Magic Maneuver Question

[rientelfon]

Hey everyone,

So, I was checking to make sure I understood this maneuver was being used correctly and if I handled it based on the most common interpretation of the rules.

Wizard casts an Earth Evocation that traps the target's feet and this is a rote with 3 Power behind it and generates the aspect "Immobilized". He casts the spell and rolls a 9 for the Discipline spell to aim at the target.

The target rolls their Athletics to avoid being trapped (Fair +2) and gets a 3, which in a tie it becomes a temporary aspect and the target has the aspect "Immobilized".

First question, is "Immobilized" a valid maneuver? This seems like a Block to me.
Second question, since this rote was used on concrete, would it be safe to assume that the target can break free?
Third question, if you defend a maneuver does that use your action for your turn next round? I think it does since this would not qualify as a free action based on the description.

[Haru]

That sounds valid enough. If you do it as a maneuver, it acts as a maneuver. If you do it as a block, it acts as a block.

With a roll like that, it seems it would have been safe enough to increase the power a bit, to make the maneuver more dangerous.

When you get a tie, the aspect is fragile, and it makes sense to reflect that in the wording of the aspect. So if his intention was to put "immobilized" on the target, a fragile aspect could be "slowed down", representing the fact that it isn't quite what he was aiming for.

The spell doesn't exist in a vacuum. What exactly does the spell do? Is it supposed to rip up the ground and catch the target? Then the concrete might actually help the spell (by spending a fate point). Does it entangle the target in vines, in hardened air, with kinetic force? All that determines how someone might be able to free themselves.

You can make a defense action for free against anything directed towards you. Once the maneuver was successful and the aspect is placed, getting rid of it is an action (a maneuver of your own).

[rientelfon]

Hey Haru,

Thanks for the info.  Glad to know my understanding is correct.

As for why the low power, he was using this a rote so it has only a set amount of power in this case it is 3 since he can use it from 1 zone away.

You can make a defense action for free against anything directed towards you. Once the maneuver was successful and the aspect is placed, getting rid of it is an action (a maneuver of your own).

Would this apply to defending a maneuver to keep it against an opponent?

[Haru]

As for why the low power, he was using this a rote so it has only a set amount of power in this case it is 3 since he can use it from 1 zone away.

You don't need to spend power for distance. The -2 for a zone is just so you can affect an entire zone rather than just a single target.

Would this apply to defending a maneuver to keep it against an opponent?

I am not exactly sure what you are asking here. If someone does a maneuver against you, you have the right to defend yourself. If you succeed, the maneuver fails and doesn't create an aspect. You do not get the aspect instead of your attacker.

[rientelfon]

Hey Haru,

I am not exactly sure what you are asking here. If someone does a maneuver against you, you have the right to defend yourself. If you succeed, the maneuver fails and doesn't create an aspect. You do not get the aspect instead of your attacker.

I was referring to this example from the Your Story:

During his turn, the perp tries to use Athletics to remove the aspect (get himself out of the corner); he makes his roll and gets a Fair  (+2). Murphy doesn’t want that to happen, so she rolls Fists as a defense to keep the thug there. She gets a Superb, and the aspect remains.

[Haru]

Ah, now. Yes, if someone tries to remove an aspect, that's a maneuver. If you can justify defending the removal of that maneuver, you can roll a defense for it. If you succeed, the aspect remains.

So in the example, Murphy is well within her right to defend against the removal of the aspect, since she's right there.

[Ulfgeir]

I was referring to this example from the Your Story:

During his turn, the perp tries to use Athletics to remove the aspect (get himself out of the corner); he makes his roll and gets a Fair  (+2). Murphy doesn’t want that to happen, so she rolls Fists as a defense to keep the thug there. She gets a Superb, and the aspect remains.

My understanding is that the the perp in that question tried breaking out from the hold Murphy had on him. She had already succeeded earlier in placing it. What she did now was just to counter his squirming to get out of it.


Look at this way:

Round 1: I try to grab you to put you into some kind of painful hold (a chokehold, an armbar, or one of the wristlocks from aikido). You defend against as you don't want me to put you in such a situation. If you successfully defend, then I don't get the hold.

Round 2 (assuming I succeeded in getting the hold): You try to twist your body in such a way that you get out of the hold. I need to follow with how I apply the hold, or you will get free. If I succeed, I still have the hold. If you succeed, you have negated my hold and we will have to start anew from round 1 with me trying to apply a hold.

/Ulfgeir

[Taran]

With a fragile aspect, I wouldn't really bother overcoming it.  It goes away pretty quickly.  But that's me.

I don't know if I'd use the word "immobilized".  Instead, I might use the an aspect like 'quagmire' to represent the concrete melting and the person getting stuck in it.  Then you could invoke the aspect to compel the person to be stuck/immobilized.

Slowed is probably a better aspect.  If they want to immobilize someone, I agree, the better option is to use a block ... but blocks don't last as long as maneuvers.  There isn't a correct way to do it.  Just preference.  Using an aspect that gets compelled has the risk of failing if the target pays off the compel and a block can be overcome by a sprint roll.

Regarding the concrete:
It really depends what kind of earth magic he's doing.  Is taking dirt from the surrounding area and burying the person?  Is he smashing up the concrete?  I might require a more powerful effect if he's pulling up the concrete.  Maybe it requires a minimum of 4 shifts of power instead of 3.  3 is just the base minimum to have an effect from a spell, but some maneuvers might be harder than others to do.  Really, it's up to you as a GM to decide.  Really, really powerful maneuvers might have catastrophic side-effects.  You can compel those aspects created by players to complicate their lives.

As far as overcoming an aspect goes, as long as something is maintaining the maneuver, the person gets to resist and the target has to overcome.  If it's a sticky aspect created by a spell then it's probably safe to assume the spell is maintaing the effect and they'd have to overcome the original power.  If it's a person maintaining it (like an arm lock), when the target tries to overcome the armlock, the attacker gets to resist to prevent the target from escaping.

A scene aspect that doesn't have anything maintaining it probably has a base difficulty.

Regarding the -2 shifts.  RANGE is sight.  Targeting every person in a ZONE requires additional 2 shifts.  But I wouldn't allow zone-wide maneuvers.  Instead, I'd recommend using the spray attack rules for maneuvers if you want to target multiple people.

[Alecarrpabs]

On a similar idea... what can be locked using the magic lock spell? I mean, could I magic lock a bag by tying the ribbon around it?

[dragoonbuster]

On a similar idea... what can be locked using the magic lock spell? I mean, could I magic lock a bag by tying the ribbon around it?

Sure. And then I can just use a pair of shears to poke and cut a hole into the bag and get things out anyway

[Taran]

On a similar idea... what can be locked using the magic lock spell? I mean, could I magic lock a bag by tying the ribbon around it?

I'd just treat this as a magical ritual.  You create a block on the portal - or a ward or whatever.

Technically, these kinds of things should be immobile.  I'd allow a mobile block against intrusion on a sack.  The block would be the default difficulty for a skill to get into the sack:  Burglary attempts, Might attempts to break and Weapon/fists attempts to do damage to it.  The default would be 1 scene and then you'd have to add extra shifts for duration.

You'd have to spend extra shifts to allow a password to bypass the block - like a ward.  You could have an alarm on it for extra shifts too (like a ward flame).  So, you could protect your wallet like that.

I'd allow an actual ward on an immobile item.  Like a chest that's screwed to the floor.  The reason for that is to limit 'players creativity' by allowing them to bring a portable ward that they can use to damage people or set up insta-wards.  I can't really see how you could do it...but I'm sure there's a way.  Wards can be pretty potent in certain situations so, keeping them immobile seems the thing to do.