The Dresden Files > DFRPG Resource Collection
Sample Combat
JesterOC:
There is no set answer to the issue about Invoking for effect. However just to be clear the book has an example spell that shows Invoking for effect being used to bring misfortune upon a target, not giving a direct benefit to the caster.
It is Harry's Blinding spell. All the spell does is place an aspect of Blinded on the target. When that is done the player can tag for effect and say "The target is blinded and won't be able to hurt anyone else tonight". Which was done in a novel.
However it is different if the target is a quarter mile away from you, than if it is right up in your grill.
When chatting about this with Rob D.(via twitter) he said that the amount of narrative control of tagging for effect during a conflict is a subtle subject and that must be agreed to by all parties involved. (I'm paraphrasing here).
In other words (my interpretation) it will depend on the GM and the other players to accept the power of the Invocation of effect. In a nutshell it just has to feel right to all the parties involved. In the current it feels right to me, your mileage may differ.
JesterOC
babel2uk:
--- Quote from: JesterOC on August 17, 2010, 05:31:13 PM ---There is no set answer to the issue about Invoking for effect. However just to be clear the book has an example spell that shows Invoking for effect being used to bring misfortune upon a target, not giving a direct benefit to the caster.
It is Harry's Blinding spell. All the spell does is place an aspect of Blinded on the target. When that is done the player can tag for effect and say "The target is blinded and won't be able to hurt anyone else tonight". Which was done in a novel.
--- End quote ---
If you're talking about the 'Harry Blinds The Loup Garou' spell, the actual spell doesn't mention Invoking for Effect, it says that it applies a temporary aspect of Blindness, which is highly likely to be sticky because of the complexity involved. This does alow you to tag it (obviously), but I'd say the example of driving off the Loup Garou in Full Moon would be accomplished in game terms by Compelling the Blindness aspect rather than an Invocation for Effect. I'd have no problem with someone invoking the aspect for effect to say the Loup Garou thrashes wildly and doesn't hit his intended target this exchange or similar, or invoking it to give them a bonus to hit or dodge while it can't see, both of which seem like reasonable uses of a freebie. But a long term effect like driving it off for the rest of the night just screams Compel.
--- Quote from: JesterOC on August 17, 2010, 05:31:13 PM ---In other words (my interpretation) it will depend on the GM and the other players to accept the power of the Invocation of effect. In a nutshell it just has to feel right to all the parties involved. In the current it feels right to me, your mileage may differ.
--- End quote ---
I'm not going to argue with that, like I said, it's my point of view that allowing an Invocation for Effect as a tag action is fine, but the effect shouldn't be to immediately end combat or capture the bad guy. That level of narrative power should require a Compel rather than an invocation.
eberg:
--- Quote from: Doc Nova on August 17, 2010, 02:13:46 PM ---Not to get all rulesy on this, but I don't think this is how it works.
A consequence enables one tag, which is a free invoke. An invoke is either +2 to a roll or a reroll. In order to compel the consequence, the player (Barry, in this case) would need to spend a fate point, which Voldy would get...and could also have begun an escalation on the compel, making it far more costly to the compelling player.
--- End quote ---
This might be my confusion from having read Diaspora and Dresden Files back-to-back. The former allows a tag to either be an invoke or a compel.
eberg:
--- Quote from: crusher_bob on August 17, 2010, 05:09:22 AM ---It's a very common house rule to allow caster to create 'reactive' evocation blocks (i.e. generating an evocation block instead of trying to dodge with athletics). And even without this houserule, spending your action to create a block is usually not a good idea, they other side can just blast your buddy instead, and you've wasted your action, since your block only has a duration of one turn.
--- End quote ---
I prefer forcing players to choose between using their magic to attack or defend each round. I think it makes for more interesting choices during a combat. Also, I defend V's decision to put up the block. He doesn't really care if they attack Igor instead (that's what he's there for) and he can always put more energy into the block next round if he needs to keep it up.
--- Quote ---Note that you can take backlash on either your physical or mental track. Most spellcasters prefer to take backlash on the phyasical track so that they have the maximum amount of mental stress boxes available for more spellcasting.
--- End quote ---
Quite true. I'll have to clarify that to the players.
--- Quote ---You normally only get a dodge roll either when your dodge roll total is greater that the effect of the evocation block protecting you, or that evocation defense was used to create armor instead of a block.
--- End quote ---
You don't know if it is higher until you roll it. :) Granted, in this case it wasn't likely he was going to beat his shield, but I put it in anyway to illustrate to the players that they get both the defense and the shield against attacks.
--- Quote ---As Voldy did not put any extra duration into his block, it would have only lasted until this end of his action this turn anyway.
--- End quote ---
It would have lasted long enough to be effective against Dave's attack if Barry hadn't collapsed it with his attack.
--- Quote ---So Barry didn't have to spend an action to dispel it, it would have dissipated by the time his action rolled around.
--- End quote ---
Only if V didn't sink more power into it. :)
Also note that greater duration is one of the advantages offered by 'thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation' available to sponsored magic.
--- Quote ---Mental attacks like this are probably a third law violation
--- End quote ---
It's arguable. He isn't violating his mind, he's just doing a brute force punch to his brain. Given that the alternative is another force attack, it is less likely to kill him (from an in-character perspective).
--- Quote ---Leadership tasks like this are normally done with presence, not rapport.
--- End quote ---
You are correct. I got hung up on the description of Presence as a passive skill, like Alertness, and forgot that trapping.
JesterOC:
After rereading the rules for invoking for effect, compels, and all the examples in the book I can find. I agree that having V fall in the stairs is a compel and not an invoke for effect. It makes PC's using narrative control to short circuit much more costly which I think it more beneficial.
Thanks for clarifying all this folks, especially before our game tonight.
JesterOC
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version