When a spellcaster chooses a rote spell, must all the details be written out and set in stone?That is, after choosing his rote spells, can he change:
- Whether it's single-target, spray attack or zonewide
- The number of zones affected
- The exact maneuver
- Duration of the spell
- Element used
- The power of the spell
- The skill used to resist it
- Focus items
- Aspects invoked or tagged
Also, re: the last one on that list, I have the impression that the caster can choose any skill to be used in resisting the spell, so long as it makes sense. Is that true, or is it always athletics?
...It's not the caster that gets the only say in what skill can be used to defend against the spell. The defender can rationalize suggestions, too, and the GM makes the final say.
Also, re: the last one on that list, I have the impression that the caster can choose any skill to be used in resisting the spell, so long as it makes sense. Is that true, or is it always athletics?
When a spellcaster chooses a rote spell, must all the details be written out and set in stone?That is, after choosing his rote spells, can he change:Yes. Just about all of the example attack rotes mention this as a possibility.
- Whether it's single-target, spray attack or zonewide
What type of spells are best for rote spells has caused alot of discussion in my group. I was going with one attack, one defense, and one misc. My friend was thinking more just defense for blocks and such. Yet another, it just meld his brain and he didn't mess with them at all.Defensive rote spells would depend on your conviction rating. Defensive rote spells are limited if they only last for one exchange. If the player in question only has a conviction of 3, then the rote can only block a power of 2 and last for one additional exchange, not very useful. But with a conviction of 5, it's a strength 4 with one additional exchange duration. That is assuming I'm remembering the rules right. I still feel like I need to read them a 3rd time haha.
Defensive rote spells would depend on your conviction rating.
Yes. Just about all of the example attack rotes mention this as a possibility.
When a spellcaster chooses a rote spell, must all the details be written out and set in stone?That is, after choosing his rote spells, can he change:
- Whether it's single-target, spray attack or zonewide
- The number of zones affected
- The exact maneuver
- Duration of the spell
- Element used
- The power of the spell
- The skill used to resist it
- Focus items
- Aspects invoked or tagged
Also, re: the last one on that list, I have the impression that the caster can choose any skill to be used in resisting the spell, so long as it makes sense. Is that true, or is it always athletics?
Also, is there a formula or tool around for calculating the probability of success on any given 4dF roll?*Ah-hem* I'll just leave this here. (http://hill-kleerup.org/pmwiki/FATE/FUDGEDice)
IIRC, the rules say nothing about what skills are used to defend against Evocation. So you'd normally assume that you use whatever skills have appropriate trappings, which generally means Athletics for attacks and whatever seems reasonable for maneuvers.The spell caster describes his spell. The defender rationalizes what makes sense to defend against it with. The GM sanity-checks the whole thing.
(Craftsmanship and other such skills aren't really valid defences by the RAW, but I might allow them in some situations.)
Except that there's this attack spell in the example list, which says that you use Might to defend against it.
I strongly advise you to ignore that spell. It's not remotely fair to let spellcasters choose what skills their opponents use to defend against their attacks.
Defensive rote spells would depend on your conviction rating. Defensive rote spells are limited if they only last for one exchange. If the player in question only has a conviction of 3, then the rote can only block a power of 2 and last for one additional exchange, not very useful. But with a conviction of 5, it's a strength 4 with one additional exchange duration. That is assuming I'm remembering the rules right. I still feel like I need to read them a 3rd time haha.Not true. You can make a Rote over your conviction or even discipline. You just have to pay for it in stress and backlash as normal. The main advantage of a rote here is that if your Discipline is 4, a 6-shift rote won't ever do more than 2 shifts of stress.
So, everytime a wizard casts a rote spell, he can change them? A zonewide for a gang of thugs, a spray if he recognises one of the thugs as an undercover cop, or a single target if he just wants one specific thug?According to the descriptions of Harry's Fuego and shield spells and Morgan's earthquake, yes, how you divide the shifts of a rote spell is up to the wizard at the time of the casting. The write ups give it as an option to make them spray or zone attacks.
The spell caster describes his spell. The defender rationalizes what makes sense to defend against it with. The GM sanity-checks the whole thing.
According to the descriptions of Harry's Fuego and shield spells and Morgan's earthquake, yes, how you divide the shifts of a rote spell is up to the wizard at the time of the casting. The write ups give it as an option to make them spray or zone attacks.
This is sensible, but not really RAW unless you're going by that one spell example. The rules for attacks say that skill descriptions explain whether a skill can be used to defend.Orladdin is correct. The book states "intent precedes mechanics" - you figure out what you want to do then you fit mechanics to it.
And skills like Craftsmanship say no such thing.
Orladdin is correct. The book states "intent precedes mechanics" - you figure out what you want to do then you fit mechanics to it.
Bringing up false dilemmas like using Craftmanship to defend is simply a red herring.When Sanc brought it up this time, out of context, it was.
This is sensible, but not really RAW unless you're going by that one spell example. The rules for attacks say that skill descriptions explain whether a skill can be used to defend.
And skills like Craftsmanship say no such thing.
PS: Trappings ought to cover every possible use of skills, but realistically there are gonna be holes in the writing. Breaking down every field of human endeavour into simple categories is actually pretty hard.Actually, it's truly impossible for trappings to cover every possible use of skills. If you will indulge me in a single ad-absurdum for a moment: The example of the Homemaker skill came up in another thread to cover vacuuming, cleaning, fixing pants, etc. If we can only perform actions that are covered by existing trappings, does that mean PCs cannot possibly operate a vacuum?
(Craftsmanship and other such skills aren't really valid defences by the RAW, but I might allow them in some situations.)
When Sanc brought it up this time, out of context, it was.
Not to derail the current line of discussion, but I have a question about speed powers. Does the "free" zone movement of something like Inhuman Speed count as your supplemental action? Or can you move one zone at no penalty, then move a second zone at a -1 penalty to your action?Here's my take. The rules state:
Whenever moving as part of another physical activity, you may move one zone without taking the –1 penalty for a supplemental action (page 213).To my mind, the key premise is that you are moving as part of another physical activity, which means you are moving as a supplemental action. The effect of the power is to remove the penalty when doing this, but it doesn't seem to change doing so into a free action.
Are players allowed to trade fate points between themselves?Not in any direct fashion. But that's where teamwork comes in. Yo may not be able to give another player your FP's, but making assessments, declairations, and compels to aid another player is a huge part of the game.
I don't really think there's a need to give away fate points - you can spend them to invoke their aspects when appropriate. It gives you the advantages of trading fate points while allowing you to retain control of how they're used.I was mostly just pointing out it is possible to come up with in game mechanics for FP trading. But I do agree with you. There is little meaningful difference between trading someone a FP and using one to make a declairation and letting someone else tag the aspect.
Per the book you may get one supplemental action and a GM dependent number of free actions per turn. Along with your main action of course. Though overflow actions may or may not allow a second supplemental - that isn't clear.
If each breaking of a law of magic has a bad effect on you, what happens when a chronomancer goes against the flow of time? Does she exist a little less or just slowly go insane or something else?That law is less a "this is dark magic that will destroy you if you use it." and more a "don't do this because you could cause all of time and space to unravel. No seriously."
That law is less a "this is dark magic that will destroy you if you use it." and more a "don't do this because you could cause all of time and space to unravel. No seriously."
But you could make them take aspects that perhaps they are having trouble experiencing time in a linear perception due to excessive time travel. Or maybe they are getting past or future "echos". Seeing ghostly images of things that happened or will happen overlayed on top of the here and now. If you have played the Assassins Creed games you'll know exactly what I means.
I would have to assume that chronomancy does the same thing if you go against the flow of time.Most of the Laws can simply be treated as addictive 'substances'. It's so easy to solve your problem with time travel you want to use it every time you have a problem. Before too long you don't even care about extraneous effects as long as your problem is fixed.
If each breaking of a law of magic has a bad effect on you, what happens when a chronomancer goes against the flow of time? Does she exist a little less or just slowly go insane or something else?
Not sure how simple this is, but...Not terribly feasible.
How feasible, exactly, is it to make it so that only mortals can have Evocation and Thaumaturgy, and fully supernatural beings must take some kind of Sponsored Magic to use magic?
Related to the above, can you take specializations for Sponsored Magic? What about Soulfire?Specializations are only available to those who have full Evocation and/or Thaumaturgy.
How feasible, exactly, is it to make it so that only mortals can have Evocation and Thaumaturgy, and fully supernatural beings must take some kind of Sponsored Magic to use magic?Define 'feasible'. ;) It'd be a different game (not Dresdenverse) and you'd probably have to make some associated changes to things like refinements.
Related to the above, can you take specializations for Sponsored Magic?Yes but, as Tedronai notes, you need Evocation or Thaumaturgy as well. Then you could build your pyramid to include some sponsored magics...something like +1 pwr Air, +2 pwr Fire, +3 pwr Summer.
What about Soulfire?As the book notes, Soulfire's capabilities are not very well known. There's no un-equivocated statement saying it's used as an element as Summer and Winter have...just one saying it's "most like" the element of fire.
Define 'feasible'. ;) It'd be a different game (not Dresdenverse) and you'd probably have to make some associated changes to things like refinements.Actually, I was considering this houserule to actually better fit in with the canon, but yes, that Refinement thing throws everything off-track.
As the book notes, Soulfire's capabilities are not very well known. There's no un-equivocated statement saying it's used as an element as Summer and Winter have...just one saying it's "most like" the element of fire.The reason I was asking about Soulfire in particular was because it appeared to be Channeling + Thaumaturgy instead of Channeling + Ritual, hence the increased Refresh cost, so I was wondering if a wizard could take Soulfire in place of Thaumaturgy and still be able to get thaumaturgical specializations.
Actually, I was considering this houserule to actually better fit in with the canon...At least one vampire had standard casting abilities in the books and, arguably, it had to be relatively common for the big 'kill your family' ritual to be set up. Others are also shown with casting abilities appearing similar to evocation.
Can you make a thaumaturgcal spell a rote spell, by default? What about if you have sponsored magic?
Can you make a rote thaumaturgy spell that require you to make a number of successful declarations?
Say, a sorcerer with Superb Lore and a +5 conjuration control focus item. Can he make a control 10, complexity 9 rote that requires him to make two successful declarations/ invoke two aspects?
So if you have sponsored magic, you can have thaumaturgical effects as rote spells? How does that interact with declarations?Any declarations, intentional use of consequences, invoked aspects, or use of foci need to be built into the rote up front. The rote spell doesn't (can't) change when cast. You can build those into a rote but, if you can't use one for some reason, you can't cast the spell as a rote.
Heh, this reminds me of computerking's old thread. I wonder where that guy went...
When you take consequences to fuel a spell, can you then tag the consequence to add to the spell as well? It seems funky to me, but the section on Death Curses indicates that's the way it works. It's one way to make consequences more significant I guess,You don't get your consequence tags until the next scene. The way I read that even includes Death Curses...but "you own your death scene" - death initiates a new scene for you which grants you tags off of consequences taken.
When getting temporary powers, is there a FP tax on top of the regular price? Say, a WCV wants to upgrade Inhuman Strength to Supernatural. Does he just pay 2FP to get it for a scene for does he have to pay 1FP to invoke his High Concept first, making the total cost 3FP?I don't think this is explicit. Personally, I'd require a reason (beyond simple desire) to take a temporary power. It could be a spell being cast on you or an item you picked up, neither of which requires a third fate point. Or it could be you invoking your "Powerful Ancestry" (or whatever) aspect for effect - which would require a third fate point.
Regarding bosting complexity through sacrifice: Does it have to be human? Can you sacrifice animals and supernatural beings for power? If you can, will doing so break the First law?You can use animals, usually for a much lower effect. Supernatural beings open a can of worms about what being "human" consists of...as I remember (it's been a while) they suggest but don't explicitly state Harry considers many supernaturals "human". Personally again, if they're sentient enough to relate to the rest of us in a social manner (beyond predator / prey) they have the potential to be considered human.
Has the boards come out with a way to model long-distance teleportation, like the lightning gateways in Changes? If not, is anyone here willing to take a shot at it?Massive ritual thaumaturgy. ;)
Regarding bosting complexity through sacrifice: Does it have to be human? Can you sacrifice animals and supernatural beings for power? If you can, will doing so break the First law?
Has the boards come out with a way to model long-distance teleportation, like the lightning gateways in Changes? If not, is anyone here willing to take a shot at it?
As mentioned, you can sacrifice animals, but they probably only have a mild consequence to give.If that.
And in most cases I dont think sacrificing supernatural beings counts as breaking the First Law, but it will probably count as breaking the Unseelie Accords, which is, uh, probably worse.Only if you get caught.
Awhile back I had asked about a ritual to power a magical train, and the suggestion was that the shifts of power required were based on reducing the time scale for the journey, and I think you could probably do the same here. Approximate how long it would take to get there on the time chart (if you were going to walk/take horses) and pick how long you want it to take on the time chart (say, an instant) and then count the difference in shifts of power.Well, shifts of athletics movement + shifts of time reduction.
If a spell aster was using a death curse to send a message like "Vlad the vampire killed me" to anyone that may be able to help in a neighborhood, how many shifts of power would that be?
Question about foci and specializations cap. How do they work?
Specifically, you can't have a bonus higher than your Lore. So, assuming a wizard with a Great Lore, is his total foci bonus limited to +4, or can he have, say, an +4 offensive fire control focus and a +4 offensive fire power focus, and use them both at the saane time, for the same spell.
What if it was specializations, instead of foci?
Optimally, you would want both, though.
Another couple questions.
If you have Feeding Dependency, and a Discipline of Superb or higher, do you get "mild hunger consequences"?
If so, can you use them to power rituals?
Can you save skill points, to spend them all at one go later?
The confusing part of the threshold for me is how that pairs with shorting out magic. And if the rain was only a threshold of 1 when Harry dealt with the Nightmare (looked like him, attacked Charity Carpenter), then how was that enough to beat it?
Centarion: You're posting without a book in front of you I think, which I am guilty of all the time, but reading from the book:Are you looking at a pre-release version perhaps? Endurance's No Pain, No Gain trapping gives you one additional mild.
A severe cancels 6 stress, not 4, that's a moderate. The stunt as written in YS grants you two additional milds. (pg 152), which (in the absence of anything else modifying your consequences) is equal to 3 milds total, or 6 stress. That's a severe. If they heal simultaneously, that's clearing a severe at the speed of a mild, and still having a real severe in reserve. Is that how it works? Seems powerful for 1 refresh.
I AM looking at a pre-release, because my book isn't in front of me. That would make more sense, and I'm sorry for doubting you Centarion!You would probably roll for attack like normal. But even if you rolled a zero to hit, the weapon damage would still go through. This would make it easy to defend, but It's basically a free attack action, but that's just my take on it. Also what constitutes as a "successful" defense roll is kinda muddy. Does successful mean as long as you block ANY of the attack? Or do you have to block the whole thing for the stunt to trigger? I have no idea. :o
Seems like the consensus is simultaneous, so that's what I'm going with. Thanks everyone!
Now I have another stunt question: Upon a successful defense, Riposte grants you an immediate, automatically successful attack at the cost of your next action. Is that weapon damage only or would you roll something?
I AM looking at a pre-release, because my book isn't in front of me. That would make more sense, and I'm sorry for doubting you Centarion!
Seems like the consensus is simultaneous, so that's what I'm going with. Thanks everyone!
Now I have another stunt question: Upon a successful defense, Riposte grants you an immediate, automatically successful attack at the cost of your next action. Is that weapon damage only or would you roll something?
Also what constitutes as a "successful" defense roll is kinda muddy. Does successful mean as long as you block ANY of the attack? Or do you have to block the whole thing for the stunt to trigger? I have no idea. :oIt seems like it would be a defense where you take no damage. After all, an attack where you do do* damage is a successful attack... seems pretty simple to me...?
In my mind a compel would be something like the player says his character runs across the zone, the GM says "I compel you to fall since the floor is covered with fish." A compel generally does not have a roll involved, either there is a skill check for weather or not you can do something, or there is a compel.That makes a lot of sense. Thank you.
I AM looking at a pre-release, because my book isn't in front of me. That would make more sense, and I'm sorry for doubting you Centarion!
... Evil Hat is great!
Evil Hat is great!
I wanted to go the focus item rout, but I thought the rules said no on focus or enchanted items to crafting bonuses.
Can a character with only fire,earth, and air evocation still make an enchanted item using water? I wouldn't think so, but I can't find it in the rules.
You are only restricted in what effects you can create with self made enchanted items and potions when you don't have full Thaumaturgy nor Ritual: Crafting.
Hello all,
I would like to make sure I understand Thaumaturgy properly?
I can summon up to twice my lore in shifts of power, and then I divide that into a series of rolls which I then need to succeed on each one or it blows up in my face?
-Is the power level restricted to double the lore value, or Lore + Foci Value times 2?
Your Story page 202. It gives actual examples and shows a picture of how the stress boxes are filled out.
Only the 3 is checked off. The confusion is understandable since other fate games have you check off all 3 circles.
The power level is not restrictied at all...Correct. Lots of people have made house-rules to restrict it, though (typically unnecessary, but one wily wizard can ruin a game for everyone). Check with your GM.
...You just need to be able to meet the defecit between your Lore and the power level, either by using Foci, taking consequences, or making declarations.Correct. Bold is the important part. You have to succeed at gathering the materials necessary to meet the complexity of the spell before you begin. Your Lore is the base complexity (and what you can do without needing additional material components or preparation).
...
For my own games, I tend to have Greater Glamours treated as illusions, transformation, and items of convenience. Nothing created can attack in a conflict unless it already could (like turning a human into a hound).
My understanding, and I could be totally wrong, is that it has to be COLD iron, which means iron that was refined a certain way. I would assume that magically conjured iron would not meet a fiary's catch.The Za Lord's Guard employed common box cutters in a manner that certainly seemed to be sufficiently efficacious as to be satisfying a certain Sidhe's Catch.
Next question: would a conjured iron sword satisfy a Faerie's Catch? And how would it interact with an Ogre's Physical Immunity to Mortal Magic?
My understanding, and I could be totally wrong, is that it has to be COLD iron, which means iron that was refined a certain way. I would assume that magically conjured iron would not meet a fiary's catch.
IMO, the resulting sword would NOT satisfy an iron catch, and might be negated (or at least ignored) by Immunity to Mortal Magic.
See, I'd say they could, since they're just another kind of (very realistic) ectoplasmic construct. So if you created a greater glamour of a sword with true seeming, it'd be a sword.
Next question: would a conjured iron sword satisfy a Faerie's Catch? And how would it interact with an Ogre's Physical Immunity to Mortal Magic?
Ah, yes, conjured iron and faeries was another of those questions I forgot.
In that same vein - Say I hit a Ogre with a spirit evocation and describe it as drawing my sword with supernatural speed and enhancing the momentum even further to slash the Ogre, a la Aristedes. With it ignore Magic Immunity? Or would I have to compel the Ogre for it to work? Or would it not just work, no matter how many fate points I pay? Or is it treated as if I has made a regular attack with the sword?
Right. Out of curiosity, how would you model Aristedes's abilities, if simply giving him Inhumans wasn't an option?
For Aristides, I would have him have a stunt that allows him to use channeling for skill replacement rolls. So a power 6 effect could be a Fatadtic Athletics result. He'd burn out quickly though.
MAGICAL SELF-ENHANCEMENT [+varies]
Description: Many supernatural abilities can be mimicked through an application of spellcasting. But that requires specialization, of the sort that this power represents.
Musts: A character must possess the Evocation, Channeling, and/or Sponsored Magic powers in order to use this one. Other powers to link this power to are also required.
Skills Affected: Conviction, Discipline, Lore
Effects:
Limited Powers. When you take this power, you must select at least one other supernatural power that you possess. Which powers may be selected with this power is a matter of the GM's discretion. The selected powers are disabled, and the character gets a rebate equal to one-third of the powers' total cost.
Magical Self-Enhancement. This power allows the user to grant themselves access to the selected powers through evocation. Such evocations may be of any element that makes sense, and they may be offensive or defensive. The power required of an evocation that grants powers is equal to the total refresh cost of the granted powers plus the intended duration. The user may extend this effect using the normal rules for the extension of evocation, and they may choose to grant themselves only a few of the selected powers. This also allows them to grant lesser versions of the selected powers. For example, a character who had selected Supernatural Strength and Inhuman Speed with this power may grant themselves Inhuman Strength for 5 exchanges with a 7-shift evocation.
Magical Enhancement [-varies]. This option removes the rebate from Magical Self-Enhancement, making the total cost of the power 0. In exchange, it gives the user the ability to cast power-granting evocations on other characters. Please note that these evocations cannot be zone-wide.
I'm like the general idea, though it could be worryingly powerful. How exactly would this work? Would one stunt cover every skill? Would such spells take an action?
Do you spend FP to boost a roll before or after rolling?You could do either or. Though generally, if one of my players spends a point to boost by +2, then ends up rolling all -'s, I'll let them revise their decision and use it for a reroll instead.
Do you spend FP to boost a roll before or after rolling?