You'll run into a problem: evocation is already a very powerful ability. Letting it do 'other stuff' will quickly move it out of the top tier of abilities and into the best of all abilities category.
From what I've been able to find from my research online, most people tend to use Evocation like a magic gun. I'd like it to be something more than that because I'm not interested in blasting people.
On the other hand, if someone has the Channeling power and they are an aeromancer, as in Haru's contribution, then what need have they to learn the other elements when every element can do pretty much the same thing?
Using a Fire Evocation to make someone angry (or using a Water Evocation to dowse someone's anger to use a different point of view) is within the purview of Evocation, is it not? That's a form of psychomancy.
Am I completely off-base?
Psychomancy is form of Thaumaturgy.Except insofar as it might also be available elsewhere, such as indicated by the oft-cited notation in the Spirit section.
Can you elaborate, please?
Also, what do you think Molly Carpenter was doing magically/mechanically speaking when she violated the 4th Law if it wasn't some repeated use of a subtle, but harmful, Evocation?
On the order of power 4-9 thaumaturgy.
Evocation really isn't useful for that sort of subtle work. A bit like asking how much surgery you can do in 30 seconds with an axe.
That's also one of the notable abilities of sponsored magic, the ability to do some aspects of thaumaturgy at evocation speeds and methods.
Is it feasible for a wizard to have a mystical blind spot so that he or she turns out to be something like an elementalist? Thaumaturgy is not bound by the themes or restrictions of the Five Elements used in Evocation, but isn't it possible that a would-be wizard or an auto-didactic sorcerer might believe in those themes and restrictions and carries them over into her Thaumaturgy practices? Would that be your standard Wizard Template with an Aspect to reflect such a mystical blindspot or would that be a Focused Practitioner or something?
I think a good guideline is that magic can do anything that will keep the game moving and that another player hasn't already taken as a niche. Can you hex open a lock? Well if another player wanted to be 'lock guy' enough that he's got Burglary at Great, then no. If you don't have an understanding like that, the wizard can Thaumaturgy literally any problem the table has by using his Lore skill in place of *anything*, which is handy for a single protagonist of a book, but ball-hogging in a group of 4 or 5 players who are supposed to be more or less mechanically equal.Well said.
I think a good guideline is that magic can do anything that will keep the game moving and that another player hasn't already taken as a niche. Can you hex open a lock? Well if another player wanted to be 'lock guy' enough that he's got Burglary at Great, then no. If you don't have an understanding like that, the wizard can Thaumaturgy literally any problem the table has by using his Lore skill in place of *anything*, which is handy for a single protagonist of a book, but ball-hogging in a group of 4 or 5 players who are supposed to be more or less mechanically equal.
I find it strange that some folks might not allow an Air Evocation to pick a lock.
When I think of Evocation I think: you can't hide this, no matter what.
That's not how I see it though. With a book example, Harry was able to manipulate a bottle of liquor, without breaking it and without spilling. I believe that was an evocation. At least it was when I read itI don't remember a scene like that. Can you tell me which book it is in?
I find it strange that some folks might not allow an Air Evocation to pick a lock. It says right in the book that you can do that because Air is the Element of find manipulations.
When I think of Evocation I think: you can't hide this, no matter what.
Door's locked? Use a Fire Evocation to put the aspect "Melted Lock" on it, then tag that to kick the door open. I wouldn't allow Air to open a lock, because I can't see how there could be enough volume of air in such a small device to move the lock open without blowing the door apart. At the very least, I'd either require several additional shifts of power or put a penalty of the Discipline roll. Simply picking the lock normally would be a lot easier (and safer!).Doesn't Air share electricity/lightning with Earth?
Doesn't Air share electricity/lightning with Earth?
I don't remember a scene like that. Can you tell me which book it is in?
Unfortunatly I do not remember the book. It was one of the later ones. He was doing magic in front of a PM in order to intimidate her. It was at an office. Sorry I will try and find it again.Ah, I believe I know what you are talking about. The scene in Turn Coat, where Harry puts pressure on the lawyer that hired Vincent to tail Harry. I've read through it again, and he uses Forzare there twice, both in the purview I talked about.
in the hands of a mortal wizard with less than a quarter-century of practical magical experience under his belt.
Asking the player of a spellcaster to have at least one Aspect that sort of sums up their philosophy or belief about magic would be a really good idea.
EDIT: I'm also trying to think of a way to incorporate all the various -mancers and Focused Practitioners into both Evocation and Thaumaturgy, or rather, Channeling and Ritual. For example, a pyromancer is easily someone who studies the Element of Fire either with Channeling or Evocation, but how does that work with this Ritual/Thaumaturgy Power? Another example is the mysterious chronomancer. That's some kind of Thaumaturgy practice, but there must also be Channeling or Evocations that work in a similar manner... perhaps the Element of Water, representing the flow of time, a river that can rush or babble, freeze or ... in dire upheavals ... flow backward. Stuff like that.
Asking the player of a spellcaster to have at least one Aspect that sort of sums up their philosophy or belief about magic would be a really good idea.
Another way to avoid breaking the game with Evocation would be sticking to the Inherent Limitations in the book. You can't use Evocation to affect anything that's not within your line of sight.
Evocations have a very short duration.
Ah, I believe I know what you are talking about. The scene in Turn Coat, where Harry puts pressure on the lawyer that hired Vincent to tail Harry. I've read through it again, and he uses Forzare there twice, both in the purview I talked about.Just had an idea about that scene, so I had to quote myself. I've read that spell as a maneuver to be tagged on an intimidation roll later. But could it be done as an attack? I know it isn't narratively attacking the opponent, but it is an action that is aimed at delivering stress to the target, and that pretty much sounds like an attack to me. So could you inflict stress like this, if you don't exactly hit someone? Would an action/a spell like that be valid? I feel it should be, which opens a lot of possibilities.
First, he pushes open the door of the liquor cabinet, which is like what I descibed.
Then he tosses a bottle of liquor towards him. He doesn't let it float to him, he uses his magic to throw it towards him. Well within what I said, I believe.
The other complicating factor, if we just pull the Veil part of Spirit out, it's a 2 refresh ability, which makes it as/more expensive than say Channeling (Spirit) that gets the same functionality and a bunch of other powerful stuff. Admittedly, the 2 point glamor ability doesn't cost any mental stress, but is anyone really throwing the 4 or 5 veils a scene it would take for that to matter?
Glamours does one heck of a lot more than just Veils. Seemings is the real powerhouse in that combo.
It does (heck, you could justify fire or even water making lightning if you knew enough about physics, I'm sure). I'm not sure how that relates to creating enough air to move the pieces of a lock, though. Can you clarify?I was thinking to zap the lock with lightning (element of Air).
I think the first, most obvious answer is to use the character to make sense of things. "Does this application of Evocation make sense for the character and, if so, why?" Aspects are really helpful here. Asking the player of a spellcaster to have at least one Aspect that sort of sums up their philosophy or belief about magic would be a really good idea.
Harry Dresden has NOT SO SUBTLE, BUT STILL QUICK TO ANGER.
Molly Carpenter has SUBTLETY IS ITS OWN POWER.
In the DFRPG they explain how this works to their advantage and their disadvantage. Molly's good with Veils and Illusions and mucking around with people's minds because she approaches magic from that point of view. Subtle magic is her power and doing something that isn't subtle is really hard for her. Harry is just the opposite. Subtlety is not his bag, but power and anger and wreaking fiery vengeance upon things is his specialty. So, when he tries to Veil things, it sucks. But when he tries to blow things up, he succeeds in spectacular fashion!
If things are done the way I'm thinking, what are examples of that getting quickly out of hand and possibly ruining the fun for everyone at the table or making Evocation the most powerful/useful Power in the game?
I don't want Evocation to be the most powerful ability. I just want something other than a Magic Gun that comes in 5 flavors.
EDIT: I'm also trying to think of a way to incorporate all the various -mancers and Focused Practitioners into both Evocation and Thaumaturgy, or rather, Channeling and Ritual. For example, a pyromancer is easily someone who studies the Element of Fire either with Channeling or Evocation, but how does that work with this Ritual/Thaumaturgy Power? Another example is the mysterious chronomancer. That's some kind of Thaumaturgy practice, but there must also be Channeling or Evocations that work in a similar manner... perhaps the Element of Water, representing the flow of time, a river that can rush or babble, freeze or ... in dire upheavals ... flow backward. Stuff like that.
I was thinking to zap the lock with lightning (element of Air).
I assume you mean with the intent to heat the lock enough to melt it? Otherwise you're talking about running electricity through several small pieces of metal. It'll shock anyone who touches it, but the parts still aren't going to move.Yes, an electric arc hot enough to melt the lock. IIRC, I was watching a documentary that used some sort of electric arc to melt through a piece of steel when I made that comment.
Cool. Yeah, that'd definitely work.
I wonder, would hexing an electronic lock be a viable way to open it? In the books Harry describes hexing as making "anything that can go wrong, go wrong" when it comes to more modern technology.
Really depends, most places where an electronic lock is used also defaults to locked status if there's any malfunction (such as power outage etc), so hexing should probably not open it; on the other hand Hexing can also just cause something to act wierdly rather than stop working (See the GPS-incident), so it might... I'd saythat if allowed, it'd definitely cost a FP though, as an invoke of High Concept...
Making sense of this game often requires ignoring parts of the book. It's not the most consistent document.When Harry's manipulating a bottle of liquor, I'm pretty sure we've gone from Evocation vs Thaumaturgy to the Effects area of Spellcasting--rather like "flicum bicus." I try to delineate the difference 'tween the two in games and point out examples in the books as well--great flavor, but not something I try to extrapolate much from.
This is one example of that. The book says that you can pick locks with air. But it also says that Evocation is for unsubtle thug stuff. And it says Evocation can only be used for four types of action. None of those action types works well for lock-picking.
Ultimately, you have to make up the rules for yourself to some extent. And as a general rule, the interpretation that makes spellcasting less powerful is the more balanced one.
Interesting interpretation. Not sure where you got it from, but I think it could work fine in play.
PS: I'm honestly not sure whether Evil Hat intended any form of emotional manipulation to be possible with Evocation.
Is it feasible for a wizard to have a mystical blind spot so that he or she turns out to be something like an elementalist? Thaumaturgy is not bound by the themes or restrictions of the Five Elements used in Evocation, but isn't it possible that a would-be wizard or an auto-didactic sorcerer might believe in those themes and restrictions and carries them over into her Thaumaturgy practices? Would that be your standard Wizard Template with an Aspect to reflect such a mystical blindspot or would that be a Focused Practitioner or something?
It's absolutely feasible to have blind spots. It's repeated several times over in the fiction that Dresden is just bad at Veils. He gets better over the course of time, with help from Molly. This could be reflected (or Compelled I suppose) through Aspects, but more importantly it should be a part of the characters personality makeup, even without an appropriate Aspect to back it up.
Frex: If your character is very self reliant, then they might have a blind spot to summoning up minions to do work for them.
The elemental theme/blind spot makes plenty of sense to me. It would close some doors (Angel/Demon summoning comes to mind), but others would be open without issue.
Right. I wasn't even thinking about summoning and binding, and then when I did, I was thinking: "Well, I guess the character could summon elementals..."
So, the blindspots would allow for Evocation to do things akin to "Bending" from Avatar: the Last Airbender. Thaumaturgy effects would be trickier. Divination could be things like casting your senses upon the winds to view far away places and things. Veiling could be things like subsuming into the elements where the Veiled target blends into the background as if it were a natural part of it. Warding could be imbuing the air with the strength of stone or forcing the opposing parties to swim against the current of rushing metaphorical waters or something.
I don't see crafting items in an elementalist's purview, but maybe potions would be. You could make potions that enable people to breathe fire, move like the wind, become as protean as water, as hard as stone, things like that. It would be sort of like Alchemy, I guess.
All the other sorts of -Mancy out there would just present itself as a mystery to an elementalist character. Necromancer? Chronomancer? Biokinesis and Entropomancy? Might as well be Greek. I can definitely see how it would limit a person who might otherwise be a Wizard fully capable of those sorts of things.
So, what do you think a "template" for a person like that would be? Elementalist as a sub-category of Focused Practitioner? Would the Powers be Evocation and Ritual (Elementalism)? Or full-on Thaumaturgy?
The reason people don't mention it in the context of Evocation is that the whole box applies to Evothaum, not Evocation. The limits of Evocation are stated pretty clearly at the beginning of chapter about Evocation.
If that doesn't answer your question, I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.
Basically it means that you can sometimes BS your way into doing something questionable with Evocation. At the fuzzy edges of Evocation's purview, what matters is whether you can convince your GM.
Of course, where those fuzzy edges are will vary from game to game.
Just out of curiosity, where did you pick up the word "evothaum"?
PS: I wouldn't ignore Sponsored Magic if I were you. If you take away the Sponsor from Sponsored Magic, you get a very good way to represent elementalists and other such focused spellcasters.
Or be fried by his own spell. :P
Personally, I like the idea of making backlash hurt someone else, or somehow screw things up in a way other than directly going after the caster. For two reasons: it makes things more interesting, and the caster has the option to absorb the backlash himself. If he doesn't, it seems kind of jerkish to have it attack him directly anyways.
Yes you can counter-spell maneuvers, assuming magic is sustaining the maneuver.
For instance, magically created winds could be dispelled.
"Cracked earth" - probably not because once the earth is cracked, it's cracked and you can't "uncrack" it. Although, you might be able to narrate it as "reversing the effect". That would be up to the GM.
Anyways, you'd need to equal or beat the power of the spell... so 6 or higher.
A tie goes to the aggressor?
Ah, excellent. Thank you so much.It's generally a good idea to ignore all the example spells listed in both books. A lot of them are horribly worded at best, or downright break the stated rules at worst.
Here's a question: The spell example Entanglement (YS293)... how is that supposed to work. You cast it and if your roll exceed the Target's Athletics roll, then the Aspect BOUND IN PLACE is placed on the target? Does that actually bind them in place? Or does it just put an Aspect on them that can be tagged if they try to run away or something? And how long does it last? Is it one exchange?
I'm trying to figure out how the Maneuvers work out, but it's hard because I'm dealing with certain things that don't have real world analogs. If you set something on fire, well, of course it's ON FIRE! until the fire gets put out or the fire consumes all the fuel. If you use an Earth evocation to punch your way out of a jail cell, the Aspect MAN-SIZED HOLE IN THE WALL is going to stay there until someone fixes the wall, right? What's the difference between that and BOUND IN PLACE using a spell?
I'd argue that BOUND IN PLACE is a bad aspect. Remember that this is an RPG that loosely models the setting of the books; the fiction is not to be taken as examples of how the mechanics of the RPG works. In DFRPG, aspects can be invoked for +2s, rerolls or the nebulous "for effect", but in the scope of a conflict, what you descriptively title the aspect should be in line with the framework of actions that can be taken in combat. If you want to make someone unable to leave their zone, that's a block on their movement, so you should be doing a block action, not a maneuver. Similarly, you're not allowed to use Shooting and a gun to place the aspect DEAD on people as a maneuver and deny them all future actions; you've got to make attack actions, inflict stress and take them out.
Well look at the targets of those actions. Placing ON FIRE onto the scenery as a maneuver is fine. The scenery isn't an active participant in the conflict, and the Fate system isn't about modeling the effects of arson. Note that you can't place ON FIRE on a participant in the conflict and then demand that it do stress to them in ongoing turns; if you want to pile stress on a combatant, you have to make attack actions. MAN-SIZED HOLE IN THE WALL is also against the scenery, so again that's probably fine (though probably only if you can 'take out' the wall with attacks that deal physical stress or something).
BOUND IN PLACE on a person though seems like that steps over the line since you're using a maneuver to place an aspect that's best represented by another action type in the conflict. Versus other characters, that's an important distinction. If you want to toss an aspect so you can tag it on a future roll, then your description for what happens should be less definitive and less specific like COVERED IN GOO or IN HIS OWN PERSONAL HURRICANE or whatever. If your goal is to prevent action, then that's a block and you don't even need to come up with a spiffy aspect name for it. But doing both with one action is a no-no. It breaks the action economy and there's nothing in the magic chapter that says you can cheat the system and get more than one effect a turn.
As an aside, I don't think I'd allow a block spell that completely jammed up another character for more than a round, since again that breaks action economy in a big way. At least you'd have to pay for it with shifts of power instead of just stacking offensive control bonuses though, so that's probably less obnoxious.