Noob Questions

[TheMouse]

Also, how would a Zone-Wide attack be defended against, narratively? I mean, if for example Harry did a Zone-Wide Fuego, how could someone justify avoiding being hit by it, other than someone who would be able to dive out of the zone?

Mechanically, you use a skill with a trapping that allows you to defend. You need no more justification than that, because that's how the game works. (I mention the mechanics because your second question here mentions mechanics.)

Narratively, there are many examples of possible ways to defend against such things. Cover and dropping prone were mentioned above.

Just because an attack will hit everyone in a zone doesn't mean that it fills the whole zone. All you need to do to defend is be somewhere the attack doesn't reach. You can move between streamers of flame, duck behind something, duck under the attack, jump over it, or even slice it in two with your bad-ass magical sword.

[sinker]

Regarding Morgan's Earth Stomp spell on YS293:
Would a (single target) spell similar to Harry's Gravitus (in Changes and It's My Birthday, Too) also be resisted with Might, instead of Athletics?

To be honest a spell is resisted by whatever you want it to be resisted by (with justification I suppose). Determining how the spell is resisted is part of creating the spell. Just figure out how you're creating the effect and then figure out how one might prevent that. Hell, don't even be worried if someone wants to resist it differently later, as long as they justify it to your satisfaction.

Also, how would a Zone-Wide attack be defended against, narratively? I mean, if for example Harry did a Zone-Wide Fuego, how could someone justify avoiding being hit by it, other than someone who would be able to dive out of the zone?

Yeah, a zone wide attack does not necessarily fill the zone with death, they simply attack all of the characters in that zone. If for example Ana made a zone wide fire spell, it may actually be individual beams of white flame lashing out at each target (it also may not, but that's ok). Additionally even if you are trying to fill the zone there are usually plenty of nooks and hiding places within an area, places that would not be affected by something like that.

[Sanctaphrax]

Is Morgan's Earth Stomp actually legal by the rules?

The idea of attacking against Might kinda bugs me, and as far as I know it's never mentioned outside of that example.

So...yeah. Does anyone know if there's something in the spellcasting rules that allows this?

If not, then why should it be possible with magic when it isn't possible without magic?

[TheMouse]

Is Morgan's Earth Stomp actually legal by the rules?

The idea of attacking against Might kinda bugs me, and as far as I know it's never mentioned outside of that example.

So...yeah. Does anyone know if there's something in the spellcasting rules that allows this?

If not, then why should it be possible with magic when it isn't possible without magic?

Working from the rules in the Evocation section, there isn't an option to change the Skill with which someone defends. It points you to the regular combat section, which mentions Athletics, Fists, and Weapons (naming Athletics as your catch-all defensive Skill).

Might lacks a defensive trapping outside of wrestling, in which case it can replace Fists; this isn't explicit, but presumably it can replace the defensive trapping of Fists in this instance. Other than that, no defensive trapping.

So far as I can tell while doing this reading, the Might part doesn't adhere to the rules. Either it's a Block against which you need to push, in which case you use Might. Or it's a physical attack, in which case you can use any applicable Skill. There's no rule to force someone to use a particular Skill to defend; likewise there's no rule to even allow them to use Might to defend at all in the first place.

[Silverblaze]

I always call these rules a 1st edition.  This is an example of why.  They don't come out and say the specific things like that (yes, they should).    I think a degree of common sense is expected here.

Wind designed to push a player back could be defended by Might.  A spell that suffocates should be defended by endurence.

etc.

[sinker]

The book does say that the skill used for defense in any given situation is defined by the skill used to attack. In this case I figure that the individual spell makes that justification since evocation covers such a broad range of effects. So it's very much justified to determine the defense skill within the spell.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

If not, then why should it be possible with magic when it isn't possible without magic?

Everything I would have had to say to the rest has already been said except this.  Because it's magic.

[Belial666]

Heh, yeah. The magic section even has a paragraph titled "doing the impossible". Admittedly, it's for Thaumaturgy but when did that stop a good lawbreaking dark wizard?

[TheMouse]

Wind designed to push a player back could be defended by Might.  A spell that suffocates should be defended by endurence.

The problem isn't that the rote says it can be defended against with Might. It says it must be defended against with Might.

Saying that you can defend with Might (or Endurance, or whatever) adds more ways to defend against something. You can still dodge the earth opening and trying to eat you if you want to. But if the player decides that Might sounds better for whatever reason, they can opt for Might.

This is in stark contrast to saying that you must defend with Might. Now Might is your only option listed in the book.

[sinker]

Except again, the book states the defense must be appropriate to the attack with justification. When they wrote up the rotes they wanted to slim that process down so that it could be cast quickly and without needing to figure out that process every time (that's the whole purpose for the rote spell), however the rule still stands. If someone justifies doing it another way then you do it that way. The earth stomp spell doesn't force you to do anything, or create any kind of precedent that isn't already there (like the fact that you may defend with any skill).

[TheMouse]

The earth stomp spell doesn't force you to do anything

"Each target that fails to defend with Might suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success."

A plain English reading of this line (which is the only relevant line in regards to defense) is that you need to roll Might to defend. Failure to do so results in a 2-shit -- or weapon:2 -- hit. It does not stipulate that Might based defense is in addition to other options. It simply states that anyone failing to defend with Might takes the hit.

This forces you to defend with Might.

Of course, the GM may always simply allow another Skill to be used in the stead of Might. But this is golden rule territory and not what the book says. I'm happy to discuss applications of the golden rule separately, but right now I'm talking about what the book actually says.

[sinker]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm confused as to why this is bad. What is your actual issue?

[computerking]

Now that I'm thinking about it, I'm confused as to why this is bad. What is your actual issue?

If there is a bigger issue to this,I think it's the concept of forcing a character to use a skill it does not have to defend against something. "Oh, you have a high Athletics? Hear, Mr. No Might, eat some Earth Stomp." and the like. Personally I don't mind it, and I expect that a Mental attack would require a Discipline or Conviction defense, for example.

Which brings another Noob Question out of me: Would a Mental Blast Spirit spell designed not to infiltrate or finesse a mind, just overwhelm it by force to induce unconsciousness, still be Lawbreaker territory(as in the Power), or just a gray area that makes the Wardens twitchy?

[Belial666]

Gray area. That's exactly the kind of spell the Gatekeeper used on Harry and co in Changes.And yes, a wizard can choose which skill to attack normally. I see no problem with this because;

Evasion (stunt)
You can always use the dodge trapping to defend agaist magic, regardless of its type, if you are aware of the attack.
Improved Evasion (stunt)
You get +2 to your dodge trapping vs magic.


Essentially, the wizard is paying an already hefty cost to be able to attack specific skills. Most characters can pay a smaller cost to still use athletics vs magic.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

"Each target that fails to defend with Might suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success."

A plain English reading of this line (which is the only relevant line in regards to defense) is that you need to roll Might to defend. Failure to do so results in a 2-shit -- or weapon:2 -- hit. It does not stipulate that Might based defense is in addition to other options. It simply states that anyone failing to defend with Might takes the hit.

This forces you to defend with Might.

Of course, the GM may always simply allow another Skill to be used in the stead of Might. But this is golden rule territory and not what the book says. I'm happy to discuss applications of the golden rule separately, but right now I'm talking about what the book actually says.

You're reading it wrong.  Or perhaps they typed it wrong.  Try it this way:

"Each target that fails to defend, with Might, suffers a 2-shift hit plus any increase from the attack's margin of success."