I agree that consolidation of Skills is a good thing. When you do something like that would you also be mandated to decrease the amount of Skill Points you give you when creating a character? To put this in context... for a Dresden Files game, if you were to adopt PHYSIQUE (Might + Endurance), FIGHT (Fists + Weapons), drop Presence to split it up into RAPPORT and PROVOKE -- would you reduce Chest Deep from 30 Skill points to ... ? Or just keep it the same because the difference is negligible?

That makes total sense to me. Thank you!

When you use an Evocation, does that always cause an actual physical manifestation of that element to appear from nowhere to do the task your spell intended? In some cases this makes sense and in others, not so much.

For example: I'm going to throw a fireball. Obviously a ball of fire appears in my hand, or erupts from my mouth or whatever. But what happens if I use Fire to block an attack? Does fire actually appear? Can it block any kind of attack or only those that could reasonably be incinerated? Does my Fire Block risk setting my surroundings on fire, too?

Is it a lot like "Bending" in Avatar: the Last Airbender? Does everyone need their element actually present for their magic to work (except Fire Evocateurs)?

My preference would be for the spell to do the task intended in the theme of the element without actually having to have the element manifest. Like, in my previous example of a Fire Block... could an arcane circle appear in front of the caster to deflect incoming attacks? The circle glows with a fiery light and gives off a rush of hot air, but it's not actually fire. Is that within the purview of Evocation? A water block might manifest as a translucent sphere to deflect the attack. It sounds like rushing water and smells like fresh rain, but doesn't actually get anything wet?

And when the spell does things within the purview of the element, forensic traces might reveal the presence of the element. So, if a Water Evocation is used to short out electronics, nothing appears out of the ordinary, but when the repairman opens it up to check it out, it's all wet inside or otherwise has obvious sings of being submerged in water. Or maybe I use an Earth Evocation to Hex a car. The car sputters and dies and when the mechanic takes a look, he finds sand in the engine binding up the gears or something. Maybe Harry's Blue Beetle constantly overheats because of his predilection toward Fire magic. Is that stuff doable?

This question reminds me of the time I was STing a World of Darkness game and the discussion among the group turned to one of the PCs being a serial killer. I was against the idea precisely because of this issue of Free Will and acting against your nature. I didn't put it in the words of the Dresden Files game, but when I read the game, I immediately understood what they were talking about.

After I was able to establish that Dexter is absolutely utter fiction, I was able to get them to listen to my points. I wasn't claiming any special knowledge as a psychiatrist or anything, but I am sort of a serial killer-phile. I explained to them that serial killers kill people. It's what they fantasize about, it's what they think about, all their goals revolve around get hold of a victim so they can kill them in whichever manner they prefer. While you plan to take vacation from work or school, they plan how to kill someone. While you have aspirations of growing up and being an astronaut, they have aspirations of killing someone. While you adopt a pet for affection and companionship, they adopt a pet to practice killing. Sharks swim, bees buzz, serial killers kill. It's a compulsion.

They argued with me for a long time, too. In retrospect, I'm grateful for their attempt to empathize with the likes of a serial killer. I blame Dexter for that sort of thing. They would counter me with things like "Serial killers has life goals and aspirations outside of killing people. Look at Ted Bundy -- he was in college! That's proof that he wanted something more out of life." And I was like, "Yeah. Who were Ted Bundy's victims?"

It's like saying, "Look at Gacy! He was a part-time children's entertainer. That's proof that he aspired to bring joy to the world!" And I would be saying, "Yeah. Who were Gacy's victims?"

If that's the kind of character you want to play, then go ahead and play. I'm more libertarian when it comes to letting people play what they want to play then I was back when I had that debate. Also, the FATE system is built to accommodate playing a character with no soul, a character with no Free Will, a creature of their nature, a creature of compulsion.

Say that I was your GM and I wanted to prove a point to you about playing a "monster" with no Free Will. Every time you tried to do something to help the group or to further your goals, I Compelled your Aspect BLACK COURT VAMPIRE so that you killed your contact, your ally, your friend. If not kill them, at least attack them and attempt to eat them. Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the water...

What would you do?

That looks really neat.

I have an question or observation about Thaumaturgy. You say use Lore for Divination, Craft for Conjuring, Will for everything else. That's understandable. Why not use more Skills? A broader base of Skills?

I might do something different. Rapport for Summoning, Will for Binding, Lore for Divination and Potions, Craft for Conjuring and Crafting Items, Deceit for Veils, Will for Wards, Provoke for Transformation and Disruption, Athletics for Transportation magic, Lore for Worldwalking.

Thematic Thaumaturgy would have each practitioner of the Art sort of create their own path of magic. If an Ectomancer fancies themselves to be something like a ghost whisperer, helping to solve crimes and put the dead to rest, then they might use Empathy, Rapport, and Lore for their magic. If another Ectomancer sees themselves as Lord of the Dead, a necromancer in the dark sense of the word, their same spells might use Provoke, Will, and Lore instead. One uses their magic for cooperation, the other for domination.

That kind of set up might make Wizards a bit weaker because it hampers being equally good at all types of Thaumaturgy. It might make Focused Practitioners a bit stronger, too, as they can focus on being really good and one type of thing. Wizards on the other hand have the ability to become really good in a wide range of magical practices. That's a fair trade off, right? I sort of like the idea of different personalities having affinities for certain kinds of magic. There are people like Warden Luccio who are awesome at Crafting magics. She obviously favors the Craft Skill as well.

In that line of thinking, I might let each player of a spellcaster picks their own Skills for their magic based on the characters training and/or personality. This isn't to over-complicate things, but to give Wizards more than 3 Skills they might seek out to be their apex Skills. A rule of thumb would be that the Wizard explains how this fits into her worldview. Maybe it's how she was trained by a particular mentor or a specific school of magic. Maybe it's a rejection of those aforementioned institution to embrace something that sits better with his or her personality and ethical code. Harry Dresden, most likely, does not do magic like Uncle Justin. To prevent someone from having a single skill work for all their magic, I would have a rule that says something like, you can only use a Skill twice in your pantheon of magic. For example: If you use the Will Skill for Wards and for Veils, you can't use it for Binding, you'll have to use something else appropriate (like Provoke).

Also, was it your intention for Evocation to focus only on physical conflicts/combat? If that's the case, I gain some insight into the questions I have in my virginal thread on the forum.

I suppose I did pick it up through some kind of osmosis.

Just when I think I'm out -- they pull me back in!

Okay, guys. I've been doing more in-depth reading of the material when it comes to rules for spellcasting and stuff. In the past I ignored Sponsored Magic because it didn't really apply to any of my character concepts. This time, I read it and there was a line that caused me to raise my eyebrows. It's something that I think applies to the genesis of this very thread discussion.

YS: 288, "With Evocations Methods and Speed" sidebar; they give you this tidbit:

"...getting a broad range of effects out of evocation is an exercise in creative rationalization."

What is that supposed to mean? This is what I was trying to say in this thread and what others were explaining is not within the purview of Evocation. I've searched the forum and people have mentioned this bit before but never in the context of Evocation, always in the context of explaining how "evothaum" works. What's your take on it?

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?