Author Topic: Spell Theory  (Read 1193 times)

Offline MegaPuff75

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 378
  • You say "vindictive jerk" like it's a bad thing
    • View Profile
Spell Theory
« on: July 09, 2011, 05:19:15 AM »
I haven't been able to find anyone addressing this idea so I thought I'd make a post to ask how I should handle some spell ideas I had.

The first was a blast of kinetic energy designed to throw a target through the air. how many shifts would this take and how could you deal with damage if you threw the target into a wall.

Another idea I had involved combining water and fire evocation to fill a zone with burning steam, by using water evocation to fill the zone with mist and fire evocation to super-heat it. Would this be allowed in most games?
DV MegaPuff75 v1.2 YR6 FR0.3 BK++ RP++ !JB TH++ WG CL SW BC+ MC----
http://knnn.x10.mx/purity2/purity-result.html?54:70:18:23:5:6:22:26:19:27:9:37:16:41:18:28:5:5:
Quantum Physics: proof the universe was built by the lowest bidder

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12402
    • View Profile
Re: Spell Theory
« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2011, 05:58:54 AM »
1. http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,23165.0.html
2. I'd allow it. But I wouldn't allow you to stack fire and water foci and specializations onto one another.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Spell Theory
« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2011, 06:36:44 AM »
For the first one it could be a declaration (of "A wall") that adds to the stress of an attack, could be a special effects attack (both dealing stress and maneuvering, see YS326), or could be a maneuver that is then tagged (maybe with a combination of the above declaration) for effect/compel to create stress/consequences.

Second one seems simple from a mechanics perspective. It's a zone attack, regardless of elements involved. I'm with Sanctaphrax about specializations/foci though. I would think at my most generous I'd let one elemental specialization modify the other...maybe.

Offline EldritchFire

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 164
  • Everyone needs magical fire in their lives!
    • View Profile
    • My Blog: EldritchFire Press
Re: Spell Theory
« Reply #3 on: July 11, 2011, 09:11:13 PM »
I haven't been able to find anyone addressing this idea so I thought I'd make a post to ask how I should handle some spell ideas I had.

The first was a blast of kinetic energy designed to throw a target through the air. how many shifts would this take and how could you deal with damage if you threw the target into a wall.

If you're going for distance, that's a manoeuvre. You tag the aspect for effect to move them to a different zone. If you're looking for damage, that's what the spell normally does. In this case, the damage comes from the impact rather than from the kinetic force itself.

Another idea I had involved combining water and fire evocation to fill a zone with burning steam, by using water evocation to fill the zone with mist and fire evocation to super-heat it. Would this be allowed in most games?

Again, sounds like a manoeuvre. Use whichever evocation makes the most sense. If you're in a damp location, fire makes sense since there's already moisture to superheat into steam. If you're in a desert-type environment, than use water since it's already hot enough.

Or, use both! In two consecutive exchanges start with the water evocation to douse the area with moisture, and the second to fill the area with mist. This way, you have two aspects to tag: moisture rich and filled with steam.

Just my [-2].

-EF
This isn't D&D where you can have a team of psychopathic good guys running around punching everyone you disagree with.
Twitter
My Blog

Offline devonapple

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • Parkour to YOU!
    • View Profile
    • LiveJournal Account
Re: Spell Theory
« Reply #4 on: July 11, 2011, 09:53:34 PM »
The first was a blast of kinetic energy designed to throw a target through the air. how many shifts would this take and how could you deal with damage if you threw the target into a wall.

I don't have the page number, but this almost exact question is addressed in the rules. Basically... you can't add damage just because you define it this way, or because your spell pushes someone off of a building. Any damage coming from the spell needs to accounted for *in the spell* and anything external needs to be an Aspect invoked for additional damage/effect/etc.

So, I think the best way to do this would be a maneuver to place an Aspect (a Sticky Aspect, preferably), as others have suggested. Then decide if it is more important to move the target, or damage it.

If move, then invoke for effect to have the target moved a distance agreed upon by you and the GM (remember that the target still gets to roll a defense check to avoid the spell). If you want the spell to have *also* hurt them, then just wait until the next time they are attacked, throw down a Fate Point to Invoke it a second time and say "Pity they just got 'Thrown Into a Wall' - they were a little too woozy to avoid getting hit by my associate with the brass knuckles." Just make sure they haven't shaken off the Aspect with a Maneuver of their own.

If damage, then wait until the next time they are attacked, and use your free tag to Invoke it a second time and say "Pity they just got 'Thrown Into a Wall' - they were already hurt from my spell - so getting hit by my associate with the brass knuckles is going to hurt even more." You just delay the literal damage that you wanted to do until it becomes important again. Just make sure they haven't shaken off the Aspect with a Maneuver of their own.

Ultimately the spell system isn't about combat simulation so much as Plot Power/Agency/Control.
"Like a voice, like a crack, like a whispering shriek
That echoes on like it’s carpet-bombing feverish white jungles of thought
That I’m positive are not even mine"

Blackout, The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets