Evocation Revamp Ideas

[RonLugge]

I have a full-length text document explaining a good chunk of my thought processes, so this is going to be the TL;DR version.

First, I feel that the mechanical balance between power and control doesn't create the desired narrative from the books.  Second, I've got players pushing to 'balance' wizards by removing the to-hit bonuses from control specialization.  I came up with some ideas on how to adjust this, and would like to provoke a discussion.  The below are given as starting points to help the conversation along.  Tables should try to intelligently mix-and-match to find the right balance for your personal table.

Idea 0: Remove control bonuses to your to-hit rolls with evocation attacks (common 'fix' included as reference)
Idea 1: Roll excess control into power at a 2:1 ratio.
Idea 2: When taking backlash, only 'recover' 1 shift of power for every 2 shifts you prevent from going to fallout.
Idea 3: Combine 1&2
Idea 4: Remove weapon values from evocation attacks, and instead let the shifts of power add to your to-hit roll.  Assumes Idea 0 included.
Idea 5: Halve the weapon value of evocation attacks

=== My Opinions ===

Idea 0 on it's own is a flat nerf to wizards that puts, IMO, too much emphasis on power over control.  It weakens control significantly, but offers little in return.  But it can be combined with other rules to create interesting results.

Idea 1 is probably my favorite, in a lot of ways.  It makes control just as useful for maneuvers as attacks, and mixes very well with Idea 0.  You can create a character who focuses on maximum power at the cost of taking stress, or a character that focuses on control at the cost of raw power.   Or even just pick a balance of the two.  Combined with Idea 0, I think this is something that should trigger a re-discussion on the balance of mental toughness and spellcasters.

Idea 2 introduces an interesting mechanic that I think is worth experimenting with, but is also a flat nerf.  As such, I wouldn't include it with Idea 0, though it technically works well with it.  If you do go that route, I'd argue that you *need* to allow wizards to take mental toughness or otherwise buff them a bit.  Please note that this actually places a large premium on wizards doing manuevers, which *is* something I'd consider a net positive.

Idea 3, as per my notes, is probably not a good idea.  1 or 2 in isolation is interesting, but this really just creates a muddy mess.  It definitely puts a much higher emphasis on either taking control of maneuvering to make best use of your power, but...

Idea 4 is an interesting idea.  Wizards can still get their massive attacks and massive accuracy, but probably not at the same time.  Instead of choosing up front if you want massive weapon values or perfect aim, you get 'both' -- but the more you need the aim, the more the weapons value goes away.  Frankly, I don't think this one works well, I'm just including it to spark further discussion.

Idea 5 is something someone else came up with.  It's an interesting idea worth considering, but it puts the emphasis on power for maneuvers again, which doesn't fit my original desires.

My personal option would probably be a mixture of ideas 0, 1, and 5, but I love idea 2 even though I know I'd never it get it past my table.t my table.

[Taran]

1.  In my experience, it's not specializations that create a problem, it's Foci.  Remove the accuracy bonus that control foci give but keep specializations.  Remember that a +3 bonus to 1 single element represents 3.5- 4 refresh...If my math is correct.  That's a big investment for a single weapon.  The problem with Foci is 3 refresh represents +6 accuracy since foci don't need to stick to a pyramid.

2. I don't understand 2.  Please elaborate.

3. ---

4.  Instead of removing weapon values, why not just give them a base?  Like weapon 3.  So they act like any other weapon.  You can still add power to make them zone-wide and stuff.  You could have some kind of algorithm that increases it. Where it gets more and more expensive the higher you boost damage. like 3+*2 weapon damage.
So 4 damage = 3+1*2= 5 Power
5 damage =3+2*2=7 Power
6 damage =3+3*2=9
- I'm just throwing around numbers...doubling the Power for each point of weapon damage is an easy fix (#5)  10 shifts for weapon 5.  and the math is easy. 

4.  This is interesting.  Accuracy is always better, though.  I'd rather hit with a weapon 2 than miss with a weapon 10.
let's assume Power 5; accuracy 5.
I'd always put 3-4 shifts into accuracy.  Now all my attacks hit because I'm starting at +8-9 accuracy.  I don't really like the idea of a sliding scale for accuracy.  It puts way too much control into the casters hands....especially since every point of accuracy is a point of damage anyways.

Look at it this way:  I roll a 5; weapon 5 attack.  Opponent dodges with a 4.  I do 6 damage: weapon 5+1.

Or I put 4 power into accuracy, weapon 1.  Opponent dodges with a 4.  I do 6 damage: weapon 1+5.

same damage but the latter method ensures that I ALWAYS hit.

5. I'm not sure how this how you are figuring this.  Don't you just mean that each point of power = weapon 1?
So, you can keep the weapon damage low and control it easy but if you want a big bang, it's very quickly going to get hard to control.
If you remove control foci and/or specialties from accuracy, they'll still be able to control huge powerful spells, but they won't likely be able to hit anyone with it - unless they take weapon stunts to boost accuracy (just like for any weapon).

I'm not sure why it puts a focus on maneuvers....

[dragoonbuster]

5. I'm not sure how this how you are figuring this.  Don't you just mean that each point of power = weapon 1?

The idea is that the math for weapon damage is the same as Armor spells. Each 2 shifts of Power in the spell equals 1 Weapon Damage. So per RAW, a Power 6 spell controlled @ 6 is weapon 6, 6 to strike. This change would've made that spell a Weapon: 3, 6 to strike.

[Taran]

The idea is that the math for weapon damage is the same as Armor spells. Each 2 shifts of Power in the spell equals 1 Weapon Damage. So per RAW, a Power 6 spell controlled @ 6 is weapon 6, 6 to strike. This change would've made that spell a Weapon: 3, 6 to strike.

Man.  I meant to say weapon 2 shifts for weapon 1.   Just a misprint.

[RonLugge]

1.  In my experience, it's not specializations that create a problem, it's Foci.  Remove the accuracy bonus that control foci give but keep specializations.  Remember that a +3 bonus to 1 single element represents 3.5- 4 refresh...If my math is correct.  That's a big investment for a single weapon.  The problem with Foci is 3 refresh represents +6 accuracy since foci don't need to stick to a pyramid.

That's... a good point, and not how the idea was originally presented to me.  May have been a communication issue.

2. I don't understand 2.  Please elaborate.

If you have control in excess of what's needed for power, roll it over into additional power at a 2:1 ratio, representing the ability to 'do more' with less.  E. G. a person with +6 control but little power can still do some impressive things, just by using his control to compensate for his strength.  One of my favorite examples of this actually comes from a book, where the main character uses a very small amount of power to cause people's feet to stick to the ground for just an instant while running.  They immediately trip, possibly even breaking an ankle.  Little power, massive result.  Right now, this is something that maneuvers can't really represent, since your opponent resists against your power.

4.  Instead of removing weapon values, why not just give them a base?  Like weapon 3.  So they act like any other weapon.  You can still add power to make them zone-wide and stuff.  You could have some kind of algorithm that increases it. Where it gets more and more expensive the higher you boost damage. like 3+*2 weapon damage.
So 4 damage = 3+1*2= 5 Power
5 damage =3+2*2=7 Power
6 damage =3+3*2=9
- I'm just throwing around numbers...doubling the Power for each point of weapon damage is an easy fix (#5)  10 shifts for weapon 5.  and the math is easy. 

That's... an extremely interesting idea, actually.  I like it.

4.  This is interesting.  Accuracy is always better, though.  I'd rather hit with a weapon 2 than miss with a weapon 10.
let's assume Power 5; accuracy 5.
I'd always put 3-4 shifts into accuracy.  Now all my attacks hit because I'm starting at +8-9 accuracy.  I don't really like the idea of a sliding scale for accuracy.  It puts way too much control into the casters hands....especially since every point of accuracy is a point of damage anyways.

Look at it this way:  I roll a 5; weapon 5 attack.  Opponent dodges with a 4.  I do 6 damage: weapon 5+1.

Or I put 4 power into accuracy, weapon 1.  Opponent dodges with a 4.  I do 6 damage: weapon 1+5.

same damage but the latter method ensures that I ALWAYS hit.

Which is one reason why I noted that this probably doesn't work.  It's an idea, nothing more, intended to spark conversation.

I'm not sure why it puts a focus on maneuvers....

A focus gets put on maneuvers by anything that restricts a wizards aim, because wizards -- more than any other archetype -- cannot afford to miss.  Each spell is a large opportunity cost, since you only get 4 total before you start taking consequences.  Most characters can just throw their big punch again and again.  Wizards face a sharp resource limitation per encounter.

[Taran]

A focus gets put on maneuvers by anything that restricts a wizards aim, because wizards -- more than any other archetype -- cannot afford to miss.  Each spell is a large opportunity cost, since you only get 4 total before you start taking consequences.  Most characters can just throw their big punch again and again.  Wizards face a sharp resource limitation per encounter.

True.  But since you are trying to nerf accuracy, they're out of luck.  Besides, Power comes at a cost.  Those maneuvers still get resisted so they'll have to boost the power high enough and risk taking backlash....

Or, they can have back-up skills to create aspects to tag.  Even melee-types should create aspects before they hit.  High alertness or investigation to spot weaknesses or create scene aspects, high scholarship to work out algorithms and angles before they shoot etc...

Nerfing accuracy forces the wizard to be creative.   It's true that power becomes more important but throwing around lots of power comes at its own cost.  Also, I think having wizards create aspects with spells is a great way to turn them into a better support character instead of a Canon.  If they can't hit, but can choose the difficulty required to make an aspect stick, they become an ideal for that job.  Now the spot-light shines on the other characters more often.

Also, I like to make sure maneuvers have side-effects.  A Power 10 "earthquake" aspect is way more dangerous than a Power 5 "rumbling" aspect and is more likely to have side-effects that will bit the PC's in the arse.  Compel those against the PC's.  have buildings start falling around their ears!

If you have control in excess of what's needed for power, roll it over into additional power at a 2:1 ratio, representing the ability to 'do more' with less.  E. G. a person with +6 control but little power can still do some impressive things, just by using his control to compensate for his strength.  One of my favorite examples of this actually comes from a book, where the main character uses a very small amount of power to cause people's feet to stick to the ground for just an instant while running.  They immediately trip, possibly even breaking an ankle.  Little power, massive result.  Right now, this is something that maneuvers can't really represent, since your opponent resists against your power.

Still makes control more useful.  Maybe just allow extra tags on maneuver...for every 3 shifts.  Or a 3:1 ratio instead of a 2:1  That way it rewards MUCH better control or really lucky rolls...but doesn't make it go crazy.  Well, that's just my gut feeling.  I'd have to do the math.  Would 3:2 be too powerful?

I like the idea and have tossed the idea around myself but my gut says it rewards control too much.

[Sanctaphrax]

This thread is very old, but it's probably worth a look.

[RonLugge]

True.  But since you are trying to nerf accuracy, they're out of luck.  Besides, Power comes at a cost.  Those maneuvers still get resisted so they'll have to boost the power high enough and risk taking backlash....

Or, they can have back-up skills to create aspects to tag.  Even melee-types should create aspects before they hit.  High alertness or investigation to spot weaknesses or create scene aspects, high scholarship to work out algorithms and angles before they shoot etc...

Your second paragraph is exactly the type of manuevers I was thinking of.  I manuevers to apply things like [Focused Concentration] with discipline.  [Good Angle] with athletics.  Etc etc.

And I'm not trying to nerf accuracy, to be honest -- I'm trying to find a way to balance out control after you remove the +to hit from it, as one of my players was pushing for pretty strongly since it 'breaks the game balance' since 'no one else gets to break the skill cap'.  (Note the was: we appear to be coming to a different agreement now.)

Nerfing accuracy forces the wizard to be creative.   It's true that power becomes more important but throwing around lots of power comes at its own cost.  Also, I think having wizards create aspects with spells is a great way to turn them into a better support character instead of a Canon.  If they can't hit, but can choose the difficulty required to make an aspect stick, they become an ideal for that job.  Now the spot-light shines on the other characters more often.

Also, I like to make sure maneuvers have side-effects.  A Power 10 "earthquake" aspect is way more dangerous than a Power 5 "rumbling" aspect and is more likely to have side-effects that will bit the PC's in the arse.  Compel those against the PC's.  have buildings start falling around their ears!

We're still learning our way into the system, but those are interesting ideas.  We actually did house-rule multiple aspects in.  For each additional aspect, you pay a 2-shift premium.  So assuming a 3 shift base, 3 shifts for the first aspect, 3 + (3 + 2) = 8 for the second, 3 + (3 +2) + ( 3 + 2*2) = 14 for the third, and so on.  (Effectively only useful for scene or self-targeted manuevers)

Still makes control more useful.  Maybe just allow extra tags on maneuver...for every 3 shifts.  Or a 3:1 ratio instead of a 2:1  That way it rewards MUCH better control or really lucky rolls...but doesn't make it go crazy.  Well, that's just my gut feeling.  I'd have to do the math.  Would 3:2 be too powerful?

I went with 2:1 because it was easy and a ratio you saw frequently.  It's an idea -- to be commented on, discussed, and ultimately improved on if possible.

[Belial666]

Why is Evocation seen as that powerful compared to other powers? It costs a lot of refresh to be good at it, and costs mental stress to use, and using a focus is a big weakness. Let's do actual comparison;

A) Caster with Evocation and 3 refinements for it. Hits at Power 10, control 11. (has +4/+4 offensive foci)
B) Noncaster with Supernatural Speed/Toughness (+3 catch), and Evasion (stunt of +2 def vs ranged).

Round 1: Noncaster superspeed-moves close, uses athletics to Disarm Maneuver the caster's focus. It's like stealing a basketball/football. Caster retaliates with power/control 7 attack and misses vs 9 defense.

Round 2: Noncaster tackles the caster american football style - a knockdown maneuver. Caster tries to get up but their athletics of 3 doesn't cut it against the noncaster's athletics of 7.

Round 3-8: Noncaster keeps whacking the overwhelmed caster until they croak.



There's a reason foci give everyone a big bonus to all rolls to identify them.

[RonLugge]

Round 3-8: Noncaster keeps whacking the overwhelmed caster until they croak.

Round 3 spellcaster maneuvers with discipline to place [Stilled Mind] on self.  Takes a 3 stress hit from grapple's supplemental action (including +2 from supernatural strength)
Round 4 spellcaster maneuvers with conviction to place [Perfect Purpose] on self.  Takes a 3 stress hit, rolled up to 4, from grapple.
Round 5 spellcaster hits thug with a spell, rolling discipline at +4 by tagging previous aspects, neatly negating the +2 to grapple rolls from supernatural strength as well as the +2 to defense from speed.  Intelligent caster may even spend a mild or moderate consequence just to give the spell plenty of boom and make certain it gets rid of thug.  A base roll of 6/7 power/control means he hits with weapon:6, rolling his attacks at 11 -- and if he spends that moderate, he's now up to weapon 10.  Even without satisfying tough's catch, he's doing at least 8 damage.  And tough is only going to roll their defense at 8 -- +2 from speed, +1 from their stunt.  On average, the wizard will hit for no less than 11 damage.

[Sanctaphrax]

Belial, huh?

There's a name I haven't seen in quite some time. Welcome back.

Anyway, a lot of people have had balance problems when playing with spellcasting. So naturally they think it's overpowered.

Whether their problems were justified or not is really not that relevant.

[Mr. Death]

The issue, Belial, is that you basically need a character specifically geared toward dodging spellcraft to dodge spells. In your example, that's six refresh spent, basically, just to survive against a caster -- and none of it so far geared toward attacking.

And that's just to dodge. Spellcraft is the only way to attack that has no concrete upper limit to stress dealt. I've seen people throw out Weapon:14 evocations. Usually invoking several things or taking consequences, but still.

[RonLugge]

And that's just to dodge. Spellcraft is the only way to attack that has no concrete upper limit to stress dealt. I've seen people throw out Weapon:14 evocations. Usually invoking several things or taking consequences, but still.

Playing devil's advocate here, but that's 6 refresh spent to dodge _any_ ranged attack, with supernatural toughness to absorb most attacks.  (Mind you, I think some of his numbers are off -- evasion looks like it should be +1, not +2).  That character will almost always be a defensive powerhouse, unless you satisfy it's catch.

[Stormraven]

I agree, it can be difficult to deal with the kind of power a Wizard can throw. In an online game on a different forum, a brand spanking new Wizard, through use of Foci and such, tossed a 7 Shift Evocation and came close to one-shotting a bad guy.

I don't expect that the GM was thinking this guy was going to be an epic fight or anything, but I'm sure that it wasn't expected to be that quick, either.

Now, part of that was also the randomness of the dice. On top of the 7 shift attack, I also got a really good roll against the antagonist's bad roll.

Personally, I think I'd run it more or less like this:

A Wizard's base Evocation is just like any Fate attack. In this case, you roll Discipline just like anyone else would roll Fists or Weapons. And the effect is the same. Shifts become Stress. And this doesn't cost the Wizard anything at all.

A focus with a Control boost helps you do more damage because it helps you control more power in the spell, but there's no Weapon Rating at all. (This also helps to show how someone like, say Luccio, can toss around pretty seriously damaging spells near constantly without dropping).

If you want to pull out a big Evocation, then you're working with Stress / Consequences, and I'd say go with something like the following:

Conviction = Power still. Foci Power bonuses apply. But for every 2 Wpn rating you send (Round down), you pay 1 Mental Stress. So a Wpn 7 Fire Evocation would cost 3 Mental Stress.

Yep, that's a lot. I might allow a player to use taggable Aspects/Maneuvers to reduce that at a cost of 1 Stress per tag, minimum cost of 1.

Maneuvers and normal blocks, I'd do the same. If you're just going for a general 'magical' option, Roll your Discipline and take the result of the roll, just like anyone else with any other skill.

If you're trying to draw heavily on your Power (i.e. get that as a bonus to the effect of a successful roll) then you pay just as with attacks.

On the one hand, this lets Wizards fight a little longer and with more frequent magical oomph, but also allows them to bring out the big guns if they feel they need to.

[Belial666]

@RonLugge:
The attacker can contest the concentration maneuvers with his own skills. Also, under a grapple a wizard takes penalties on both power and control equal to the grapple. Good luck firing a spell that hits.

@Mr. Death:
Supernatural speed means going first, boosts stealth, allows you to move and attack in the same round without penalties, and gives a +2 to all athletics, including potentially offensive maneuvers such as outflanking the enemy. Supernatural toughness gives you staying power so you can effectively attack more times in a fight; the best offense is a good defense.


BTW, physical attacks can also scale. Highest I ever saw was Weapon 16 without any stress cost, custom powers or invokes. Then again that was an undead giant wielding a mordite blade so it was kinda justified in a "splat, you're it" kinda way.