have a blind spot to summoning up minions to do work for them.

The elemental theme/blind spot makes plenty of sense to me.  It would close some doors (Angel/Demon summoning comes to mind), but others would be open without issue.

[Troy]

It's absolutely feasible to have blind spots.  It's repeated several times over in the fiction that Dresden is just bad at Veils.  He gets better over the course of time, with help from Molly.  This could be reflected (or Compelled I suppose) through Aspects, but more importantly it should be a part of the characters personality makeup, even without an appropriate Aspect to back it up.

Frex: If your character is very self reliant, then they might have a blind spot to summoning up minions to do work for them.

The elemental theme/blind spot makes plenty of sense to me.  It would close some doors (Angel/Demon summoning comes to mind), but others would be open without issue.

Right. I wasn't even thinking about summoning and binding, and then when I did, I was thinking: "Well, I guess the character could summon elementals..."

So, the blindspots would allow for Evocation to do things akin to "Bending" from Avatar: the Last Airbender. Thaumaturgy effects would be trickier. Divination could be things like casting your senses upon the winds to view far away places and things. Veiling could be things like subsuming into the elements where the Veiled target blends into the background as if it were a natural part of it. Warding could be imbuing the air with the strength of stone or forcing the opposing parties to swim against the current of rushing metaphorical waters or something.

I don't see crafting items in an elementalist's purview, but maybe potions would be. You could make potions that enable people to breathe fire, move like the wind, become as protean as water, as hard as stone, things like that. It would be sort of like Alchemy, I guess.

All the other sorts of -Mancy out there would just present itself as a mystery to an elementalist character. Necromancer? Chronomancer? Biokinesis and Entropomancy? Might as well be Greek. I can definitely see how it would limit a person who might otherwise be a Wizard fully capable of those sorts of things.

So, what do you think a "template" for a person like that would be? Elementalist as a sub-category of Focused Practitioner? Would the Powers be Evocation and Ritual (Elementalism)? Or full-on Thaumaturgy?

[Dougansf]

Right. I wasn't even thinking about summoning and binding, and then when I did, I was thinking: "Well, I guess the character could summon elementals..."

Right, but that still limits their information and influence.  Particularly important if you have a Holy powers character in the chair next to the wizard. 

So, the blindspots would allow for Evocation to do things akin to "Bending" from Avatar: the Last Airbender. Thaumaturgy effects would be trickier. Divination could be things like casting your senses upon the winds to view far away places and things. Veiling could be things like subsuming into the elements where the Veiled target blends into the background as if it were a natural part of it. Warding could be imbuing the air with the strength of stone or forcing the opposing parties to swim against the current of rushing metaphorical waters or something.

I'm confused at how blindspots allow them to do anything.  Blindspots prevent action.
IMO, (without seeing much of the show) any Bending they did in combat was probably Evocation, anything out of combat was probably Thaumaturgy.
I like your examples.  Thinking of how to do various effects in a theme is half the fun. 

I don't see crafting items in an elementalist's purview, but maybe potions would be. You could make potions that enable people to breathe fire, move like the wind, become as protean as water, as hard as stone, things like that. It would be sort of like Alchemy, I guess.

Potions could be Water/Earth.  Metalsmithing could be Earth/Fire.  Heck, Japanese smiths believed that forging a katana was the process of melding all 5 of the elements. 
It's possible, but again you'd have to work in some limitations.

All the other sorts of -Mancy out there would just present itself as a mystery to an elementalist character. Necromancer? Chronomancer? Biokinesis and Entropomancy? Might as well be Greek. I can definitely see how it would limit a person who might otherwise be a Wizard fully capable of those sorts of things.

One could argue that Biokinesis is manipulation of the elements making up your body/spirit.  Otherwise I agree.

So, what do you think a "template" for a person like that would be? Elementalist as a sub-category of Focused Practitioner? Would the Powers be Evocation and Ritual (Elementalism)? Or full-on Thaumaturgy?

I would say the big difference is this:
If you go for the Bending idea (purely external physical manipulation of the element, none of the spiritual implications) then it could be a type of Focused Practitioner with a Ritual theme.
As soon as you add in the spiritual stuff, it's full Thaumaturgy.

[Troy]

Just when I think I'm out -- they pull me back in!

Okay, guys. I've been doing more in-depth reading of the material when it comes to rules for spellcasting and stuff. In the past I ignored Sponsored Magic because it didn't really apply to any of my character concepts. This time, I read it and there was a line that caused me to raise my eyebrows. It's something that I think applies to the genesis of this very thread discussion.

YS: 288, "With Evocations Methods and Speed" sidebar; they give you this tidbit:

"...getting a broad range of effects out of evocation is an exercise in creative rationalization."

What is that supposed to mean? This is what I was trying to say in this thread and what others were explaining is not within the purview of Evocation. I've searched the forum and people have mentioned this bit before but never in the context of Evocation, always in the context of explaining how "evothaum" works. What's your take on it?

[Haru]

The reason people don't mention it in the context of Evocation is that the whole box applies to Evothaum, not Evocation. The limits of Evocation are stated pretty clearly at the beginning of chapter about Evocation.

If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

[Sanctaphrax]

Basically it means that you can sometimes BS your way into doing something questionable with Evocation. At the fuzzy edges of Evocation's purview, what matters is whether you can convince your GM.

Of course, where those fuzzy edges are will vary from game to game.

Just out of curiosity, where did you pick up the word "evothaum"?

PS: I wouldn't ignore Sponsored Magic if I were you. If you take away the Sponsor from Sponsored Magic, you get a very good way to represent elementalists and other such focused spellcasters.

[Troy]

The reason people don't mention it in the context of Evocation is that the whole box applies to Evothaum, not Evocation. The limits of Evocation are stated pretty clearly at the beginning of chapter about Evocation.

If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

Right. In the context of Evothaum, they are telling you... "You can do these sorts of things with Evothaum. Your Sponsor is your rationalization for how this is done. Doing this with standard Evocation is an exercise in creative rationalization."

That's my reading of the material. You're right, though, I'm probably mistaken and their mention of Evocation has nothing to do with Evocation.

Basically it means that you can sometimes BS your way into doing something questionable with Evocation. At the fuzzy edges of Evocation's purview, what matters is whether you can convince your GM.

Of course, where those fuzzy edges are will vary from game to game.

Just out of curiosity, where did you pick up the word "evothaum"?

PS: I wouldn't ignore Sponsored Magic if I were you. If you take away the Sponsor from Sponsored Magic, you get a very good way to represent elementalists and other such focused spellcasters.

Evothaum is what people on this forum call that trait of Sponsored Magic.

[Sanctaphrax]

So you picked it up through general cultural osmosis?