Question about Evocation Maneuvers and how they resolve.

[AstralBlade]

This is an example:

"So, lemme just lay this all out. I'm not ruling, yet.
 Thomas and Harry are dueling against Madrigal and Doucheknocker (don't remember the other dude's name).

Thomas attacks Madrigal, places maneuver of Dazed for 5 Shifts. Madrigal can keep the Aspect on himself and let Thomas tag it whenever, or roll to Overcome it. If Thomas is still harassing Madrigal, Madrigal has to roll a 5 or better to overcome. If Thomas switches to Doucheknocker, then the roll to Overcome becomes 0. Either way, the Aspect stays until it's removed.

This is RAW; there's no dispute here.

Harry blasts Doucheknocker with an 8-shift Ventas Servitas! and knocks him on his ass. He puts 6 shifts into the Maneuver and 2 into Duration. Doucheknocker can roll to Overcome or not, same as Madrigal. However, if he doesn't, then Harry has to tag it within two more rounds, or it goes away. If Doucheknocker chooses to roll to Overcome, he has to beat the 6 shifts if Harry continues harassing him, or a +0 if Harry switches to Madrigal. Or, he can just wait for it to go away on its own.

Still thinking about how to rule, here, but I think the dispute is whether Harry's wind spell should have an Overcome of +0 or +6 when he switches targets, yeah?"

Essentially my group has come to impasse about how this should be ruled. I personally think after switching targets the roll becomes +0 because thematically you can't power an ongoing spell on Doucheknocker while focusing on Madrigal.

The opposition is that you've already paid for duration which mean the spell continues regardless of your target. So to remove the aspect it is +6 to beat.

My GM is currently split 55/45. in the latter's favor. I just wanted to come here for some perspective, and get some of the vets opinions.

[Haru]

I personally don't like the duration rule for maneuvers. Or any spell, really.

I tend to ignore the duration on maneuver spells altogether and just say they last until the end of the scene. In your example, the spell would have placed an aspect like "knocked on his ass" on Glau (aka Doucheknocker) and be over. If Glau spends his action standing up, he removes the aspect, otherwise it remains and anything he does, he does from the ground.

If you want to do it against both, I would do it as a block. You can put duration in there as well. Though in my tabletop group, we have a houserule that says you can just keep up a block as a double supplemental action. Which means you take -2 on anything you do, representing the focus and energy you are putting into the spell, but it holds up as long as you want. You cast the spell upfront as usual, choosing power and trying to control it.

[dragoonbuster]

Unlike Haru, I think the duration rules are both fine and necessary; magic is powerful enough. Taking away the duration issues make it much more so.

If you're sticking to RAW and if the wizard puts shifts into duration, then it should be just as difficult to overcome whether he's focusing on it still or not. That's the difference between calling up a quick gust of wind (no extra duration) and a windstorm that hangs around for a while. That's the advantage magical maneuvers bring to the table (the others are the higher power you can put into it, and the additional impossible things you can justify maneuvering with magic you couldn't otherwise.)


Also...you're using the word "beat" when talking about overcoming a maneuver; I don't know if that's just you using a term you like, or a misunderstanding of the rules, but: You only need to tie an aspect's strength to get rid of it if you're spending an action to overcome it (as opposed to an automatic defense roll where you do in fact have to beat the roll and a tie results in a fragile aspect).

[PirateJack]

Evocations with duration are fire and forget spells, for the most part. In your example, Harry would set up the 6 shift + 2 duration manoeuvre, then would be free to take any other action against any other party. Madrigal, meanwhile, would have to overcome the manoeuvre (6 shifts) or be forced to endure it for another two rounds, both of which require him to roll 6 or better. If the spell is dispelled or the duration runs out, the aspect disappears.

That's the difference between Evocation manoeuvres and regular ones; the energy imparted into the spell makes it self-sustaining.

[Haru]

Unlike Haru, I think the duration rules are both fine and necessary; magic is powerful enough. Taking away the duration issues make it much more so.

There's a big difference between attacks and maneuvers. Attacks become crazy powerful, while a maneuver is still a maneuver, if you invest 3 shifts or 10. And you can create maneuvers with mundane skills, which can last as long as you like. So the mechanically tactical way to go would be setting up mundane maneuvers and drive them home with the magical equivalent of a nuke.

I'd like to see people doing cool stuff with magic that isn't just boom, so empowering maneuver spells is a good thing, I think.

[AstralBlade]

Unlike Haru, I think the duration rules are both fine and necessary; magic is powerful enough. Taking away the duration issues make it much more so.

If you're sticking to RAW and if the wizard puts shifts into duration, then it should be just as difficult to overcome whether he's focusing on it still or not. That's the difference between calling up a quick gust of wind (no extra duration) and a windstorm that hangs around for a while. That's the advantage magical maneuvers bring to the table (the others are the higher power you can put into it, and the additional impossible things you can justify maneuvering with magic you couldn't otherwise.)


Also...you're using the word "beat" when talking about overcoming a maneuver; I don't know if that's just you using a term you like, or a misunderstanding of the rules, but: You only need to tie an aspect's strength to get rid of it if you're spending an action to overcome it (as opposed to an automatic defense roll where you do in fact have to beat the roll and a tie results in a fragile aspect).

That's me using a term I like lol

[Taran]

My answer is: It probably depends?

I'm kind of along the lines of Haru but see below:

I don't bother with duration for maneuvers when using magic (unless the maneuver is purely magical - like 'strong winds' or 'magically bright light')

I just use the sticky/fragile rules.

So if you blast someone with an air maneuver to knock someone down, if the maneuver is sticky, it lasts for the scene.  In this situation, I'd treat it exactly like a regular maneuver - if Dresden stops pressuring his opponent, it'll be easy to stand back up again.  The spell was instantaneous, has come to an end, and no longer comes into play.

So, with that said, if you put duration on the maneuver, to me, it implies the spell is continuing to 'act'.  It is no longer passive.  So instead of using a single burst of wind to knock the guy down, you are using a consistent, continuous stream of wind that lasts for the duration.  I would say they'd have to overcome the full power of the spell since the duration is maintaining pressure on the opponent even if Dresden isn't.  This would be the only advantage I see in putting duration on a maneuver.

Edit:  continuing on that train of thought:  when the duration expires, the aspect may not go away (if it's sticky), but it will be much easier to overcome.

[Taran]

There's a big difference between attacks and maneuvers. Attacks become crazy powerful, while a maneuver is still a maneuver, if you invest 3 shifts or 10. And you can create maneuvers with mundane skills, which can last as long as you like. So the mechanically tactical way to go would be setting up mundane maneuvers and drive them home with the magical equivalent of a nuke.

Double-posting because I want to comment on what I bolded above.

I think there's a huge difference between a power 3 maneuver and a power 10 maneuver.

Let's take The maneuver 'shaking ground'

A power 3 maneuver invoked for effect might knock a person over and cause a vase or two to fall over
A power 10 maneuver invoked for effect might collapse the roof of a house or destroy a small bridge.

[Haru]

A power 3 maneuver invoked for effect might knock a person over and cause a vase or two to fall over
A power 10 maneuver invoked for effect might collapse the roof of a house or destroy a small bridge.

Sure, if tagged for effect. But you usually don't put any duration into those. If you use them as part of stacking up, they will both give you +2, that's what I meant.

[dragoonbuster]

There's a big difference between attacks and maneuvers. Attacks become crazy powerful, while a maneuver is still a maneuver, if you invest 3 shifts or 10. And you can create maneuvers with mundane skills, which can last as long as you like. So the mechanically tactical way to go would be setting up mundane maneuvers and drive them home with the magical equivalent of a nuke.

That is generally the tactical way to do it, yes. Harry does that often in the books, in terms of him grabbing a few seconds of cover, taking a second to focus his energies or to call up more (Discipline/Conviction 'navel-gazing' maneuvers), enrage them with taunting, etc.

I'd like to see people doing cool stuff with magic that isn't just boom, so empowering maneuver spells is a good thing, I think.

I personally find the massively increased justifications you can make with magic, and the ability to pump in more power (making super powerful, effectively impossible to fail maneuvers) balances that well enough. I wouldn't find it game-breaking to empower maneuvers as you have, Haru, though I would never do it for Blocks. I just think that with so few restrictions on wizards, the duration is a useful one.

[AstralBlade]

Thank you everyone for your quick answers.