Spell maneuvers

[Bernd]

This comes up rather regularly in my games. I really tried to find an answer but to no avail. Maybe some of you can shed some light on this.

1. How does duration of spell maneuvers work? What do the extra shifts I put in there for duration do exactly? Except for the example on page YS252-3, all examples use the fragile/sticky-rules for mundane maneuvers.

2. How does the targeting roll work for spell maneuvers work? Let’s say I want to place *Blinded on a target using Evocation. My target has a defending skill of +4. I put 3 shifts of power into the spell, but roll only a +2 on my Discipline roll, so I take additional point of stress as Backlash. My target rolls a +3. Now what happens?

a) The spell works as intended, since my shifts of power are equal to the defense roll of my target.

b) The spell does not work as intended because I have no put enough shifts of power to match the target’s defending skill. It would have also failed when I rolled a +4 on my targeting roll.

c) The spell does not work because my target rolled a higher defense than my targeting roll. It would have worked if I rolled a +3 or more on my targeting roll, since that would have been enough to math the defense roll.


Thanks a lot!

[Taran]

1. I use fragile/sticky rules unless the spell effect is so unnatural it could only be maintained by magic.

Some people don't like that because it makes some maneuvers more powerful(longer lasting) than others but I don't mind because magic can do so much more that a mundane maneuver can.

2. a) The aspect is fragile because the Power of the spell was the same as the defense.

    b) According to the book, if the defending skill is 4, then that's the minimum power you need to put at least 4 shifts of power into the spell for it to work.  I'm not sure anyone actually uses that.  Most people just roll against the maneuver strength.  The reason is that most wizards only have 4 spells and it would suck to fail on a spell because you failed to 'guess' the amount of power to put into the spell.

I kind of like it though....I've never really used it in a game.  Normally the minimum power for a spell maneuver is 3, so a person's skill just increases the minimum power.  they then still have to resist the actual spell.

Remember that the base of 3 is kind of arbitrary.  If you want to use a maneuver to break down a concrete ceiling to allow sun to flow into a room, creating 'well lit' on a scene, the base will be much higher than three: concrete is very durable and difficult to break.

In the end, it probably doesn't mean much when casting maneuvers against opponents.  Most wizards are going to cast at their max 1-stress Power which is around 4-6 (depending on conviction and foci) which is higher than most people's resisting skill.

    c) targeting doesn't count for maneuvers.  The discipline roll is only for controlling the spell.

Other notes
- Default to 2a and use fragile/sticky rules and have opponents resist the power of the maneuver.  That's what most people do.

- I was in a game that was using 'b' as I described it but the game fell through and I never got to see how it worked.  we also incorporated targeting into it but I don't remember how.  If I find it, I'll post it here for you to reference

[Bernd]

Thanks a lot for your input.

    c) targeting doesn't count for maneuvers.  The discipline roll is only for controlling the spell.

Well, the book does mention it for for redirecting spells (YS260). And I think it’s implied for rotes. Part of my confusion stems from this.

Also, 2b doesn’t really makes sense without a targeting roll. If you only compare shifts of power vs. defending skill, why would the actual skill value be important?

[Taran]

Thanks a lot for your input.

Well, the book does mention it for for redirecting spells (YS260). And I think it’s implied for rotes. Part of my confusion stems from this.

I don't have my books on me so I can't look up that page number.  For rotes, if you cast an attack spell, you don't have to control it but you still have to roll 'to hit'.

For a Rote maneuver or Rote Block there's no need to roll anything.  The opponent rolls to defend against the Power of the Rote Maneuver which is automatically controlled.

Also, 2b doesn’t really makes sense without a targeting roll. If you only compare shifts of power vs. defending skill, why would the actual skill value be important?

The Power IS the targeting roll.  Just like blocks, you don't have to target with discipline.  The Block = Power invested and the opponent has to overcome that block if he does an action that the block effects.  You don't dodge blocks.

You dodge maneuvers, but you dodge the Power of the maneuver.

I'm not sure why skill value is important other than the fact that it requires more 'minimum' power to affect a more powerful target.  (before taking into account random chance).

Like the example I used with 'well lit'.

Using a fire evocation to light some candles on a scene might be a Power 3 spell that creates 'well lit'

Creating a massive hole in the ceiling that will allow sunlight to stream in and create 'well lit' might be Power 6 or higher because destroying a ceiling is harder than lighting a candle - and harder to negate with a counter-maneuver.

The former allows people to see and avoid compels revolving around darkness, the latter allows you to hurt vampires.

but maybe comparing shifts AND having a minimum shift requirement is redundant.  Maybe you'd just do one or the other...but I like giving a person a chance to roll and resist.