ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: computerking on October 28, 2011, 10:21:53 PM
-
Or.. Noob Questions revisited!
I recently read the following exchanges in another thread:
Targeting question: I cast an 8-shift push, but I only roll 5 to control. I take 3 backlash to get the spell off. My opponent rolls an Athletics defence of 6. What happens?
He defends. Any time the defense is higher than your targeting roll the effect is avoided.
Hmm, you're right. I think I like the idea of a targeting roll for this one. Though I guess there's some advantage to doing it the other way.
I like the idea of a targeting roll for this too, actually. These evocation pushes are very attack-like.
I like the idea of a targeting roll as well. Think of it as an invisible hand pushing in a straight line - if the target moved away, it will miss.
OK, the way things sound, I may be doing something Way wrong. The way it seems here, targeting is totally separate from control on spells, instead of partially separate, in a way that only becomes obvious when splitting an attack. If taking backlash stress to meet the spell's control requirement doesn't also increase the targeting to that same level, there would be less of an incentive to take backlash, because you're going to have more of a chance of missing, anyway. Now I only did a small amount of digging, but I found the following passage:
Example: Harry Dresden is beset by a charging Red Court vampire intent on taking his fool head of. He’s not really happy about that, so he chooses to blast it of the planet with a fire evocation.
Harry has a Conviction of Superb (+5) and a Discipline of Good (+3). His player—Jim—decides he doesn’t want to mess around with this thing too much, so he chooses to summon up 8 shifts of power for the spell. Harry has a power specialization in fire magic, so his Conviction is treated as Fantastic (+6) for the purposes of the spell. That means that casting this spell will give him a 3-stress mental hit—one stress for everything up to 6, and then two more to get to 8.
The difficulty to cast the spell is Legendary (+8). That’s high, but fortunately Harry’s blasting rod gives him a +1 to control, so Jim starts by rolling his Discipline at Great (+4). He gets a +2, for a total of Fantastic (+6), and invokes Harry’s Wizard Private Eye aspect to give him +2 more. This controls all the power necessary for the spell, and aims the spell at his target at +8.
Harry yells “Fuego!” as he points his blasting rod, sending a column of fame at the vampire, an attack at Legendary rated at Weapon:8. The vampire rolls to defend against Harry’s roll of Legendary and gets a Great (+4), which means the blast strikes home and inflicts a 12-stress hit on him (4 for the attack, 8 for the weapon value). The vampire’s Inhuman Toughness reduces this to 11 stress, and the vampire takes a severe consequence of Extra Crispy and a 5-stress physical hit.
Wouldn't the stress output be 10 not 12 if Harry's targeting roll was only counted as 6, not 8? And had the vampire rolled +7, would it have still been a hit?
One more passage:
The Discipline roll also controls spell targeting and sets the difficulty for defending against it.
For the life of me I can't find anything in the rules of backlash that says that covering a failed roll with backlash doesn't also cover targeting, since it's intended to cover the Discipline Roll Deficit, it sounds like it covers the targeting roll, as well.
Can anyone find anything in the RAW that supports the Targeting Roll separation?
-
Harry's targeting roll in the example is 8. The control roll is also used as the targeting roll. Except with rotes, which have their targeting rolls made even though their control rolls are fixed.
I don't think backlash helps you aim, but it's conceivable that I'm wrong.
-
Wouldn't the stress output be 10 not 12 if Harry's targeting roll was only counted as 6, not 8? And had the vampire rolled +7, would it have still been a hit?
In the example Harry invokes an aspect for a +2 to the control / targeting / attack roll. So, as Sanctaphrax notes, the total is +8 and the damage has been calculated correctly.
One more passage:For the life of me I can't find anything in the rules of backlash that says that covering a failed roll with backlash doesn't also cover targeting, since it's intended to cover the Discipline Roll Deficit, it sounds like it covers the targeting roll, as well.
Can anyone find anything in the RAW that supports the Targeting Roll separation?
Power is a separate decision from targeting / control. It even uses a separate skill (Conviction instead of Discipline). The book standard is adding to one skill at a time. Since that's a core assumption, I'm not sure there's anything explicit under evocation...if I find something I'll post a followup.
Edit: YS255-256 covers gathering and controlling power in separate sections. Gathering power allows you to increase power by "taking additional stress" up to and including consequences. Notably, it does not call this backlash. Controlling power allows you to take backlash to increase control.
It speaks of each separately and describes them with different terms. That's probably as close as you'll get to an explicit "one point of stress doesn't add one to both power and control" statement.
-
No, backlash doesn't add to your targeting roll.\
-----------------
Example 1:
Brutha has a base power of 7 and a base control of 7. He tries to blast Vorbis with a power 7 attack, for one stress.
He rolls control and gets a total of 6. He takes one point of backlash to keep the spell power at 7; the final attack is a power 7, targeting 6 attack.
----------------
Brutha has bothered to make his 'blast a heretic' spell into a rote (@ power 7). He tries to cast if on Vorbis as a rote this time. He again gets a total of 6 on the control roll. But, as this was a rote, he automatically controls the power, so he doesn't need to worry about fallout or backlash. So the final attack is power 7, targeting 6.
-
I think someone's been reading Small Gods.
-
No, backlash doesn't add to your targeting roll.
While it doesn't appear to be explicitly stated, comparing the two examples on YS257 seems to state differently. Though, in many ways, I prefer your interpretation. Wizards have plenty of power.
-
While it doesn't appear to be explicitly stated, comparing the two examples on YS257 seems to state differently. Though, in many ways, I prefer your interpretation. Wizards have plenty of power.
Harry must cast a spell with a Superb (+5) control target without using incantations or focus items. Without these benefits, he fails the Discipline roll by 5. He doesn't want to hurt anyone around him or cause any unintended environmental effects, and he needs the spell to succeed in full, so he chooses to take a 5-stress physical backlash. He's already taken some physical stress during this scene, so he ends up having to take a moderate consequence of Utterly Exhausted in addition to a 1-stress physical hit. Ouch. But at least the spell is still cast at full power.
Harry Dresden is trying to cast a spirit (force) attack of Epic (+7) difficulty, defined as a Weapon:5 attack against an entire zone containing two bad guys. But Harry mucks it up, rolling a Fair (+2) and missing the target by 5. He's drained of resources at this point--he's taken consequences, spent most of his fate points, and has both stress tracks at least partially full. Jim, his player, decides to let the five shifts go out as fallout and deal with a weaker spell.
Because Harry lost 5 shifts to fallout, the GM rules that Harry's attack is only a single target Weapon:2 attack at Fair. The one opponent Harry is still able to target dodges that easily.
As to the effect of the fallout, the GM rules that Harry blew out a support wall in the building, putting an aspect of Crumbling Building on the scene. Now, not only is he on his last legs in this fight, but he has to deal with the whole building falling down around him...
I read those examples differently than you did. Note that while the fallout example specifically states that Harry's spell is a zone attack, the backlash example states that Harry is casting "a spell"--no mention of attack anywhere in the example. Also, in the first example, the control target difficulty is stated up front, before the spell is even cast, and is not described as a defense roll of any type. It looks to me to be more consistent with maneuvering to place a very important scene aspect (possibly with multiple compels factored in; the "without using incantations or focus items" bit screams compel to me, so the Superb difficulty might be similar in origin).
-
My inclination is to say that backlash doesn't add to the targeting roll, because of how it's described. Look at this.
Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash
remains a part of the spell and does not reduce
its effect. Fallout is different: every shift of
fallout reduces the effect of the spell.
"Remains a part of the spell and does not reduce it's effect." That seems to be describing the spell and it's power only. It says nothing about targeting or even about the discipline roll at all.
As others have pointed out, in your example Harry succeeds. He has no need for backlash.
-
I'm a bit mixed. I want to buy your interpretation - it would reign in casters to a degree. But you've actually pointed out the quote that has me leaning towards allowing addition to the targeting roll. Specifically, "...does not reduce it's effect." Missing certainly would reduce the effect. :-\
The rules could probably be interpreted either way. However, from things Fred has said about consequences adding to rolls (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/consequences-as-positive-currency/), I think spending backlash to increase the targeting roll was the intent. Besides, if it didn't, you would seldom, if ever, choose to take backlash on an attack.
-
I don't run with backlash helping on the targetting roll, and the Wizard in the group takes backlash all the time, both with spells that require targetting rolls and those that don't.
-
My point was that power does not effect targeting. The quote says that "...Power taken as backlash remains a part of the spell..." Seems pretty clear to me.
-
...the Wizard in the group takes backlash all the time...
I'd question the wizard's competence, but I suspect you're exaggerating a bit. ;) I guess the real question is, how often does the wizard take backlash on an attack that misses?
-
Rarely, because she pretty much never misses, and if she does it's because of a bunch of back and forth invokes between her and the bad guy, and she just ran out of Fate points, but still far exceeds the power of the spell. I think she did once though because she was worried about hurting her allies.
-
Anyway, she backlashes often because she sets the power of her spells so damn high. It's not uncommon for her to bring up more than 10 shifts, and she doesn't have any Refinement.
-
I bet she nukes stuff good and proper though. ;D
-
Yup, mostr recently she took out Tessa (not by herself, but she did do most of the heavy lifting.)
-
I wholeheartedly approve.
-
I realize this is a little late, but this is something our group has discussed, and we've always considered the backlash shifts as part of the attack roll, on the logic that the "control" part of controlling a spell includes controlling where it's going. I believe there's something in the text along the lines of saying with backlash, the spell works as intended because the wizard paid the price for it, and we interpreted "works as intended" to include it going where the wizard told it to go.
-
That's how we run it too. If I cast a 5 shift evocation and only roll a 3 for discipline I can take a 2 stress backlash hit and have the effective discipline roll be 5. It's worked well so far.
The guy with the gun can't take stress to increase his roll, but it also doesn't cost him anything to pull the trigger, and he can do it a lot more often than a wizard could. Also, sometimes the tradeoff might not be worth it to the wizard, so the spell just goes off half cocked and sloppy. Again, something the guy firing a gun doesn't have to worry about.
"Billy B. rolls a 4 for his guns attack, D. McBaggleton rolls a 5 on his athletics to dodge. Bullet flies off into a wall." As opposed to the wizard. "Sparkles rolls a 4 on discipline to control a 5 shift Fireworks Jubilee spell, he can either take another mental stress to control it (and McBaggelton may still roll well enough to dodge), or he can let a point fly out into the environment as fallout." Higher risk, higher reward for the wizard, and I think that taking extra mental stress to control a spell fits in with that concept.
-
That's the way I still run it, despite some of the answers I got in this thread. I'm following one of the Golden rules: K.I.S.S.: It's just simpler to have Spell control/targeting be one total, outside of Rotes.
-
I don't see anything that would make me think that taking backlash adds to the Discipline roll.
I read it as saying that if your Discipline roll is less than the shifts of power to be controlled, that the difference is how many shifts are uncontrolled. If the Wizard does nothing, the result will be Fallout, which means that the uncontrolled shifts are taken out of the spell (the power or the spell is reduced) and does something else instead (GM's choice).
The Wizard has two options to mitigate this. The first option is to invoke aspects. By increasing your Discipline roll, you increase your control, and therefore the shifts of power are not uncontrolled after all. As a side benefit, this also improves your attack roll since your Discipline roll counts for both.
The second option is to accept backlash, instead. In this case, the uncontrolled shifts taken as backlash remain as part of the spell. This means the power of the spell is not reduced, but does not change the Discipline roll.
-
The way I see it, since backlash is something that you can take when you fail, it makes sense that you can't completely recover from that failure. I'm actually bringing this issue up to my group this weekend. We've actually been acting on the assumption that it does help targeting, but I think that it should change. We'll see how it goes, with two of my players being wizards.
-
The way I see it, since backlash is something that you can take when you fail, it makes sense that you can't completely recover from that failure.
The backlash itself--stress and/or consequences--is already the price of that failure, though.
-
Yes, it can be looked at that way, but once again, if you know you're pretty much going to miss anyway, taking Backlash seems pointless. It's an extra level of complexity that bogs down the gameplay, especially if Fate Point Bidding Wars start. I consider Targeting to be a part of the spell, and Backlash as taking great pains to make the spell go exactly where, and exactly how hard you want it to hit(in the case of an attack).
It may not specifically state that it increases the Discipline roll, but it does indicate that the spell is controlled by taking Backlash. And to me, targeting is a part of controlling a spell.
Ant to bring up a previous statement:
The rules could probably be interpreted either way. However, from things Fred has said about consequences adding to rolls (http://www.faterpg.com/2011/consequences-as-positive-currency/), I think spending backlash to increase the targeting roll was the intent. Besides, if it didn't, you would seldom, if ever, choose to take backlash on an attack.
-
If I am correct, here, the point of contention is based around whether or not the backlash "brings-up" the Discipline roll used to target your spell.
Example:
My hypothetical example wizard Crackin McFadden decides to cast a 7-power thunder spell. He calls up the power, rolls his Discipline and gets a 5. He takes the 2 backlash and dishes out the spell. His opponent, Higgs Oucherson rolls a 6 defense.
Case 1 is that his backlash "dragged-up" the control of the spell up to a 7 and he would hit.
Case 2 is that even with the backlash, he missed because his targeting was inferior to the enemy's defense.
I contend that Case 2 is correct, and here's why:
Rotes.
Rotes were mentioned before, and I'd like to go back to that for a second to stress a point. Rotes state that you automatically control the spell, but you still have to roll to target. So, does this mean that if your targetting roll is lower than the power of the rote, you count as having a targetting roll that equals the power of the rote? It doesn't make sense.
If rotes are "always controlled" (as in RAW) and some of you guys are suggesting that Case 1 is correct, or that "control" is a minimum for how well you target, that would suggest that if Crackin McFadden made that same 7-power spell into a rote, even if his Discipline was rolled at a 5 in the future, he would have an effective 7 minimum. After all, the power is "controlled" automatically, "dragging-up" the roll.
Is that a clear example? Backlash should not effect your targeting.
-
Rotes are an explicit special case not useful as a precedent for this question.
-
That does bring up another question, though: If you have that 7 shift rote, and your effective Discipline and Conviction are both at 5 (meaning on an even roll, you'd take 3 mental stress for the power, and 2 stress for the backlash), and you roll Discipline to fire it and get a +2 to hit that 7, do you still take that backlash?
-
Rotes are an explicit special case not useful as a precedent for this question.
I argue that they are valid to this discussion.
They specifically use the terms "control" and "targeting". They specifically make it clear how those two terms, while handled by the same roll, are not necessarily the same numerical value at all times.
It's a classic example of taking a logical argument to an extreme that everyone can agree on and seeing that the argument based on a fallacy falls apart at that extreme, leaving the correct argument intact.
-
That does bring up another question, though: If you have that 7 shift rote, and your effective Discipline and Conviction are both at 5 (meaning on an even roll, you'd take 3 mental stress for the power, and 2 stress for the backlash), and you roll Discipline to fire it and get a +2 to hit that 7, do you still take that backlash?
The explicitly separate Targeting roll of a Rote does not affect that Rote's Control regardless of how well or poorly the Targeting roll turns out.
They specifically use the terms "control" and "targeting". They specifically make it clear how those two terms, while handled by the same roll, are not necessarily the same numerical value at all times.
Rotes explicitly break the standard rule that Targeting and Control are both handled by the same roll.
The rules governing Backlash contain no such exemption.
Rotes are not a suitable precedent.
-
@Tedronai:
If control and targeting are always supposed to be equal, why do they use separate terms for them then?
Control and Targeting are two separate variables that just happen to be initialized to the same die roll to reduce play complexity. The fact that the control variable is then changed to a higher number through the application of backlash does not effect the targeting variable.
---
It should also be remembered that taking that backlash doesn't just help make the spell work; it prevents nasty fallout from threatening your allies.
-
I can see both sides of the effects of backlash on the targeting roll.
In my games, I have opted to let backlash help the control and targeting rolls simultaneously.
-
@Tedronai:
If control and targeting are always supposed to be equal, why do they use separate terms for them then?
Control and Targeting are two separate variables that just happen to be initialized to the same die roll to reduce play complexity. The fact that the control variable is then changed to a higher number through the application of backlash does not effect the targeting variable.
What do you have to say to the fact, that you have yet to address despite having it pointed out several times, now, that the writers felt it necessary to explicitly state the separation of Targeting from Control into two independently modifiable variables specifically for the purposes of Rote spells, but felt no such need anywhere else, with that absence most notable in the case of Backlash?
-
Skimming through the Evocation section again, I only see control and targeting mentioned in two places: under Attacks where the control roll is used as the targeting roll and under Rote spells where you still need to make a targeting roll even when you auto-succeed the control roll. Have I missed any references?
Under Rote Spells, it's fairly clear you can succeed in casting but still miss. Under Attacks it explicitly states targeting shifts don't need to be split the same as the power you're controlling when doing spray attacks.
Personally, I'm leaning towards keeping the two 'separate' (i.e. backlash only increases control). It only affects attacks...and the caster can always use an aspect if they really want that attack to go in. Besides, casters are powerful enough already. ;)
-
Personally, I'm leaning towards keeping the two 'separate' (i.e. backlash only increases control). It only affects attacks...and the caster can always use an aspect if they really want that attack to go in. Besides, casters are powerful enough already. ;)
I'm close to that interpretation, though I wonder if there are any instances in the canon (for what that's worth) in which Dresden:
1) casts a spell at someone
2) messes it up
3) takes backlash
but *still*
4) misses the target
That level of granularity would be hard to adjudicate in the text, I admit.
-
It's still possible for the target to dodge, even if the backlash does add to the attack roll.
-
It's still possible for the target to dodge, even if the backlash does add to the attack roll.
That is true! Which makes the question somewhat moot.
Which brings me to the question of how GMs handle transparency regarding the difficulties of certain actions. If the player knew that simply taking Backlash wouldn't equate to success, would the GM give an option to push the spell even farther (declarations, tagging Aspects, etc.) to assure a hit? At what point do the player and the GM stop invoking Aspects and consider the conflict resolved?
-
Well, I play in a chatroom with the dicebot right there, so all the rolls are out in the open--that way the players know exactly what they have to meet. As for spell attacks, though, I usually have them decide if they want to take the backlash or fallout before I roll any defense, on the logic that their character doesn't know how well their target's going to dodge either. I do, however, allow them to invoke immediately following the defense roll.
-
I still don't see anything that even hints that taking backlash would add to an attack roll. The rules say:
Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains a part of the spell and does not reduce its effect. Fallout is different: every shift of fallout reduces the effect of the spell.
So with backlash, you get to keep all of the power shifts as originally intended, including the uncontrolled ones. In other words, your weapon:5 spell stays weapon:5. With fallout, you lose the uncontrolled shifts, and the GM gets to play with them. In other words, your weapon:5 spell becomes less than weapon:5, depending on how much you lose to fallout.
Where does it say for each point of backlash accepted you get a +1 bonus to your Discipline/attack/control roll?
-
Because everywhere else, it equates the Control roll with the Attack roll, because they're the same thing. So it's not illogical to think that if you're taking backlash to improve control, the backlash is going to help with the thing the book just told you is synonymous with the control roll.
Going by the example in the book, for backlash, it says that it's a 5-shift spell, and he misses it by 5 shifts; i.e., his aiming roll is a flat 0. It may not specify that it's an attack, but it doesn't say it isn't either, so we can't assume that it isn't, and I fail to see the point in taking a consequence in Backlash for a spell that is all but guaranteed to miss the mark.
-
Which brings me to the question of how GMs handle transparency regarding the difficulties of certain actions. If the player knew that simply taking Backlash wouldn't equate to success, would the GM give an option to push the spell even farther (declarations, tagging Aspects, etc.) to assure a hit? At what point do the player and the GM stop invoking Aspects and consider the conflict resolved?
IIRC, RAW has both rolls occurring more-or-less simultaneously, with opportunities for backlash/fallout or FP expenditures on both sides to instigate a 'bidding war', only ending when both are either satisfied with the result or are unwilling/unable to allocate more resources to the exchange.
-
With my group, generally, only one side tends to do an Invoke per exchange, mostly because most exchanges tend to be PC vs. Mook, and when I, as GM, spend a fate point to throw them a loop, they generally just accept it and deal with the consequences.
-
Because everywhere else, it equates the Control roll with the Attack roll, because they're the same thing. So it's not illogical to think that if you're taking backlash to improve control, the backlash is going to help with the thing the book just told you is synonymous with the control roll.
Here's the thing that I see. The book says nothing about backlash upping your control at all. It says that the uncontrolled power remains a part of the spell. It doesn't effect the roll or even the control. It only effects the shifts.
-
What do you have to say to the fact, that you have yet to address despite having it pointed out several times, now, that the writers felt it necessary to explicitly state the separation of Targeting from Control into two independently modifiable variables specifically for the purposes of Rote spells, but felt no such need anywhere else, with that absence most notable in the case of Backlash?
So, instead they create a whole extra term (and the associated confusion) for some small piece of mechanics that could have been easily simplified by stating "Rote spells simply don't suffer from backlash or fallout"? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
You are essentially saying that if we simply ignore this one, eensy-wheensy, explicit piece of evidence that goes against your conclusion, your conclusion is proven! There is an example in the book where the two are unattached: rotes. You are expecting us to ignore this example to support your play preference.
If you feel that wizards are not powerful enough in your games, by all means, play with your backlash-targetting houserule. I'm simply saying there is significant evidence in the RAW that backlash does not apply to targeting rolls.
At this point, I would say that unless one of us comes up with further evidence, we agree to disagree.
-
Because everywhere else, it equates the Control roll with the Attack roll, because they're the same thing. So it's not illogical to think that if you're taking backlash to improve control, the backlash is going to help with the thing the book just told you is synonymous with the control roll.
I agree with your first sentence. You make a Control roll using your Discipline (plus control bonuses), and the result is called your "Control roll" and your Control roll is also used as your attack roll. I'm with you up to there. My point has nothing to do with that, and I'll be repeat it here:
Where does it say for each point of backlash accepted you get a +1 bonus to your Discipline/attack/control roll?
You are implying that the rules state that backlash increases either your discipline or control roll (and therefore your attack roll). I find no sign of it saying that. I do see where it says that missing your control roll means that some of the spells power shifts are uncontrolled. I see where it left as fallout (which is sort of the 'default') that you lose that many shifts from the shifts of power of the spell. And I see the option of choosing backlash, which allows you to keep those shifts of power in the spell. And it still refers to those as 'uncontrolled shifts' either way, though, none of which implies any improvement of control gained by taking backlash. Invoking aspects specifically increases the discipline roll (and therefore control/attack), but where do you see that backlash and fallout do?
If backlash improved control, then I could see value in some circumstances (though certainly not all) to purposely casting a more powerful spell so that you could exploit backlash to guarantee that you achieve a certain minimum attack roll.
Going by the example in the book, for backlash, it says that it's a 5-shift spell, and he misses it by 5 shifts; i.e., his aiming roll is a flat 0. It may not specify that it's an attack, but it doesn't say it isn't either, so we can't assume that it isn't, and I fail to see the point in taking a consequence in Backlash for a spell that is all but guaranteed to miss the mark.
I can't argue with this. However, there's is value to making sure that a spell that will hit retains as many shifts of power as possible.
Let's say, for example, that you just cast a 9 shift area attack (weapon:5, 2 zones) at a small horde of RCV mooks (base stats, no consequences). You roll a total of 6 on your control roll, and are fresh out of Fate points. Against an Athletics of 2, that should hit all of them, but you've got 3 uncontrolled shifts to deal with. So now you have a choice: do you want to hit them all with a w:2 attack (and deal with whatever 3-shift fallout effect your sadistic GM decides to afflict on the fight) or do you want to take a 3-stress hit to make them all suffer a w:5? The weaker attack will only net enough stress to take out those who roll worse than average, the rest will just mark off a physical box and proceed to eat you. For 3 stress, however, you can ensure that only those RCVs that roll at least a +3 on their dice (total defense of 5) will stay standing.
Seems like a good buy to me, even without adding the +3 to both the power of the spell and the control.
-
We're not "implying" that the rules "state" anything. We're saying that the rules can be interpreted as meaning that, just as your targeting roll = the control roll, something that allows you to control the spell = targeting.
The only place it refers to them as "uncontrolled shifts" and part of backlash is where it says, "Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains a part of the spell" which doesn't mean they're still uncontrolled shifts, it means that you're taking backlash because they were uncontrolled--and our thinking is that by taking backlash, those shifts are, in fact, back under your control. They're part of the spell, ergo, they're controlled. If they were out of control, they'd be fallout.
The RAW doesn't come out and say, or provide an example showing, that the base Discipline/targeting roll is unaffected by backlash either. If it did, the discussion wouldn't have started in the first place.
Yes, in your example, it's a good buy, because the base attack roll is pretty good already. If he rolls worse than that, however, it's a wasted spell and the wizard is given a choice between letting the power go as fallout and potentially harming his allies, or "controlling" the power for the sake of a spell that he already is pretty sure is going to be a waste.
This doesn't quite jive with the book's assertion that "if he chooses to absorb it all himself, his spell should still go off as intended because he was willing to pay the extra cost." I imagine it's pretty rare that "miss everybody" is what the wizard intends with an attack spell.
Though the Fallout example in the book could certainly be read to support the backlash = targeting stance. In it, Harry rolls bad enough that his control/targeting roll is only a +2, for a Weapon:5 spell against a whole zone. It then says that Jim B. decides to take it as Fallout because he's taken consequences and his stress tracks are filling up--but says nothing about how a Fair attack roll is unlikely to hit anything. One would think that if that was a factor--and that he'd be stuck with the Fair even if he did take backlash--the example would have mentioned it. This omission could be taken to imply that if Harry had taken it as backlash, it would have remained a worthwhile attack both in power and in accuracy, rather than one that makes a big boom but doesn't hit anything.
Though that brings up another question I had: Say in the Fallout example, Harry rolls a solid +7, and gets his Weapon:5 attack against the zone. Is the targeting roll that the targets have to beat 5 or 7?
-
Yes, in your example, it's a good buy, because the base attack roll is pretty good already. If he rolls worse than that, however, it's a wasted spell and the wizard is given a choice between letting the power go as fallout and potentially harming his allies, or "controlling" the power for the sake of a spell that he already is pretty sure is going to be a waste.
This doesn't quite jive with the book's assertion that "if he chooses to absorb it all himself, his spell should still go off as intended because he was willing to pay the extra cost." I imagine it's pretty rare that "miss everybody" is what the wizard intends with an attack spell.
You paint with too broad a brush. It's only a "waste" if 1) it was an attack spell and 2) the attack roll wasn't already higher than defense. It's not a waste if it's a block, maneuver, or counterspell.
Personal opinion time: casters don't need more attack power. ;)
Though the Fallout example in the book could certainly be read to support the backlash = targeting stance. In it, Harry rolls bad enough that his control/targeting roll is only a +2, for a Weapon:5 spell against a whole zone. It then says that Jim B. decides to take it as Fallout because he's taken consequences and his stress tracks are filling up--but says nothing about how a Fair attack roll is unlikely to hit anything. One would think that if that was a factor, the example would have mentioned it. This omission could be taken to imply that if Harry had taken it as backlash, it would have remained a worthwhile attack both in power and in accuracy, rather than one that makes a big boom but doesn't hit anything.
It could also be taken to imply he didn't bother taking backlash because it wasn't going to raise the targeting roll and consequently would have had a good chance of missing even if he had. It even states the +2 is "dodged easily". :) I suspect which implication we choose will depend on what each of us wants to see. There's no concrete language, just statements in other sections we've alluded to previously.
-
Just to add my 2 cents...
My group has always played that Backlash prevents you from losing shifts of power, but does NOT affect your aim. We have found backlash to be a useful option for some spellcasters in certain situations. Once, the GM ran some spellcasters and had them add backlash to their aiming rolls (because he hadn't done spellcasting in a long time and forgot how we ran it), and multiple PCs ended up dying.
I feel that, regardless of rules interpretations, adding backlash to aim rolls is just too powerful. It's too easy under that rule for a caster to intentionally summon up 10 more shifts of power than he can actually control, take 3 consequences as backlash, and thereby create an almost undodgeable attack.
-
You paint with too broad a brush. It's only a "waste" if 1) it was an attack spell and 2) the attack roll wasn't already higher than defense. It's not a waste if it's a block, maneuver, or counterspell.
Personal opinion time: casters don't need more attack power. ;)
What I was trying to say was that any example we came up with would be pointless, as we could each tailor it to support our own position.
It could also be taken to imply he didn't bother taking backlash because it wasn't going to raise the targeting roll and consequently would have had a good chance of missing even if he had. It even states the +2 is "dodged easily". :) I suspect which implication we choose will depend on what each of us wants to see. There's no concrete language, just statements in other sections we've alluded to previously.
My point was that if that was an argument against taking it as backlash, it's odd that the narration doesn't mention it--instead, it focuses on the stress and consequences. As the example doesn't mention a lackluster targeting roll, even with backlash, as a factor, it seems to imply that it wouldn't be lackluster if backlash was taken.
I feel that, regardless of rules interpretations, adding backlash to aim rolls is just too powerful. It's too easy under that rule for a caster to intentionally summon up 10 more shifts of power than he can actually control, take 3 consequences as backlash, and thereby create an almost undodgeable attack.
Yes, but then the caster's got all those consequences, and they're not going to go away in a hurry--and he's paying for it twice, once to summon up the power, and once to control the backlash. If you're going 10 shifts above your base Conviction, that means at least 7 shifts over your stress track just to call up the power, eating up, if you're lucky, two Mild and one Moderate consequence, leaving you only Severe and Extreme consequences to make up the attack roll. And at that point, you might as well be casting a Death Curse instead.
-
So, instead they create a whole extra term (and the associated confusion) for some small piece of mechanics that could have been easily simplified by stating "Rote spells simply don't suffer from backlash or fallout"? Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor?
You are essentially saying that if we simply ignore this one, eensy-wheensy, explicit piece of evidence that goes against your conclusion, your conclusion is proven! There is an example in the book where the two are unattached: rotes. You are expecting us to ignore this example to support your play preference.
If you feel that wizards are not powerful enough in your games, by all means, play with your backlash-targetting houserule. I'm simply saying there is significant evidence in the RAW that backlash does not apply to targeting rolls.
At this point, I would say that unless one of us comes up with further evidence, we agree to disagree.
Please read my posts on this topic more carefully so as to avoid putting words in my mouth.
I have not once stated that I believe that backlash increases the 'accuracy' of an attack spell.
What I have said is that, since Rotes explicitly state that Targeting and Control are handled separately for the purposes of Rote Spells they are not useful as a precedent for a rule where no similar statement is present.
Further, your comment re: Occam's Razor is undermined by your apparent lack of understanding even of what Rote spells do.
-
My point was that if that was an argument against taking it as backlash, it's odd that the narration doesn't mention it--instead, it focuses on the stress and consequences.
The section on backlash doesn't mention adding to either control (except lack of) or targeting (at all). It simply states "Any uncontrolled power taken as backlash remains part of the spell and does not reduce its effect."
Think I'll step away though...don't think we'll convince each other. ;)
-
You know, this whole debate reminds me of the D&D rules lawyers who say "Well, since the rulebook never says that a dead person can't act, obviously they can."
Slightly more on topic, I strongly agree with those who say that neither backlash nor fallout increase attack spell accuracy. IMO, if it was going to do that, it would have been explicitly called out.
-
Though that brings up another question I had: Say in the Fallout example, Harry rolls a solid +7, and gets his Weapon:5 attack against the zone. Is the targeting roll that the targets have to beat 5 or 7?
YS257: "The Discipline roll also controls spell targeting and sets the difficulty for defending against it."
-
Alright, having had to Concede my way out of a Ghoul assassination attempt, I now have a little more of a personal stake in this question. I was fighting alone against a Ghoul who had been slowly whittling me down, and I had to take her out. I rolled a horrendous Control check trying to place a 6-shift Maneuver on it: even tagging a Declaration I had placed on the scene (accessibly arcane foci, in an occult bookstore) for a re-roll only got me 3 of the 6 shifts I needed to control it.
The GM did not tell me how much I needed to actually hit the Ghoul, so I prayed and took enough Backlash to make the spell go off. It missed.
Should I have insisted on knowing whether I would have hit?
Or is this truly one of those situations when you roll the dice and hope for the best?
Or was it foolish to put more than shifts into an Evocation Maneuver in the first place?
-
With my groups, it's a given that the players almost always know what targets they have to hit as far as rolling goes, since the bot we use is in the chatroom we do for all OOC stuff. If nothing else, the player ought to so they can judge whether it's worth it to burn a fate point. As a player, it's frustrating if you sacrifice a resource to no real affect, and as a GM I want the players to get bang out of their buck--generally speaking, if they're willing to spend fate points, I'm willing to let them succeed. Even if it's only the GM saying, "That's not gonna be enough," the player ought to be making an informed decision, even if the character's oblivious.
-
As a general rule, I assume that a spent fate point / tag / whatever has to do something. If someone tries to spend a fate point but would still miss, I let them know, and give them the option of either having the point refunded, or spending more points to hit. I'll also refund a fate point if someone would have taken out the target without it.
The exception to this is if the defender also has fate points or tags to spend. If you miss by one, spend a fate point to hit, and then the defender spends a fate point to be able to dodge - both fate points are gone.
Magical maneuvers are a wonky thing, though, since it's a set power against some (un-rolled!) defensive skill. In this case, I'd typically tell a player outright "You're going to need a power 7 effect to hit this guy with your maneuver-that's-defended-by-athletics" - or, at worst, allow the PC to roll an assessment as a free action to know the right power value. In the latter case, I could see allowing someone to eat backlash to get off a spell that can't work even at its best, if they failed that assessment.
-
Alright, having had to Concede my way out of a Ghoul assassination attempt, I now have a little more of a personal stake in this question. I was fighting alone against a Ghoul who had been slowly whittling me down, and I had to take her out. I rolled a horrendous Control check trying to place a 6-shift Maneuver on it: even tagging a Declaration I had placed on the scene (accessibly arcane foci, in an occult bookstore) for a re-roll only got me 3 of the 6 shifts I needed to control it.
The GM did not tell me how much I needed to actually hit the Ghoul, so I prayed and took enough Backlash to make the spell go off. It missed.
Should I have insisted on knowing whether I would have hit?
Or is this truly one of those situations when you roll the dice and hope for the best?
Or was it foolish to put more than shifts into an Evocation Maneuver in the first place?
Sometimes bad rolls do happen. If they didn't, we might as well be playing a diceless (see: boring) system. I know, it sucks when it happens. When it happens to me I have to remind myself that its just a game: You win some, you lose some.
-
I'm not sure that knowing the defense roll factors into the equation. Bad rolls happen. Once they happen, your only choices are to accept the failure or buy success (with Fate points). I'm assuming that you had no Fate available (other than the quasi-Fate built into your scene aspect), so that leaves dealing with the failure. You missed the control roll, and had no choice but to accept backlash or fallout. Would going with fallout have changed the scene's outcome?
-
I'm not sure that knowing the defense roll factors into the equation. Bad rolls happen. Once they happen, your only choices are to accept the failure or buy success (with Fate points).
Ah, but determining the price of success would necessitate knowing the defense roll--if you've got two Fate Points, and you'd have to make up 6 shifts to make it a success, it's unfair to the player to have him pay those two fate points and then fail anyway.
-
Ah, but determining the price of success would necessitate knowing the defense roll--if you've got two Fate Points, and you'd have to make up 6 shifts to make it a success, it's unfair to the player to have him pay those two fate points and then fail anyway.
Good point.
-
Ah, but determining the price of success would necessitate knowing the defense roll--if you've got two Fate Points, and you'd have to make up 6 shifts to make it a success, it's unfair to the player to have him pay those two fate points and then fail anyway.
Yeah, I'd def. agree that the player should be kept informed about where the success/fail line is. If you were informed, there wouldn't be a decision as to whether or not to take "useless" backlash. You'd get to make that decision and shoulder the blame for the outcome. Very FATE. Very Dresden.
-
Originally I was with Mr. Death on this one (and probably still would be in any other system), but the more I think about it, this system has whole mechanics built around failing safely. If you wind up spending resources recklessly then it sucks, but it's not your death. There are concessions and even if you're taken out the result is often not detrimental to the story. This gives you some freedom to fail, and I think I like that (and in this case I would take advantage of it).
If they didn't, we might as well be playing a diceless (see: boring) system.
I wonder if you have ever played a diceless system? Some of my best games happened diceless. If you're a fan of Roger Zelazny (or even a fan of interesting game mechanics) I suggest you check out the Amber Diceless RPG. Here's (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=1447&it=1) a link to it on DriveThruRPG.
-
I wonder if you have ever played a diceless system? Some of my best games happened diceless. If you're a fan of Roger Zelazny (or even a fan of interesting game mechanics) I suggest you check out the Amber Diceless RPG. Here's (http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product_info.php?products_id=1447&it=1) a link to it on DriveThruRPG.
Yeah, I've played a few.
I used to love the Marvel RPG that came out near the turn of the millenium that used stones for effort and had no random element. The only thing was, I kept thinking to myself, "Wow, this could be so much better if things weren't guaranteed to turn out the same way every time. This could be so much better with dice somehow." I've considered running it again and adding fudge dice to the game. It'd probably be a blast.
While I've not played Amber, other members of my gaming group have. They were even fans of the books. They said it was not as interesting of a game as they'd hoped and never even finished their first play-by-post campaign.
-
Originally I was with Mr. Death on this one (and probably still would be in any other system), but the more I think about it, this system has whole mechanics built around failing safely. If you wind up spending resources recklessly then it sucks, but it's not your death. There are concessions and even if you're taken out the result is often not detrimental to the story. This gives you some freedom to fail, and I think I like that (and in this case I would take advantage of it).
The way I look at it, if the character spends effort and resources and still fails, that's good drama and natural in the course of the story. If the player ends up spending resources that go to waste, that's frustrating and not as fun. Sure, bad rolls will happen, but I think a player shouldn't end up using up his valuable resources (Fate points, etc) when it's impossible for them to do him any good.
The game is, above all else, about choice. If a player doesn't know what he has to aim for, his ability to choose is curtailed.
-
If the player ends up spending resources that go to waste, that's frustrating and not as fun.
I think it depends on the situation. In my second game with my local group there was a situation where the bad guy was badly wounded but about to get away, and I was the only one who had thought to cover that exit. It came down to one last shot. I rolled terribly... So I spent a fate point to re-roll and rolled even worse. I spent another fate point only to get a mediocre roll. I spent my last point just to bring it up to +2 or +3... and they dodged. While it did rankle a bit there was a part of me that felt good about the struggle, that could laugh at the whole situation. We all commiserated afterwards and vowed to take that sneaky bastard down the next time we saw him. And afterwards I refreshed (or was compelled) and I had more fate points, no worries. Life (or pretend life) went on.
-
Yeah, the fate point for a reroll does stand out a bit differently. In the case you described, had I been GMing, I would have refunded the last fate point... but not the two spent on re-rolls.
-
This is probably me being overly generous, but if one of my players invokes for a reroll and their own roll ends up worse (or the same), I give them the option to just take the +2 instead before I roll whatever other dice were in play. This is admittedly rare; if they're invoking for a straight up reroll, it's usually because they rolled something like -3 or -4, and the opponent rolled +2 or so, so simple law of averages usually ensures the resulting roll's at least a little better. But as I've said before, I'm usually of the belief that a fate point spent should have a tangible benefit.
-
Additionally it should be pointed out that I was frustrated with the dice (which is ok) and definitely not the GM (which is not).
Now that I think about it though, the backlash situation is a bit different. It's hard to make a judgement on that when we can't see the entire scope of the question. For example did the backlash directly cause you to fail the conflict? What other actions had been taken thus far and what actions were taken afterward? If you hadn't taken backlash would it merely have prolonged your defeat or could it have shifted the balance? It's tough to know how much of an impact that had on the situation as a whole.
I think what I would say overall is that I would probably do different things in different situations, but it's important to say that it is not the GM's responsibility to make sure the player's resources are spent wisely. If he feels the situation was too bad for the player then maybe he can give the player a break, but I don't think he should under all (or even most) circumstances.
-
Additionally it should be pointed out that I was frustrated with the dice (which is ok) and definitely not the GM (which is not).
Now that I think about it though, the backlash situation is a bit different. It's hard to make a judgement on that when we can't see the entire scope of the question. For example did the backlash directly cause you to fail the conflict? What other actions had been taken thus far and what actions were taken afterward? If you hadn't taken backlash would it merely have prolonged your defeat or could it have shifted the balance? It's tough to know how much of an impact that had on the situation as a whole.
I think what I would say overall is that I would probably do different things in different situations, but it's important to say that it is not the GM's responsibility to make sure the player's resources are spent wisely. If he feels the situation was too bad for the player then maybe he can give the player a break, but I don't think he should under all (or even most) circumstances.
If I had it to do again, My PC would still take the backlash: bursting the water pipes in the new age store was an undesirable outcome compared to my wizard just getting mangled.
The way it happened:
Alone at his new age store job, my PC is getting his ear chewed off by a Wiccan wannabe (and my Lore check said there was nothing magical about her).
Gunshots outside drew my character to the doorway (after ordering the customer to hide in the back) where he carefully tried to assess the situation without getting shot.
Customer turned out to be a Ghoul, who attacked the PC.
I used my one remaining Fate point to invoke an Aspect which resulted in the PC not being taken by surprise.
Ghoul and Wizard exchange attacks. He gets in one good attack, but I'm losing the war of attrition, and my wizard is running out of uses for his equivalent of Harry's duster.
Having taken some Physical stress, a lot of Mental stress, and one 4-point Consequence, I resolved that the PC had to lay some Maneuvers on the Ghoul. Declaration rolls weren't going well, and the GM was insisting on Fate points for some of them.
So then I marked my highest stress box to cast a 6-shift supercharged Evocation Maneuver, but rolled -3 on the dice, for a Discipline roll of +0.
I had been planning to tag a previous successful Declaration to make sure the attack hit, but instead I tagged it to reroll that terrible roll. I got a -1, which still meant a Discipline roll of 2, leaving me 4 stress to either release as Fallout or take as Backlash.
I had the PC take it as Backlash, and then the GM rolled Athletics. With an effective targeting roll of 2, the attack roll missed (safely). The next exchange, the Ghoul tagged my PC's "Shredded Arms" Consequence for a bonus to hit, and when I saw it was going to far exceed the wizard's available Physical stress, I knew I could either take a 6-point Consequence, or Concede: I opted to Concede, and it worked out.
-
Yeah, in that particular instance it sounds like it would not have made a significant difference, that you were probably headed for a concession in the first place. I suppose a generous GM would take the unnecessary backlash into account when handing out fate points for your concession. It also sounds like you were not terribly frustrated with the outcome.
-
I was somewhat frustrated with the outcome. I'm a Wizard, darnit, and I'd like to be able to take out one Ghoul. But the dice were against me, and my Fate Points were low.
That said, I had retooled my array of Enchanted items, and they worked as well as could be expected (though the wizard never got a chance to wield his Whip of Shadows, as he was too busy trying to lay maneuvers).
In hindsight, he should have just Veiled on round 1 and spend the combat laying Maneuvers without taking hits.
-
One other item for you to look at devonapple - rotes. Blocks and maneuvers make the best rotes (IMO) and a maneuver rote would have avoided backlash...even if your targeting roll missed. (Assuming you had to make a roll for some reason.)
-
Oh, I totally had a rote for that, UmbraLux, but I needed to land it, so I opted for a stronger Evocation.
Edit: in fact, I'd already cast a rote (an Ice Block, which missed).
-
You still make targeting rolls on rotes with all the same modifiers, so you shouldn't have an easier time landing a non rote than a rote. Or maybe I'm missing something?
Edit: Right, miss remembering something. For some reason I had it stuck in my head that it was 3 or appropriate defensive skill for base power, with more for duration, but that actual defensive roll was against targeting... I even see why I got that idea *sigh* (YS pg 252)
-
You still make targeting rolls on rotes with all the same modifiers, so you shouldn't have an easier time landing a non rote than a rote. Or maybe I'm missing something?
You make targeting rolls if it's an attack. Blocks and maneuvers will simply be opposed based on their power. Or unopposed if targeted at yourself or an ally.
-
You make targeting rolls if it's an attack. Blocks and maneuvers will simply be opposed based on their power. Or unopposed if targeted at yourself or an ally.
So if I successfully cast a 6-shift Maneuver, does the target defend against my Targeting roll, the Maneuver strength, or both together? I'm trying to remember what my motivation *is* for casting stronger Maneuvers.
-
Your victim rolls against the spell's power - the shifts you put into it and controlled successfully.
For a maneuver, there is no 'targeting' roll. Just a control roll (if it's not a rote). Shifts of power determine the maneuver effectiveness. So if you put 5 shifts in and the defender's roll is also 5, you have a fragile maneuver. If you'd put 4 in you would have failed and at 6 shifts it would be sticky. (See YS252.)
Basically, if you expect your target to have a strong defense* you'll want to put lots of shifts into the spell. If you figure the target can't or won't defend, three shifts are the default though you might go four if targeting an enemy. That way you get at least a fragile aspect if they should happen to roll a +4 on the die. (Dice are all that matter if they're surprised or don't have an appropriate defense.)
*In many ways you're better off with self maneuvers.
-
*In many ways you're better off with self maneuvers.
::sigh:: tell me about it.
So it sounds like we had a bad rules call: the target should have saved against the successfully controlled Maneuver strength, not my atrocious (but Backlash-bolstered) control/targeting roll?
-
Don't know what happened in your game, but it is the shifts of successfully controlled power which determine the maneuver strength. Your control roll only affects it if you fail and let some shifts go to fallout...reducing the spell's power.
Here's the relevant quote from YS252: "By default, pulling off most maneuvers requires 3 shifts of power, but if the target has an appropriate resisting skill rated higher than Good (+3), that skill total determines the required number of shifts." In other words, you need more shifts of power than the defender's skill roll.
-
In other words, you need more shifts of power than the defender's skill roll.
Not how I read that. RAW, you need shifts of power equal to or greater than the target's (unrolled) skill. An evocation maneuver only gets dice involved for control - or no dice at all if it's a rote.
I'm somewhat inclined to houserule changes to that for my game, but haven't worked out exactly what houserules I actually want to use.
-
It could be read that way. I guess I read "skill total" as the end result. Not just the skill rating. Probably also extrapolating from non-magical skill vs skill maneuvers.
Can't disagree with your interpretation though - one more area left to groups to decide.
-
Not how I read that. RAW, you need shifts of power equal to or greater than the target's (unrolled) skill. An evocation maneuver only gets dice involved for control - or no dice at all if it's a rote.
I'm somewhat inclined to houserule changes to that for my game, but haven't worked out exactly what houserules I actually want to use.
Hmm, I was making the same assumption as Umbralux. Makes Maneuver Rotes more useful than I thought they were.
-
Spent some time re-reading the relevant sections. It doesn't really clear up the issue.
The phrase "skill total" is used only twice. Once in the evocation maneuver section and once in the section on explosions (YS325) under Running the Game - and there it's fairly clearly meant to be the skill as written on the sheet, not the roll plus rating.
On the flip side, maneuvers targeted at an opponent are explicitly contested actions. (So much so that some have argued maneuvers can only occur in conflicts.) In any case, the conflict section on maneuvers (YS207) explicitly states "...a maneuver is performed much like an attack—you roll an appropriate skill against the opponent and try to beat the opponent’s defense roll." Examples on YS208 show the skill vs skill used.
Going back to YS252, evocation maneuvers are explicitly based on shifts of power which is only indirectly related to a skill roll. "By default, pulling off most maneuvers requires 3 shifts of power, but if the target has an appropriate resisting skill rated higher than Good (+3), that skill total determines the required number of shifts."
The options presented appear to be either an uncontested roll for targeted evocation maneuvers (just need shifts equal to skill total) or opposing shifts of power with a skill roll. (A third option might be opposing the control roll but that's not presented by the book.) Either way, we're ignoring conflicting information.
Think I'll keep the shifts vs defense roll model. Self and scene maneuvers are powerful enough, I don't see a need to make targeted maneuvers easier.
-
Think I'll keep the shifts vs defense roll model. Self and scene maneuvers are powerful enough, I don't see a need to make targeted maneuvers easier.
Actually I would argue that this is a good reason to make targeted maneuvers easier. Why make any maneuver more difficult than another? Why encourage people to choose one maneuver over another? They have the same effects, and for that matter self and scene maneuvers can be more powerful as they can effect any and all targets.
-
Actually I would argue that this is a good reason to make targeted maneuvers easier. Why make any maneuver more difficult than another? Why encourage people to choose one maneuver over another? They have the same effects, and for that matter self and scene maneuvers can be more powerful as they can effect any and all targets.
Partially because I detest "take out by maneuver" and compels / invokes for effect are the true strength of any aspect. Partially because I think it should be a contested action and stay consistent with skill maneuvers. Partially because you'd need the extra shifts anyway. But mostly because it could be used to 'softly' lock an opponent down if you have numbers on your side (potentially cost them their next turn - repeatedly).
Let's say you did go with the model of just matching the victim's skill. You have a very short lived aspect, no matter how much you put into duration. All the victim need do is spend a turn taking action to remove it. Should be easy since all you did was match his skill. In a one vs one scenario, it's a net zero - those two action may as well never have occurred. In a many vs one (or few) scenario, the solo (or smaller group) gets faced with the choice of losing an action to remove the aspect(s) or getting slammed with lots of easy and long lasting tags.
-
The options presented appear to be either an uncontested roll for targeted evocation maneuvers (just need shifts equal to skill total) or opposing shifts of power with a skill roll. (A third option might be opposing the control roll but that's not presented by the book.) Either way, we're ignoring conflicting information.
Think I'll keep the shifts vs defense roll model. Self and scene maneuvers are powerful enough, I don't see a need to make targeted maneuvers easier.
I actually interpreted as a third option, you need to have power equal to their actual resisting skill (per the magic rules) and if they want a defense roll, they roll vs your control/targeting roll (per the generic maneuver rules). An example would be really useful.
-
Partially because I detest "take out by maneuver" and compels / invokes for effect are the true strength of any aspect. Partially because I think it should be a contested action and stay consistent with skill maneuvers. Partially because you'd need the extra shifts anyway. But mostly because it could be used to 'softly' lock an opponent down if you have numbers on your side (potentially cost them their next turn - repeatedly).
Because the GM and the table at large is powerless to stop or change any of these things...
More than anything I think it makes maneuvering with evocation a more practical option, on par with blocking or attacking, especially at the lower levels, and it will only be an issue if the table allows it to be.
-
Because the GM and the table at large is powerless to stop or change any of these things...
I'd rather worry about other things.
More than anything I think it makes maneuvering with evocation a more practical option, on par with blocking or attacking, especially at the lower levels, and it will only be an issue if the table allows it to be.
Shrug, there are two contradictory possibilities. I'm not going to argue against either. Just laid out reasons for my choice.