Noob Questions Revisited

[computerking]

It's the return of Noob Questions! No, I have not stopped being a noob, and therefore I have some more questions...


Can a Block against attacks provided by an Enchanted Item be altered into Armor at will, or does it have to be created that way specifically?

What about using 2 of the EI above's Shifts of power to cover your teammates in the Zone? An option, or has to be "built-in"?

Similarly, can an "evocationish" attack EI be split to target multiple enemies?

Could an Item be Enchanted to provide a specific attack "roll" result? (Example, a tie pin that provides a roll result of +6 to Rapport once a Session)

[devonapple]

Can a Block against attacks provided by an Enchanted Item be altered into Armor at will, or does it have to be created that way specifically?

I think there's some contention about that. The RAW seem to somewhat support being able to decide, when it is brought into the scene, which it provides (Block or Armor). I go with this interpretation. Others may insist that it *always* be a Block, or always Armor.

What about using 2 of the EI above's Shifts of power to cover your teammates in the Zone? An option, or has to be "built-in"?

I'd say that stretches narrative plausibility - I'd want it to be built-in. It could also depend on how the EI is described. Coming up with an EI that could plausibly be widened to protect your allies might conversely have new disadvantages in what one could justify.

Similarly, can an "evocationish" attack EI be split to target multiple enemies?

I'd say... yes.

Could an Item be Enchanted to provide a specific attack "roll" result? (Example, a tie pin that provides a roll result of +6 to Rapport once a Session)

That's actually how they are supposed to function: they don't provide a bonus of any sort - just a static skill. So when you see Harry make his translocation potion, he's actually creating a potion that provides a Thaumaturgical Athletics roll of +6 or so. When that item is used, his Athletics is effectively +6. Similarly, that tie pin would give its user a Rapport roll of +6. If the user had a Rapport of 6 already, using the item would be unnecessary; and a Rapport of 0-whatever would be replaced by the EI's roll of +6.

[Sanctaphrax]

1. Maybe.

2. Probably not.

3. What do you mean? Are you asking if you can make spray attacks?

4. Sort of. EIs can definitely replace skills, but exactly which skills they can replace under which circumstances depends on GM ruling. I personally would not be a fan of a Rapport attack EI.

[sinker]

Can a Block against attacks provided by an Enchanted Item be altered into Armor at will, or does it have to be created that way specifically?

The book is unclear. My inclination is to say that an enchanted item must be fully fleshed out and is only capable of doing the one thing, but that's just me.

What about using 2 of the EI above's Shifts of power to cover your teammates in the Zone? An option, or has to be "built-in"?

Definitely built in. The above is a rules reflection and the change could possibly be abstracted I.E. it's still doing the same thing (protecting one person), but with slightly different rules. Extending it to a zone is changing how the spell actually works.

Similarly, can an "evocationish" attack EI be split to target multiple enemies?

This is kinda similar to the first question. Technically a spray attack is a rules difference not a thematic difference. For example a gout of flame or an assault rifle could attack a single person or be sprayed to hit multiple targets. Thematically they are the same thing, but from a rules perspective they are different.

Again my inclination is to say that the item does one thing. I guess the reason I have for it is that the rules are imbalanced if you allow thematic changes to effect the rules. If I design a EI that casts a single blade of air and you design one that shoots out a blast of electricity, then the GM allows you to spray since it makes sense thematically that isn't terribly fair to me. It encourages players to game that idea, and then you lose some decent ideas, just because the player can't justify a spray attack with it.

Could an Item be Enchanted to provide a specific attack "roll" result? (Example, a tie pin that provides a roll result of +6 to Rapport once a Session)

Yes, kinda. When you do that, what you are doing is using the "Solve improbable or impossible problems" section of thaumaturgy. This allows you to use the spell's power instead of a skill roll. This gives you a 6 total, not a +6. No rolling dice, no rapport skill, just 6.

There is one example that screws this idea over. Rashid's ointment. Honestly though I have no idea how they do that by RAW.

[sinker]

4. Sort of. EIs can definitely replace skills, but exactly which skills they can replace under which circumstances depends on GM ruling. I personally would not be a fan of a Rapport attack EI.

I can think of a way to do it. It's Lawbreaking, but functional nonetheless.

[computerking]

Good. My estimations seem to jibe with you guys (Built-in needs to be required for most variations), and the one thing I was waffleing about (Replacing the roll) was clarified.

Here's another one:
Would Mental illusions (as a magical Maneuver) break the 4th Law? Or does that only happen when Stress & Consequences are incurred?

[sinker]

That's going to vary from table to table. My inclination is to say it's very grey, but not quite Lawbreaking.

[devonapple]

Lawbreaking is a hotly debated topic, of course.

My take is:
If the spellcaster *intends* for the illusion to result in what would be a Lawbreaking effect (target is tricked into walking out of a 12th-story window), it's Lawbreaking, even if the spellcaster didn't directly immolate the target in eldritch fire or telekinetically throw him out that window. Soul stain, and a Warden death sentence if discovered.

If the spellcaster's illusion *accidentally* results in a Lawbreaking effect (you scared your target into running away and he ended up plummeting out a 12-story window) and the spellcaster knows it, saw it, then the spellcaster will suffer the effects of having broken a Law: Soul stain, and a possible Warden death sentence if discovered. If the spellcaster is able to somehow convince the Wardens that it was an accident, the spellcaster will still have to deal with having the frame of reference changed, so there is still fallout.

Other than these two situations, the capacity for illusions to lead to Lawbreaking is going to depend on circumstances: intent/desired outcome, actual outcome, and the methodology used to accomplish a given outcome. Any combination of these could lead to Soul Stain but no Warden attention, Warden attention but no Soul Stain, or something between.

[sinker]

I think he was asking about the fourth law, not the first. Basically using magic to make someone believe they are seeing something rather than creating a physical illusion with light or similar.

[devonapple]

True: First Law is easier than Fourth Law to make examples for as far as intent and outcome - my apologies for going for the low-hanging fruit.

[sinker]

Actually now that I think about it you bring up an interesting point. I don't think it's possible to unintentionally break the fourth law (You can't accidentally muck about with someone's mind). So then is the outcome the only thing that matters? If he messes up someone's brain then it's lawbreaking but if it doesn't do much damage then it's not? How do we determine whether he's altered the mind or not?

[PolaroidNinja]

I think the fourth law is broken when the person makes a lasting change to another person's mind.

So while editing someone's mind to make them see something temporarily is defiantly "grey magic" I don't think I would rule it as a broken law until the caster edits that person's mind to always see that thing.

So to me for "mental illusions" it would be:
"Edit his mental pathways to see a vicious dog guarding this door as long as I keep the spell in place." would be okay.
"Edit his mental pathways to always see a vicious dog guarding this door." would be law breaking.

I don't know if that is canon or not - but in play I think it gives a good guideline for your characters to have the active choice to break that law or in other words an active place to declare your character's intent, which in my humble opinion is what makes role-playing the laws interesting.

[devonapple]

So to me for "mental illusions" it would be:
"Edit his mental pathways to see a vicious dog guarding this door as long as I keep the spell in place." would be okay.
"Edit his mental pathways to always see a vicious dog guarding this door." would be law breaking.

I can back that differentiation.

[sinker]

So then mechanically the difference would be a maneuvered aspect (something that will last a scene at most and can be shaken by the target with a counter-maneuver) is non-lawbreaking and consequences (something that remains afterwards, and takes time and effort to remove) are lawbreaking.

There's the answer to your question computerking (provided you agree with any of that since it's all just our opinion anyway).

[computerking]

So then mechanically the difference would be a maneuvered aspect (something that will last a scene at most and can be shaken by the target with a counter-maneuver) is non-lawbreaking and consequences (something that remains afterwards, and takes time and effort to remove) are lawbreaking.

That's a really good ruling and justification for it. The water's just so murky on the subject, it's good to have a place to bounce ideas off of people about it.