ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Taran on April 18, 2011, 04:57:01 PM
-
I'm trying to make some spells and after reading posts, there's a few things I'm not sure of. The mechanics of spellcasting I'm fairly good with, it's just the nuances of maneuvers and such.
Let's say I want to stun someone and prevent them from acting.
I use a power 8 rote, I could:
1. Do a Strength 8 Block against all actions against a target that lasts one round - or more rounds if I pump more shifts into it (but then it's not a rote). So the target would have to try to do an endurance or something each round to get out of it.
2. Just try to do enough damage and if he takes enough he can take the "stunned" consequence
3. Do a Stregth 8 maneuver to give him the "stunned" aspect, which I can tag for free once and again for fate points.
What is the best option? I'm confused with aspects. If one of my players is "stunned" because of a maneuver, can they act normally or can I say, "sorry, you can't do anything until you remove the maneuver" or is that a compel on the maneuver aspect?
Lastly, with evocation, can I do a classic D&D style sonic blast where the spell does damage and stuns at the same time (not including my above option 2) or is multiple effects the realm of Thaumaturgy?
-
I'm trying to make some spells and after reading posts, there's a few things I'm not sure of. The mechanics of spellcasting I'm fairly good with, it's just the nuances of maneuvers and such.
Let's say I want to stun someone and prevent them from acting.
I use a power 8 rote, I could:
1. Do a Strength 8 Block against all actions against a target that lasts one round - or more rounds if I pump more shifts into it (but then it's not a rote). So the target would have to try to do an endurance or something each round to get out of it.
2. Just try to do enough damage and if he takes enough he can take the "stunned" consequence
3. Do a Stregth 8 maneuver to give him the "stunned" aspect, which I can tag for free once and again for fate points.
What is the best option? I'm confused with aspects. If one of my players is "stunned" because of a maneuver, can they act normally or can I say, "sorry, you can't do anything until you remove the maneuver" or is that a compel on the maneuver aspect?
Lastly, with evocation, can I do a classic D&D style sonic blast where the spell does damage and stuns at the same time (not including my above option 2) or is multiple effects the realm of Thaumaturgy?
Wow. 8 shifts of power.
You could do a maneuver and then tag for effect too.
Like, if you are using air, you could do a maneuver for the aspect, "Blown away". Then you could tag that aspect for effect.
As GM, I would rule that the enemy flies back at least 5 zones, taking damage from anything behind it in it's way (whatever is thematically appropriate. Drywall won't do much to a character with supernatural toughness).
Anyway, depending on how that plays out (like if you were smart and maneuvered yourself to made the badguy slam into a brick wall) I would give the enemy various consequences as well.
8 shifts is pretty hefty. An intelligent 8 shift maneuver would probably kill a ghoul.
Sort of like just hacking at a critter with a sword is not always the way to go. It it usually better to stack up aspects and then do a maneuver like, "slicing the neck", with an impressive roll.
If a player invoked that for effect, I would rule the monster d-e-d dead, unless it is not thematically appropriate.
-IF YOU JUST WANT TO STUN THEM-
You can use spirit to take someone out in their stress track, or more easily (and not skirting the laws of magic), apply a maneuver with spirit, "knocked out".
In my game, as long as you win by 2+ shifts, I'd let you invoke that maneuver to effect and the perp would be knocked out.
If appropriate, I'd let the perp start rolling endurance to try "coming to" after about 2 rounds.
However, if your attack was 8 shifts, I doubt they will be able to make an endurance roll for that anytime soon.
-
I'm trying to make some spells and after reading posts, there's a few things I'm not sure of. The mechanics of spellcasting I'm fairly good with, it's just the nuances of maneuvers and such.
Let's say I want to stun someone and prevent them from acting.
I use a power 8 rote, I could:
All three options are viable and halve their advantages and disadvantages.
1. Do a Strength 8 Block against all actions against a target that lasts one round - or more rounds if I pump more shifts into it (but then it's not a rote). So the target would have to try to do an endurance or something each round to get out of it.
On the plus side an 8 shift block will put a stop to a lot of stuff. If you need more than one round you can always put more shifts into it next turn, even if it's a rote. But, unless you're tagging or invoking a relevant aspect it will not be a grapple and you will need to be specific about what it is you're blocking.
2. Just try to do enough damage and if he takes enough he can take the "stunned" consequence
The advantage here is you are doing stress. The downside is you don't get to choose what the consequence is, so there is no guarantee the target will be "stunned." Clearly communicating intent can help mitigate this issue.
3. Do a Stregth 8 maneuver to give him the "stunned" aspect, which I can tag for free once and again for fate points.
The problem is you cannot get a free compel by tagging an aspect. If you want to compel the target to be stunned, you must pay a fate point every time (disregard if you're using a common drift that allows tags to be used for compels). It's still a viable option because the person controlling the character can and should self compel the character to inaction to generate a fate point.
Lastly, with evocation, can I do a classic D&D style sonic blast where the spell does damage and stuns at the same time (not including my above option 2) or is multiple effects the realm of Thaumaturgy?
You could put three shifts into a maneuver and the rest into a straight weapon rating, effectively making it a special effect attack combined a standard weapon. I don't think this is 100% kosher by the rules, but I don't see any real problem with it.
-
Wow. 8 shifts of power.
It's powerful, but I'm playing in a game where the wizard has power 7 rotes. I'll be taking over the dming soon, so I want good opposition. We're a 10 refresh group and he has +5 conviction along with foci.
That's why I used power 8, but the number was intented to be a bit arbitrary.
You could do a maneuver and then tag for effect too.
Like, if you are using air, you could do a maneuver for the aspect, "Blown away". Then you could tag that aspect for effect.
As GM, I would rule that the enemy flies back at least 5 zones, taking damage from anything behind it in it's way (whatever is thematically appropriate. Drywall won't do much to a character with supernatural toughness).
Anyway, depending on how that plays out (like if you were smart and maneuvered yourself to made the badguy slam into a brick wall) I would give the enemy various consequences as well.
8 shifts is pretty hefty. An intelligent 8 shift maneuver would probably kill a ghoul.
Sort of like just hacking at a critter with a sword is not always the way to go. It it usually better to stack up aspects and then do a maneuver like, "slicing the neck", with an impressive roll.
If a player invoked that for effect, I would rule the monster d-e-d dead, unless it is not thematically appropriate.
-IF YOU JUST WANT TO STUN THEM-
You can use spirit to take someone out in their stress track, or more easily (and not skirting the laws of magic), apply a maneuver with spirit, "knocked out".
In my game, as long as you win by 2+ shifts, I'd let you invoke that maneuver to effect and the perp would be knocked out.
If appropriate, I'd let the perp start rolling endurance to try "coming to" after about 2 rounds.
However, if your attack was 8 shifts, I doubt they will be able to make an endurance roll for that anytime soon.
Tag to effect...I've seen it in one of the example spells...the "grasping branches" spell YS,pg294.
To get this straight, your guidlines are that if you succeed by 2 shifts you can tag to effect? Officially, are there any guidlines for this? When you say "invoke for effect", are you giving the perp a fate point?
Also, how can you kill something with a maneuver? I thought the purpose of a maneuver was to set-up killing blows and fancy moves.
If I did a maneuver to knock someone out, what's the difference if it's 8 shifts of power vs 4? If the the perp fails, he faces the concequenses.
It also seems a bit powerful to be a maneuver. Wouldn't you have to just do piles of damage until they conceeded and said "they're knocked out"?
-
The problem is you cannot get a free compel by tagging an aspect. If you want to compel the target to be stunned, you must pay a fate point every time (disregard if you're using a common drift that allows tags to be used for compels). It's still a viable option because the person controlling the character can and should self compel the character to inaction to generate a fate point.
I just meant that if someone wanted to attack him or something, they could get a free tag from the "stunned" aspect to get a +2
You could put three shifts into a maneuver and the rest into a straight weapon rating, effectively making it a special effect attack combined a standard weapon. I don't think this is 100% kosher by the rules, but I don't see any real problem with it.
cool
-
I just meant that if someone wanted to attack him or something, they could get a free tag from the "stunned" aspect to get a +2
I was assuming you wanted stun to mean they can't do anything, but simply tagging for a +2 is totally appropriate.
-
I was assuming you wanted stun to mean they can't do anything, but simply tagging for a +2 is totally appropriate.
Yeah. You answered my question, but I was just clarifying the meaning of that sentence. If I do a maneuver, anyone can tag the aspect for free once or with a fate point thereafter, but if I want the PC to "Do nothing for one round" because he's stunned, I have to offer him a compel and pay him a fate point if (s)he agrees. I think that's what you were telling me.
-
...disregard if you're using a common drift that allows tags to be used for compels...
A what now? What do you mean by "using a common drift"?
-
It's powerful, but I'm playing in a game where the wizard has power 7 rotes. I'll be taking over the dming soon, so I want good opposition. We're a 10 refresh group and he has +5 conviction along with foci.
That's why I used power 8, but the number was intented to be a bit arbitrary.
Understood.
Tag to effect...I've seen it in one of the example spells...the "grasping branches" spell YS,pg294.
I suggest checking out these forums and looking for the discussion threads where Fred gives the official answer on stuff like this. Basically, tagging for effect means that instead of using a fate point to invoke for effect, the PC is using their free tag from a maneuver... for effect.
To get this straight, your guidlines are that if you succeed by 2 shifts you can tag to effect? Officially, are there any guidlines for this? When you say "invoke for effect", are you giving the perp a fate point?
If the PC were invoking an aspect for effect, the perp would get a fate point. If the pc is tagging for effect, no fate point is spent so no fate point is received.
The 2 shift thing is just an example. Tags and invokes for effect, just like spell fallout, are in the hands of the GM. My own personal rule is that the thematic effect of a tag for effect is going to scale appropriately depending on how many shifts the maneuver succeeded by.
If a fate point is used to invoke for effect, I am generous - especially since the perp gets a fate point out of it.
Also, how can you kill something with a maneuver? I thought the purpose of a maneuver was to set-up killing blows and fancy moves.
If I did a maneuver to knock someone out, what's the difference if it's 8 shifts of power vs 4? If the the perp fails, he faces the concequenses.
It also seems a bit powerful to be a maneuver. Wouldn't you have to just do piles of damage until they conceeded and said "they're knocked out"?
Maneuvers kill when appropriate. Look at the books. Harry does not get into huge firefights with RCVs. One shot and they're dead. Why? Because he's making evocations like, "Fire to the gut" then invoking for effect. This does not happen with named enemies, just mooks.
As for the 8 shifts vs 4, 8 shifts is a battle tank's cannon vs 4 shifts of a .50 bmg.
As an astral bolt to knock someone out, these are two vastly different power levels.
The way I would model it is that tagging "knocked out" for effect would knock a perp out for one round, but each round after they they would roll endurance to be conscious again.
If they become conscious again, it would count as a supplemental action and they'd be able to act that round.
I'd give them +2 to their endurance roll for every time they took damage while unconscious.
So you can see, trying to beat an 8 shift spell would be a lot harder than a 4 shift spell.
To beat an 8 shift spell, they'd probably have to stack aspects while unconscious, taking at least several rounds to come to. (or use fate points).
To beat a 4 shift spell, they'd only have to roll endurance once.
-
A what now? What do you mean by "using a common drift"?
Just replace drift with house rule. I wasn't paying attention to my audience there.
-
Maneuvers kill when appropriate. Look at the books. Harry does not get into huge firefights with RCVs. One shot and they're dead. Why? Because he's making evocations like, "Fire to the gut" then invoking for effect. This does not happen with named enemies, just mooks.
Actually, the way that example is modeled in the game is Harry blast an RCV in the gut with fire, does more stress than the RCV can take, and the GM doesn't bother with consequences, because they're just mooks, and the RCV is taken out..
-
Actually, the way that example is modeled in the game is Harry blast an RCV in the gut with fire, does more stress than the RCV can take, and the GM doesn't bother with consequences, because they're just mooks, and the RCV is taken out..
It can be done either way.
And as for the GM not bothering with consequences, that is a slippery slope.
With a normal vanilla mortal - absolutely. But a RCV is an 8 refresh monster at least I think. I have a hard time believing they would just lay down and die when all they'd have to do is take a conseuence of "lightly singed"
-
I suggest checking out these forums and looking for the discussion threads where Fred gives the official answer on stuff like this. Basically, tagging for effect means that instead of using a fate point to invoke for effect, the PC is using their free tag from a maneuver... for effect.
I've been looking at various threads...Any helpful links would be appreciated!
-
The problem is you cannot get a free compel by tagging an aspect.
This is actually wrong. In a thread a month or two ago Fred/Iago made his thoughts known on this. His words were to the effect of someone may tag an aspect for effect which triggers a compel that is negotiated between the GM and the compelee. In other words I tag an aspect for effect, and then the GM compels the target (offering him a fate point from the general pool), giving him the chance to buy it off, at which point the GM could up the stakes if so desired, etc. Once I invoke for effect (regardless of whether I'm tagging or spending a Fate point) my part is finished and the whole rest of the process is between the GM and the target.
Here's his specific statement: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205
As for maneuvering and then tagging that to take someone out, one must consider that a maneuver can not create an aspect that can't be removed. Just as someone can maneuver to place an aspect so can anyone maneuver to remove it. If you're placing aspects like "sliced neck" then how is someone supposed to remove that? And yet they can by RAW. I would suggest you look for better aspects (something like "off-balance") and then tagging it to cause something greater (using the same example falling from a great hight).
Finally the way I run it is that someone is compelled until they take steps to be no longer compelled. So if you compel someone to be "stunned" then they will stay out of the fray until they (or someone else) removes the aspect, or until an appropriate amount of time has lapsed to assume that the aspect is no longer applicable. I don't know if this is RAW, however it seems appropriate considering the value of fate points and the alternative of people running around with "blinded" or similar with no effect.
-
Here's his specific statement: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022205.html#msg1022205
I stand corrected. Thanks for showing this to me. To add to your point this post from Fred makes the matter even clearer than the detailed explanation you pointed to.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022188.html#msg1022188 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,24061.msg1022188.html#msg1022188)
Finally the way I run it is that someone is compelled until they take steps to be no longer compelled. So if you compel someone to be "stunned" then they will stay out of the fray until they (or someone else) removes the aspect, or until an appropriate amount of time has lapsed to assume that the aspect is no longer applicable. I don't know if this is RAW, however it seems appropriate considering the value of fate points and the alternative of people running around with "blinded" or similar with no effect.
I see some potential problems here. Like with the stun example we're dealing with in this thread. If someone is compelled to be stunned they can't act to remove it, admittedly this is an edge case. Compels complicate a characters life, so they should last until their life is sufficiently complicated.
-
Finally the way I run it is that someone is compelled until they take steps to be no longer compelled. So if you compel someone to be "stunned" then they will stay out of the fray until they (or someone else) removes the aspect, or until an appropriate amount of time has lapsed to assume that the aspect is no longer applicable. I don't know if this is RAW, however it seems appropriate considering the value of fate points and the alternative of people running around with "blinded" or similar with no effect.
Thanks for the link. After reading the (somewhat frustrated) posts on that thread from FRED, I feel a bit bad because my "wanna make spells thread" turned into a "how do aspects work" thread. :-[
Anyways,
This thread has been an immense help; thanks for everyone's input.
-
Mostly I may allow a person to attempt to be un"stunned" via a high endurance or conviction(?) roll. Or someone else could run over and slap them hard (a fists maneuver) or attend to them (a scholarship maneuver). But yeah, mostly I'd say that they would be compelled until a few(4-6) rounds had passed and they had the time to recover naturally.
-
Something I forgot earlier. Most of the things you could maneuver and then compel to be "taken out" would also simply be taken out with a weapon:8 attack. For that matter they would likely be taken out with a weapon:6 attack meaning you can use those 2 extra shifts to make it a zone-wide effect and then take out all of the mooks.
-
Mostly I may allow a person to attempt to be un"stunned" via a high endurance or conviction(?) roll. Or someone else could run over and slap them hard (a fists maneuver) or attend to them (a scholarship maneuver). But yeah, mostly I'd say that they would be compelled until a few(4-6) rounds had passed and they had the time to recover naturally.
Well the length of time of the compel would be based on the spell and by how much it succeeded. It needs to succeed by more than one shift to be sticky. So I'd just let them continue to make *insert skill check here* until they succeeded or until the maneuver wore off... or wait... for spell maneuvers, do I have to put extra shifts into them to make them last more than one round??? Or do I use the rules for sticky aspects? Or would that just be part of the discussion around the compel? If it was a burst of sound, the spell would only have to last one exchange, but the maneuver to "stun" is independant of the spell. The spell is just flavor; to me the rules of maneuvers seems to win out.
And here I was thinking I was finished :P
-
Something I forgot earlier. Most of the things you could maneuver and then compel to be "taken out" would also simply be taken out with a weapon:8 attack. For that matter they would likely be taken out with a weapon:6 attack meaning you can use those 2 extra shifts to make it a zone-wide effect and then take out all of the mooks.
Mooks? This is gonna target the PC's ;D
-
It can be done either way.
And as for the GM not bothering with consequences, that is a slippery slope.
With a normal vanilla mortal - absolutely. But a RCV is an 8 refresh monster at least I think. I have a hard time believing they would just lay down and die when all they'd have to do is take a conseuence of "lightly singed"
A slippery slope to where?
-
I was thinking about it and I finally realized how I can help. When I do maneuvers with spellcasting what I like to do is broad, environmental effects. Things that a) couldn't be created by just anyone and b) are effective for many uses and make the situation interesting for everyone. Things like "Fog banks", "Whipping winds", "Burst pipes", "Rough terrain" or "Fire everywhere!" I find those are much more effective uses of my mental stress if I choose to use it for a maneuver.
So I'd just let them continue to make *insert skill check here* until they succeeded or until the maneuver wore off... or wait... for spell maneuvers, do I have to put extra shifts into them to make them last more than one round??? Or do I use the rules for sticky aspects? Or would that just be part of the discussion around the compel?
Actually I've had this very question before, thus.... Follow me.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,25415.0.html
-
Mostly I may allow a person to attempt to be un"stunned" via a high endurance or conviction(?) roll. Or someone else could run over and slap them hard (a fists maneuver) or attend to them (a scholarship maneuver). But yeah, mostly I'd say that they would be compelled until a few(4-6) rounds had passed and they had the time to recover naturally.
That's pretty much how I do it.
I really dig maneuvering for effect.
I put a little bit of a twist on what Fred said, because otherwise it doesn't make sense to me how a RCV could go down with 1 rote spell evocation shot.
-
That's pretty much how I do it.
I really dig maneuvering for effect.
I put a little bit of a twist on what Fred said, because otherwise it doesn't make sense to me how a RCV could go down with 1 rote spell evocation shot.
Environmental effects aside, if I can invoke for effect why would I do spell maneuvers? Why not do piles of damage (a sonic boom) and then invoke for effect (the stun). It seems to be a waste of a spell to do a maneuver they can potentially avoid with no effect for the cost of a fate point. If I do damage, and invoke, it still will cost them the point.
I'm just a bit confused. Don't I need an aspect to invoke for effect? Can you really just say, "wow, you succeeded by a lot, let's say he's stunned as well"
-
OK, here's a mechanical comparison;
Weapon 8 rote;
Against an enemy with "Great" defense, this does an average of 12 shifts of damage; 8 from the weapon and 4 more from a targeting roll of 8 (4 above enemy's defense). A mook with Supernatural Toughness but no consequences is blasted apart. An enemy with Inhuman Toughness and a mild consequence is, again, blasted apart. A PC with no touchness and full consequences must take a Severe and Moderate consequence just to stay in the fight. Weapon 8 rote is well above average in magical power for submerged people.
7-shift block that lasts 2 exchanges;
Again, this is really useful, depending on the block. If it is a magical grapple, it will prevent most actions and also deal one stress twice, ignoring armor. If it is a block against perception (offensive veil), you could really blind your opponent so they can't see you to target you and then get up to them and shoot them in the back for the next 2 exchanges - they'll roll mediocre defense since they won't be able to see the attack to dodge. While this type of spell won't kill an opponent, it is extremely useful when ganging up on a big enemy. Even big enemies rarely have Alertness high enough to pierce a 7-shift veil and then the entire group can hit them when they can't see to dodge for double the normal effect of their attacks.
8-shift maneuver or effect;
With 8 shifts, you can be sure to get a sticky aspect on all enemies that have less than legendary defenses and then tag for effect. Aspects can be as powerful as your GM allows you though they rarely, if ever, will take an opponent out outright. However, an 8-shift effect can. 8 shifts mean you can lift a car and land it on your enemy with a might effect. First of all, falling car would be a weapon 4-5 attack regardless of what else it would be. Secondly, a car needs might 8 to lift. If your enemy happens to have low or no Might, they simply can't lift it; unlike magical blocks and most maneuvers, being crushed under a car does not fade over time; if they don't lift it they are trapped. Third, cars are not magic and are made of metal. This may seem like an obvious statement but when you have a magic-immune Ogre running at you, a heavy metal projectile may be just what you need.
Similarly devastating effects that can do a lot more in some situations than the shifts invested in them is an 8-shift force effect that pushes an enemy over a 20-story building (splat!) or an 8-shift effect that blows the bridge under the enemy's feet (8 shifts can break strong exterior walls) or makes the ceiling or roof fall on the enemy.
summary;
Pure weapon attacks at weapon 8 will almost always take out mooks in one blow and significantly damage non-mooks; they are equivalent to direct hits from artillery. Blocks, correctly used, can both cripple opponents and make them lose the fight (ever heard of save-or-lose DnD spells?). Maneuvers and effects are usually less effective BUT in the right situations can outright finish the fight regardless of how powerful the enemy is by manipulating the environment.
-
First of all, falling car would be a weapon 4-5 attack regardless of what else it would be. Secondly, a car needs might 8 to lift.
I think you're being really generous here. If someone was using an evocation maneuver that also acted like a weapon and/or block, I would be inclined to make them pay for the weapon or block with shifts of power. Although, since we are talking about an 8 shift maneuver, I suppose they are paying for it. Maybe I just think the caster should precisely break out what is being payed for with the shifts. I know you have a pretty solid grasp of the system. What are you basing your interpretation on?
-
The spell example with the car is not a spell that tries to deal damage by hitting you with a car (i.e. using a scene aspect). That would result in a weapon 10 spell instead, as per the example grasping branches spell in the books (that one uses a tree for the extra oomph). The car spell simply does an 8-shift telekinesis acting on the car to move the car (on you). The immediate result of the spell is that the car lands on you. The secondary, and perfectly natural, effect is that you have a car crushing you with its weight; that deals damage due to the car, not the spell itself, and you have to be strong enough to push the car aside to get out of it.
Compare to using the same telekinesis rote in the following situations. The spell may do a very simple effect but depending on what you work with, it can have devastating secondary effects;
1) Throw someone off the roof of a multi-story building. The spell is a might 8 effect that throws the guy off the roof. He gets to roll any defenses he has against the spell to avoid being thrown off the roof and if he can fly or magically levitate he does not fall but if all those things fail, then he falls. And falling damage rules say 5 stress per 10 feet or so. Even if we cap that to 40 feet for max damage, a fall off a 4-story building is still 20 stress.
2) Break the bridge/floor under someone's feet. Doing the Gandalf thing is extremely effective in some situations. 8 shifts is a powerful enough spell to break through heavy exterior walls and similar things - small bridges and floors included. Not only does the enemy get to fall, but they usually get to fall into whatever the bridge was built over; an avenue full of speeding cars (that hit them), a river (which carries them away or might drown them), or a really, really deep ravine. In any case, they take lots and lots of damage and the encounter is pretty much over; they could survive but getting back at you would require a lot more effort than knocking them down did.
3) Break the roof. Just like breaking a wall, breaking the roof/ceiling not only does what the spell is supposed to do (break the ceiling with a might check) but the broken ceiling also gets to fall on whatever is standing under it. A typical ceiling for a 30x20 room weighs over 15 tons and even if you are hit only by a 2-ton piece, you still take significant damage and have to push the debris aside to escape.
4) Throw your target into high-votlage powerlines (or the powerlines into your target). This is a Holywood favorite and why not? If the fight is in the countryside near one of those 120k volt major powerlines or, even worse, in or near a power plant, use it to your advantage.
Long story short, a telekinesis rote is not very effective in combat if you have nothing to work with. But with the right declaration, assessment or existing scene aspect, it can be devastating. And it is also cooler than a pure damage effect because it encourages you to be creative and use the declaration/assessment rules and/or aspects beyond the point-and-blast rules. Besides, it is also useful out of combat. It can open paths and doors locked to you (by breaking the doors/walls), discourage pursuit (by flipping enemy cars), block the paths of enemies (by destroying the path itself) and it can even be used socially; never underestimate the persuasiveness of showing you can lift a car with your mind.
-
The car spell simply does an 8-shift telekinesis acting on the car to move the car (on you). The immediate result of the spell is that the car lands on you. The secondary, and perfectly natural, effect is that you have a car crushing you with its weight; that deals damage due to the car, not the spell itself, and you have to be strong enough to push the car aside to get out of it.
OK, I don't like the free lunch of dealing damage due to the car. I would say that's just a straight telekinesis attack, colored by the fact you're using TK to throw a car at them. Your reasoning is sound. I'm just not concerned with that level of simulation.
-
*shrugs*
Then just use the telekinesis rote to throw them off the roof or collapse the ceiling or throw them into the street to get the damage from the impact and then get run over by a speeding car. Dealing damage is not the point of telekinesis; being able to deal with a much greater variety of situations than just damage is the point. Damage is just the icing on the cake in the few circumstances that you can pull it off. After all, a blindness spell via an offensive veil is more consistently devastating than telekinesis if you are going for combat efficiency; they can't hit you or the rest of your team if they can't see you no matter how strong they are and you and your entire team can hit them when they can't see you for maximum effect. But an offensive veil will only be useful in combat whereas telekinesis can always be used to do something.
You only got 3-5 rotes and that's it. So try to have rotes that are useful in as many situations as possible. Examples of comparative usefulness;
Blindness Maneuver: can only blind for effect. Usefulnes 1
Force Blast: direct combat, can open barriers. Usefulness 2
Fire Blast: direct combat, can open barriers, satisfies catch for many things, can put things on fire. Usefulness 3-4
Offensive Blindness Veil: prevents enemy attacks, helps your and team's attacks, prevents enemy pursuit. Usefulness 3-4
Telekinesis: direct combat, can open barriers, forced movement, terrain control, ignores magic immunity, may use items to satisfy catches. Usefulness 6
Asyou can see, telekinesis has a ridiculously large number of uses compared to other rotes you might have. There's a reason Dresden has those force rings.
-
Stunned: Endurance roll to shake it off and get their brain back in order.
-
OK, I don't like the free lunch of dealing damage due to the car. I would say that's just a straight telekinesis attack, colored by the fact you're using TK to throw a car at them. Your reasoning is sound. I'm just not concerned with that level of simulation.
Yeah, I think I'd handle it as a Telikinesis attack if damage was the objective.
-
It seems to me that this goes back to invoke for effect. You use your power 8 rote to throw a car on someone and do "x" damage, adjudicated however you wish (either the damage is part of the spell - our wizard has air magic with a "throw stuff" spell. It's a power 7 Rote where he throws debris at baddies -or by saying it's a power 8 Might spell that can lift a car and the car does "x" damage); in either case, from what I've been hearing from people, is that you have to compel "there's a car on you and you can't get up" or "after you fall through the bridge you get hit by a passing car". I'm not sure you can just automatically do more stuff. But I got your point: a maneuver can kill someone when the power is that high enough.
I guess it kind of answers my invoke for effect question. While there is no official aspect on the target, I could just say "he got hit by a flying car, I'd like to invoke that he's pinned under it". Then it's up to the GM to decide what happens.
Another thing I've been seeing from people is that Power 8 rotes are awesomely powerful (I've notice that somewhat in our game that the wizard takes things out quickly). It seems well within the rules to have that kind of power...our skills are capped at superb and he gets his foci + whatever refinery...Is this kind of power unusual at this lvl? (10 refresh). When I start to GM should I be concerned?
Random Thought : people keep mentionning blinding people. Do you keep compelling the blindess? Are there rules around being blind and how it affects dodge. There must be a thread on this topic...
EDIT: here's one. http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19694.0.html
Although it doesn't mention things like what Belial66 was saying,
" If it is a block against perception (offensive veil), you could really blind your opponent so they can't see you to target you and then get up to them and shoot them in the back for the next 2 exchanges - they'll roll mediocre defense since they won't be able to see the attack to dodge... Even big enemies rarely have Alertness high enough to pierce a 7-shift veil and then the entire group can hit them when they can't see to dodge for double the normal effect of their attacks."
I assume these are all compels as well?
-
Nope, no compels. You put 7 shifts into a veil, 1 shift to prolong duration to 2 exchanges and instead of casting the Veil on you (and make yourself invisible), you cast it on the opponent (and make them effectively blind). If their perception (usually alertness or investigation) can't roll higher than the block, they are blind for the duration.
Similarly, a immobilization spell would be a block 7 vs any movement. Unless they rolled athletics higher than that, they'd be rooted to the spot for the duration.
Also similar, but more dangerous, is the Orbius spell from the books. It is only block 3 but duration 5 (I'd suggest upping the block and reducing duration) and grapples the opponent (roll vs Might). After that, it tries to strangle them, rolling each round vs endurance; success keeps them immobile and deals stress. Eventually they either break the block (pretty easy if you keep it only block 3) or they get strangled to death.
Offensive Blocks do not apply an aspect and depend on it being compelled/invoked. They flat-out impose an effect that stops some types of action from happening. Want someone blinded? Block vs perception. Paralyzed? Block vs Athletics or Endurance. Strangled? Vs Might/Endurance. Put to a light sleep? Block vs Discipline. Buried by debris? Block vs Might.
-
Offensive Blocks do not apply an aspect and depend on it being compelled/invoked. They flat-out impose an effect that stops some types of action from happening. Want someone blinded? Block vs perception. Paralyzed? Block vs Athletics or Endurance. Strangled? Vs Might/Endurance. Put to a light sleep? Block vs Discipline. Buried by debris? Block vs Might.
Right, just like my first example for the stun. It was a power 8 block vs...acting, basically a magical grapple, but flavor-wise it's not a grapple.
What about all that stuff about double damage and mediocre dodges because they're blinded? That is above and beyond the actual block.
-
Surprise rules. If they cannot see your attack, they are surprised by the attack. They still get to roll defense but their active defense skills fall at mediocre. So, someone shooting them with superb skill and weapon 3 gun could move up behind them and shoot them in the back for 8 stress (assuming normal rolls) because they can't see him attacking.
Be careful though; blocks are short duration. If you put everything into the strength of the block, they'd only last for a single exchange. To make them last longer you'd either have to trade power for duration or use the spell duration extension rules.
Also, there's another advanced trick you can do with offensive blocks in some situations. Say you conjure a magical force to immobilize an enemy with Block 7 vs athletics, 1 more shift put to duration. The first exchange he is immobilized and takes damage from your group. The second exchange you want to finish him off instead of keeping him immobilized so you roll your Control to convert the energy of the block into an attack; suddenly your Bigby's Crushing Hand spell stops merely holding and crushes down, becoming a Weapon 7 attack without you paying extra mental energy for the spell.
As long as there's duration remaining and it would make sense to convert the energy of the spell into a new use, you can reuse any remaining Power without casting a new spell.
-
Surprise rules.
Yeah...I went searching for those. The appendix is a little lacking.
Also, there's another advanced trick you can do with offensive blocks in some situations. Say you conjure a magical force to immobilize an enemy with Block 7 vs athletics, 1 more shift put to duration. The first exchange he is immobilized and takes damage from your group. The second exchange you want to finish him off instead of keeping him immobilized so you roll your Control to convert the energy of the block into an attack; suddenly your Bigby's Crushing Hand spell stops merely holding and crushes down, becoming a Weapon 7 attack without you paying extra mental energy for the spell.
As long as there's duration remaining and it would make sense to convert the energy of the spell into a new use, you can reuse any remaining Power without casting a new spell.
Oh. That's a gem!
-
Yeah...I went searching for those. The appendix is a little lacking.
Look under the Ambush trapping of Steal on YS142.
-
A slippery slope to where?
A slippery slope to an unbelievable narrative and characters who are never challenged in combat.
-
A slippery slope to an unbelievable narrative and characters who are never challenged in combat.
How would it lead to an unbelievable narrative?
-
How would it lead to an unbelievable narrative?
If super nasty 10 refresh monsters go down with a single shot every time, that seems a bit silly to me.
I have a submerged group, and 8-12 refresh monsters still take a while to go down sometimes. The group /should/ work for it IMO.
On the flip side, I like rewarding creative attacks and good narrative. If someone does a really cool attack and rolls well, THEN I will deem the monster "taken out" and hand its fate to the player.
I go by the mantra - anything a player can do an NPC can do. As such, the NPC /can/ take consequences up to extreme. Whether it takes them or not depends completely on its will to live and belief in whatever mission it was on.
For instance, a monster trying to warn its brothers that the PCs are killing them would probably soak up as much damage as possible to get away.
-
My GM does this sometimes and it sometimes it works and is quite challenging while other times it feels cheap.
Just to give some examples, I found that it worked quite well when our group of four PCs was attacked by a tentacle beast and had to take out the tentacles individually. Each one acted on it's own turn and was considered an individual but they didn't take consequences. They would be ripped/torn/blown/chopped off if we beat it's stress track.
I found it didn't work well when the same party was attacked by a dozen goblin-type fairies and it just became an issue of number crunching (2 left on player 1, 0 on player 2 etc.).
-
If super nasty 10 refresh monsters go down with a single shot every time, that seems a bit silly to me.
If a single attack does enough stress to blow through the targets stress track, then it is realistic for the attack to take out the target. Consequences are not another type of hit points you have to chew through. They are an option the person controlling the target has to reduce the amount of stress taken. They can be used or not depending on what the situation calls for.
Whether it takes them or not depends completely on its will to live and belief in whatever mission it was on.
The character's will, belief or any other in character motivation is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to take consequences and what those consequences will be is one made by the person controlling the character. This decision is made based on what that person wants in the narrative and what they think the situation calls for. Consequences are about what people want, not the hypothetical desires of the fictional entities they control.
-
The character's will, belief or any other in character motivation is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to take consequences and what those consequences will be is one made by the person controlling the character. This decision is made based on what that person wants in the narrative and what they think the situation calls for. Consequences are about what people want, not the hypothetical desires of the fictional entities they control.
I have to disagree. If you`re playing the character properly you`ll take the consequences or not depending on its goal. You can argue that that is narrative control but, in the end, the more desperate, fanatical, determined... the creature is, the less likely it`ll just concede and more likely it`ll take consequences. yeah, so I agree that an NPC`s motives matter in a lot of situations...
-
If a single attack does enough stress to blow through the targets stress track, then it is realistic for the attack to take out the target. Consequences are not another type of hit points you have to chew through. They are an option the person controlling the target has to reduce the amount of stress taken. They can be used or not depending on what the situation calls for.
The character's will, belief or any other in character motivation is completely irrelevant. The decision of whether or not to take consequences and what those consequences will be is one made by the person controlling the character. This decision is made based on what that person wants in the narrative and what they think the situation calls for. Consequences are about what people want, not the hypothetical desires of the fictional entities they control.
I pretty much disagree with everything you just said.
Cheers!
-
Combat would be maddening if a GM played every mook, tentacle monster, and wild bear as if it had a full Consequence track.
The consequence track is there to increase the dramatic tension of a given challenge. They are also a hit point sink, true, and should be taken into account when adjudicating attempts to summon or take out high-plot NPCs, but not everything should get them - the RAW recommends that mooks should generally take no Consequences, or at most Mild Consequences.
That said, yes, 10-Refresh monsters should be more than mooks unless one has a high-Refresh game.
As such, the NPC /can/ take consequences up to extreme. Whether it takes them or not depends completely on its will to live and belief in whatever mission it was on.
For instance, a monster trying to warn its brothers that the PCs are killing them would probably soak up as much damage as possible to get away.
The first sounds more like when an NPC is willing to Concede. The latter definitely sounds like a moment of dramatic tension outside of a normal combat, and/or making the players work harder to avoid a potentially more problematic complication if they let the monster escape and warn the others.
-
Combat would be maddening if a GM played every mook, tentacle monster, and wild bear as if it had a full Consequence track.
The consequence track is there to increase the dramatic tension of a given challenge. They are also a hit point sink, true, and should be taken into account when adjudicating attempts to summon or take out high-plot NPCs, but not everything should get them - the RAW recommends that mooks should generally take no Consequences, or at most Mild Consequences.
That said, yes, 10-Refresh monsters should be more than mooks unless one has a high-Refresh game.
The first sounds more like when an NPC is willing to Concede. The latter definitely sounds like a moment of dramatic tension outside of a normal combat, and/or making the players work harder to avoid a potentially more problematic complication if they let the monster escape and warn the others.
Yup.
And I would argue that regardless of the power level the game is set at, a 10 refresh NPC is not a mook. Somebody or something with 10 refresh can usually figure out a way to hurt you. If they can't, you're a plot device.
-
Or you are at least 20 refresh. That does not make you all-powerful by any means but it does make you capable of blasting apart a 10-refresh PC in a single blow.
-
Or you are at least 20 refresh. That does not make you all-powerful by any means but it does make you capable of blasting apart a 10-refresh PC in a single blow.
Meh. I will concede your point.
-
Or they're a plot device without much importance to the ongoing story. If they're important, if they matter, then the GM can have them take consequences. If they're a mook, no consequences needed regardless of refresh. If it's troubling that a wizard can burn up a whole room full of high refresh RCVs with one spell, I guess negotiate for a different taken out condition that better suits your sensibilities. I don't see that the narrative is in any danger from a few mooks going poof, while thematically important opposition is more difficult. But, the nice thing is it's up to the GM and the players if the NPCs take consequences. It's customizable.
@Taran, as a player, I might want to concede and negotiate a take out where I'm captured, or knocked unconscious or the baddie escapes from my grasp. That has nothing to do with how determined I see my character as being, and much more to do with what shape I want to see in the scene and the world that is being created. If I want the scene to be one in which my Character's determination and will to succeed is rewarded, I can push through with consequences. If I want a scene where my character's determination and will to succeed is thwarted, I can concede. Maybe even work in a self-compel in there for a FP, depending on if I've earned any for the scene :)
I found it didn't work well when the same party was attacked by a dozen goblin-type fairies and it just became an issue of number crunching (2 left on player 1, 0 on player 2 etc.).
That's just a poorly designed encounter. If they were taking consequences it would just have been longer.
-
Also, there's another advanced trick you can do with offensive blocks in some situations. Say you conjure a magical force to immobilize an enemy with Block 7 vs athletics, 1 more shift put to duration. The first exchange he is immobilized and takes damage from your group. The second exchange you want to finish him off instead of keeping him immobilized so you roll your Control to convert the energy of the block into an attack; suddenly your Bigby's Crushing Hand spell stops merely holding and crushes down, becoming a Weapon 7 attack without you paying extra mental energy for the spell.
As long as there's duration remaining and it would make sense to convert the energy of the spell into a new use, you can reuse any remaining Power without casting a new spell.
Technically the spell must also not have been used for it's original purpose, so if the enemy has a turn and is prevented from acting by the block then you couldn't convert the spell into an attack.
I think you're all arguing various shades of the same concept. I think we can all agree with the idea that something has access to consequences if it's relevant to the narrative, however it's possible that we have different interpretations of what should be important.
-
Technically the spell must also not have been used for it's original purpose in that exchange
Fixed it for you.
-
Ahh, you're right I made a mistake. Thanks for bringing it to my attention in such a polite manner. Though most casters are not high on the initiative order and as such would only be able to use this kind of thing against slower enemies.
-
Ahh, you're right I made a mistake. Thanks for bringing it to my attention in such a polite manner. Though most casters are not high on the initiative order and as such would only be able to use this kind of thing against slower enemies.
I had a player correct me on this same point during our last game.
-
Hey,
I'm going to refocus the thread a bit. I'll start by saying I'm less frustrated about spellcasting thanks to everyone's help. Secondly, I got an opportunity to try some out in our game tonight. Unfortunately, it lead to some debate...
My current character just took soul-fire, and due to some good role-playing and poor tactics, we found ourselves in a bit of a tussle with the police...OOPS!
My character, who is an ex-cop doesn't want to fight and wants everyone to stop shooting!
Spell:
Everyone, Calm the f- down!
power 9 (I tagged a few aspects and took some consequence). 7 for effect, 2 to hit the whole zone
Block against all Hostile(offfensive) actions
Defend using Discipline.
Effect: If you want to take a hostile action against another person, you must succeed a discipline role vs the spell as a suplemental action.
I think I designed the spell correctly. Comments?
A debate was sparked post-game: Does this spell break the 4th Law??? It seems to suit the theme of soulfire..being all peaceful and such
-
A debate was sparked post-game: Does this spell break the 4th Law??? It seems to suit the theme of soulfire..being all peaceful and such
I would say that most certainly both breaks the 4th Law and is in the spirit of soulfire. And awesome
ETA OK there is the whole if you use nonmortal magic from a sponsor does it break the laws debate, so not certainly.
-
I would say that most certainly both breaks the 4th Law and is in the spirit of soulfire. And awesome
ETA OK there is the whole if you use nonmortal magic from a sponsor does it break the laws debate, so not certainly.
ETA?
It seems, then, you can't use magic for social combat...except maybe to buff yourself...give yourself a silver tongue. Maybe you can't force someone not to lie (a block vs deceit), but you could possibly buff your empathy/rapport by defending against deceit.
Anyways...we we're all a bit sad that it might break the laws. Technically, you're not causing mental stress or consequences...just blocking...I mean, no-one has a problem doing mental stress to cause a consequence that you compel NPC to "fall asleep". ...
As far as sponsored magic and the Laws go, one of the PC's is a warden...and a devout Catholic
-
ETA=Edit to add. If someone else responds while a post is being added to it lets people know why things are out of order.
As far as the 4th law goes, ask to questions. Was magic used on another person's mind? Did that magic prevent them from acting as they wished to? If the answer to both is yes, it's a law violation.
As far as sponsored magic and the Laws go, one of the PC's is a warden...and a devout Catholic
That just makes the situation even more awesome. My call as GM here would be as far as the universe is concerned it is not a violation (no stunt required), but as far as the White Council concerned it is. This will highlight the warden's internal conflict even more than just a full law violation to the universe and council. Enjoy the fate. Things are about to get interesting.
-
Hey,
I'm going to refocus the thread a bit. I'll start by saying I'm less frustrated about spellcasting thanks to everyone's help. Secondly, I got an opportunity to try some out in our game tonight. Unfortunately, it lead to some debate...
My current character just took soul-fire, and due to some good role-playing and poor tactics, we found ourselves in a bit of a tussle with the police...OOPS!
My character, who is an ex-cop doesn't want to fight and wants everyone to stop shooting!
Spell:
Everyone, Calm the f- down!
power 9 (I tagged a few aspects and took some consequence). 7 for effect, 2 to hit the whole zone
Block against all Hostile(offfensive) actions
Defend using Discipline.
Effect: If you want to take a hostile action against another person, you must succeed a discipline role vs the spell as a suplemental action.
I think I designed the spell correctly. Comments?
A debate was sparked post-game: Does this spell break the 4th Law??? It seems to suit the theme of soulfire..being all peaceful and such
I would call shenanigans on a spell like that.
I think a more appropriate way to model it would have been to make an area spell maneuver with soulfire like, "Receptive"
Then make an area social attack using either intimidation or conviction to calm the fuck down, and tag your "receptive" aspect on every person in the zone you laid it on.
::shrug::
-
My call as GM here would be as far as the universe is concerned it is not a violation (no stunt required), but as far as the White Council concerned it is. This will highlight the warden's internal conflict even more than just a full law violation to the universe and council. Enjoy the fate. Things are about to get interesting.
I agree partially. As far as the universe is concerned, it is not breaking the Law. But with respects to the White Council, as the Warden on the scene, he gets to decide. If Stacy (or any other more senior Warden) was there, given sufficient "rules lawyering" like what Dresden did with the zombie dino, she might let it pass.
-
First of all, Soulfire is not mortal magic so it is technically not subject to the Laws. Secondly, Soulfire can do ANY thaumaturgy at the speed and methods of Evocation. So instead of the spell being Evocation - and thus having to be block, maneuver, attack or dispel - it can be Thaumaturgy and thus any type of effect you want. This gives us a few more options;
1) A 7-shift Ward vs agressive actions applied to the entire Zone. Any hostile actions have to contend with a block of 7 that does not break even if momentarily overcome and reflects attacks back on the attacker if the attacks don't overcome it. I think attackers are going to get the idea pretty fast.
2) A 7-shift zonewide veil vs agressive actions. Yes, it is a neuromancy spell. No, it does not affect the mind. It affects the sensory organs directly each time someone tries to attack, applying an illusion of sensory deprivation for all senses (including balance). You can't attack what you can't see, hear, smell or otherwise locate.
3) A 7-shift zonewide biomancy block vs agressive actions. It works by making you utterly calm and non-agressive, similarly to being chemically sedated only more benign and without the side-effects.
4) A 4-shift conjuration for mass, 1 shift conjuration for complexity, 4 shifts to apply the aspect "transparent". What does this do? It conjures a 3-ft-thick steel bubble around every person in the zone that happens to be transparent. Go ahead; try to shoot through 3 ft of steel. You can still talk and make funny faces through it though.
5) 7 shift zonewide block vs ignition. Sorry, firearms and explosives no longer work anymore. Feel free to use them as short clubs now.
-
Secondly, Soulfire can do ANY thaumaturgy at the speed and methods of Evocation.
Can you please explain how you got this? I did not find Soulfire(in its write up in YS) capable of granting any thaumaturgy at the speed and methods of Evocation.
-
Soulfire provides the full range of Thaumaturgic spells as well as standard sponsored magic benefits - one of which is thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation. Also, when discussing the range of those benefits in the first part of the chapter, it says that particularly broad benefits come at an increased cost - and Soulfire is the only sponsored magic that has an increased cost.
-
Soulfire provides the full range of Thaumaturgic spells as well as standard sponsored magic benefits - one of which is thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation. Also, when discussing the range of those benefits in the first part of the chapter, it says that particularly broad benefits come at an increased cost - and Soulfire is the only sponsored magic that has an increased cost.
Soulfire also automatically knocks down any target's armor by 1.
I think it would be thematically appropriate to count as the catch for physical immunity catchless monsters too.
It's pretty nasty.
-
I would call shenanigans on a spell like that.
I think a more appropriate way to model it would have been to make an area spell maneuver with soulfire like, "Receptive"
Then make an area social attack using either intimidation or conviction to calm the fuck down, and tag your "receptive" aspect on every person in the zone you laid it on.
::shrug::
I wasn't in a position to make social attacks, but that aside, why is it shenanigans. I'm just curious why you think so. I've seen at least one block vs ALL actions examples on this thread...why does this one not work? Also, if I did a compel agaisnt the group, would I not have to spend a fate point for each target...I assume only the first tag is free...
-
First of all, Soulfire is not mortal magic so it is technically not subject to the Laws.
Is this a hard and fast rule or just individual group concensus?
1) A 7-shift Ward vs agressive actions applied to the entire Zone. Any hostile actions have to contend with a block of 7 that does not break even if momentarily overcome and reflects attacks back on the attacker if the attacks don't overcome it. I think attackers are going to get the idea pretty fast.
2) A 7-shift zonewide veil vs agressive actions. Yes, it is a neuromancy spell. No, it does not affect the mind. It affects the sensory organs directly each time someone tries to attack, applying an illusion of sensory deprivation for all senses (including balance). You can't attack what you can't see, hear, smell or otherwise locate.
3) A 7-shift zonewide biomancy block vs agressive actions. It works by making you utterly calm and non-agressive, similarly to being chemically sedated only more benign and without the side-effects.
4) A 4-shift conjuration for mass, 1 shift conjuration for complexity, 4 shifts to apply the aspect "transparent". What does this do? It conjures a 3-ft-thick steel bubble around every person in the zone that happens to be transparent. Go ahead; try to shoot through 3 ft of steel. You can still talk and make funny faces through it though.
5) 7 shift zonewide block vs ignition. Sorry, firearms and explosives no longer work anymore. Feel free to use them as short clubs now.
1. I LOVE this. In game, my spell got destroyed by the mortal cop who spent FP's to make the roll to defend :P Reflecting damage is icing on the cake.
2, 4,5 . That's neat. Creative.
3. This is how we might end up justifying it so that it circumvents the law. Thematically, it's a bit drab...and I'd find it a bit disapointing. it's really up to the GM how much tension he wants...
-
Soulfire provides the full range of Thaumaturgic spells as well as standard sponsored magic benefits - one of which is thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation. Also, when discussing the range of those benefits in the first part of the chapter, it says that particularly broad benefits come at an increased cost - and Soulfire is the only sponsored magic that has an increased cost.
All of the Sponsored Magics state "standard sponsored magic benefits", all the rest of them also make particular mention of the phrase "with an evocation spells method and speed" or something similar. Only Soulfire does not explicitly state this and leaves it out. Every other sponsored magic has explicit thaumaturgy at evocation's speed and methods, only Soulfire does not. There are other sponsored magics that lack part of "standard sponsored magic benefits" as well: Kemmlerian Necromancy, Hellfire and Places of Power don't do the Toughness downgrades.
We do not know the reason for the increased cost of Soulfire.
-
But with respects to the White Council, as the Warden on the scene, he gets to decide.
He gets to decide in the same way a cop gets to decide to pull someone over for speeding or look the other way. But, the law is the law, and cops who look the other way can run into problems with their superiors. They same goes for wardens.
Generally speaking the warden higher ups would probably just go with the call made by the warden on the scene. But that would make this situation much less interesting.
-
As the devout catholic warden in this situation I didn't really see what was going on. I was 10 power into an 18 complexity thaumaturgical spell and was busy chanting away. I was in the area of effect of the block but never pushed up against it since I was out of the combat (except for getting shot by the frightened cops once). None of the other PCs understand magic (including the soulfire wielding one) so getting a straight answer as to what happened may be difficult.
After the session ended I got to thinking, would casting this block have left a stain on the caster's soul/aura? I would think that if the universe slaps you with a Lawbreaker power there would be some sort of effect visible to the Sight (or possibly a Soulgaze).
The GM determined that it was a violation of the 4th law but didn't slap the lawbreaker power on him for role-playing purposes. My warden didn't see it as a violation because it was only a block in one zone and left all other options open (including moving a zone away and shooting, running away, talking etc.
1) A 7-shift Ward vs agressive actions applied to the entire Zone. Any hostile actions have to contend with a block of 7 that does not break even if momentarily overcome and reflects attacks back on the attacker if the attacks don't overcome it. I think attackers are going to get the idea pretty fast.
I would be worried that the cop would kill himself on the ward. If he hits the ward with a 6 shift attack with a shotgun he's facing at least some consequences.
First of all, Soulfire is not mortal magic so it is technically not subject to the Laws.
Do you mean it's not subject to the universe's laws or the White Council's laws? My warden believes that he is subject to the council's laws because he's human and the source of his magic is not a signatory to the accords (even if the group had a laugh while that question was asked :D )
-
He gets to decide in the same way a cop gets to decide to pull someone over for speeding or look the other way. But, the law is the law, and cops who look the other way can run into problems with their superiors. They same goes for wardens.
Generally speaking the warden higher ups would probably just go with the call made by the warden on the scene. But that would make this situation much less interesting.
Sometimes the law is clear, other times it is not. He is not so much looking the other way, but determining the guy isn't over the speed limit. The situation being less interesting may well be more fun.
-
Jack, Taran, I'm getting a sense you guys don't want to play around with the potential lawbreaker issues here. If that's the case just don't do it. The warden character didn't see it. Just keep him clueless on this topic. Or you can retcon things and say the spell was one of the cool non lawbreaking options posted earlier. I think that would be passing a golden opportunity, but I'm not in your game.
On lawbreaking and the sight/soulgaze, I don't know about the sight, but soulgaze would show something. The novels even give the impression a soulgaze is a routine part of investigating a warlock.
Sponsored magic and the laws, you need to decide as a group, both respect to the universe and council.
-
Soulfire provides the full range of Thaumaturgic spells as well as standard sponsored magic benefits - one of which is thaumaturgy at the speed of evocation. Also, when discussing the range of those benefits in the first part of the chapter, it says that particularly broad benefits come at an increased cost - and Soulfire is the only sponsored magic that has an increased cost.
No it's not. It is explained in "sidebar" but it is not a "Standard Benefit".
It is often specifically listed, but not in Soulfire's write up.
Soulfire already gives full Thaumaturgy for Channeling's cost, let's not go overboard here. Which is my take on why Soulfire's cost is one higher.
My take on the Fourth Law issue:
You didn't force people to change their mind, implant thoughts or emotions, you just stopped action. No more harmful than a "Bigby's Grasping Hand" force style spell. No Laws broken even if it were purely mortal magic.
You didn't even stop them from being upset that you stopped the action or interfered with their ability to want to commit harm, you just them from being able to.
-
My take on the Fourth Law issue:
You didn't force people to change their mind, implant thoughts or emotions, you just stopped action. No more harmful than a "Bigby's Grasping Hand" force style spell. No Laws broken even if it were purely mortal magic.
You didn't even stop them from being upset that you stopped the action or interfered with their ability to want to commit harm, you just them from being able to.
YS240
Here, enthralling is any effort made to change the natural inclinations, choices, and behaviors of another person.
The natural inclination of the people involved was to continue fighting. Magic wasn't used to physically restrain them like a Bigby type spell. Magic was used on the minds of the victims to prevent them from acting according to their natural inclinations, a 4th law violation*. As a side note, the 4th law is all about what the road to hell is paved with.
*Sponsored magic issues aside.
-
Jack, Taran, I'm getting a sense you guys don't want to play around with the potential lawbreaker issues here. If that's the case just don't do it.
It's not the case that we don't want to. Personally, I love that spell and think it's completely in line with his sponsor's agenda. I would hate to see him not able to use it or be forced to use a Bigby's Grasping Hand instead which is so much more boring. It does, at least, abut with the 4th law which causes some real role playing opportunity between the group which is great as well.
Unfortunately, as I read this thread, I'm starting to change my mind about whether this is a violation. Can it cause lasting damage to the cops? It was a 1 round block so my inclination was to say no. However, putting myself in the cops shoes, I'm here in a subway maintenance hallway confronted with a guy chanting and a couple of other guys looking suspicious and a huge bear! I shoot the bear to little effect and then this guy jumps up and shouts "Calm the F- down" and all my religious beliefs reinforcing non-violence are slammed into my head and I have to dig deep down just to point my gun at the very large bear blocking my escape route from the other crazies. One of the cops failed his discipline check.
He could pretty easily come down with Post traumatic stress disorder or some other mental issues or even a loss of confidence in his ability and will have to take that desk job instead of the beat cop he always wanted to be.
Taran, your Warden wants to talk to you...
-
YS240
The natural inclination of the people involved was to continue fighting. Magic wasn't used to physically restrain them like a Bigby type spell. Magic was used on the minds of the victims to prevent them from acting according to their natural inclinations, a 4th law violation*. As a side note, the 4th law is all about what the road to hell is paved with.
*Sponsored magic issues aside.
Again, IMO it didn't actually cause any lasting affects, it was a Block. Once dropped they were free to go right on being angry and hostile. Their minds weren't changed. They weren't overcome and caused to take consequences dictating they were "calm and non-hostile", they were actively restrained. It was the mental equivalent of a physical restraint, once removed they were free to go right back to killing each other.
Like handcuffs or straight jackets, yes prolonged exsposure could be damaging, but a quick restraint isn't likely to do any damage.
Personally, I'd say it doesn't Break the Fourth Law and apply Lawbreaker, but it sure as hell would look like a Fourth Law break to any witnessing Wardens. ;)
I'd also have a talk with my group and go with the consensus. Damn, The Laws of Magic are almost as bad as D&D Alignments. :P
He could pretty easily come down with Post traumatic stress disorder or some other mental issues or even a loss of confidence in his ability and will have to take that desk job instead of the beat cop he always wanted to be.
Eh. He took no stress from it and the Human Psyche is a lot less fragile than Harry Dresden tries to make it out to be.
I'd say given a few days the events would become a bit muddy for the cops involved, some more so than others.
-
If only we had some kind of points that could be used to compel shit like this and figure out what the fictional ramifications of mind spells are in our games?
-
To go back up to some of the advice early on in the thread, could I have Invoked for effect? Say the first cop failed his discipline check by enough, could I have said, "well, I think he just drops his gun and decides he wants to talk". The PC shapeshifter failed his discipline by 5 shifts, could I have compelled him to role over and have his tummy scratch? Or would these be more appropriate for a maneuver? Like what BumbleBear was saying earlier...I'll have to find the quote...about shenanigans...
EDIT
I would call shenanigans on a spell like that.
I think a more appropriate way to model it would have been to make an area spell maneuver with soulfire like, "Receptive"
Then make an area social attack using either intimidation or conviction to calm the fuck down, and tag your "receptive" aspect on every person in the zone you laid it on.
::shrug::
As far as law breaking goes, the Warden character might not want to have "a little chat" with the only social spec'd character in the party...he might find himself with an extreme consequence and a new outlook on life ;)
But that would be fun to play out anyways.
-
If only we had some kind of points that could be used to compel shit like this and figure out what the fictional ramifications of mind spells are in our games?
James, That wouldn't solve anything. It would be like trying to compel an aspect when there is disagreement about what the aspect means. They need to decide what the laws mean in their game, then the fate should flow.
To go back up to some of the advice early on in the thread, could I have Invoked for effect?
Like so many thing when it comes to magic, there is no one right answer. What you did is perfectly valid. So are a lot of the other suggestions.
-
James, That wouldn't solve anything. It would be like trying to compel an aspect when there is disagreement about what the aspect means. They need to decide what the laws mean in their game, then the fate should flow.
I'm thinking that this is true with regards to earning the stunt, but a compel on the Warden's high concept with or without a buy off might say a lot about how the Warden responded to the spell and how the White Council's response was going to effect things going forward.
-
I'm think the player might self- compel.
So here was the spirit of the spell I wanted:
the cops were panicked and acting somewhat irrationally and thus forced the PC's to act ... some more aggresively than others. The spell was intended to remove the panicked state and instill calm rational thought.
I'm not sure I did that. I prevented them from acting agressively, but didn't make them calm.
Can you do social attacks with spells. Like do a Glibness spell so the power acts as your deciet, or an elequence spell and have it act as your rapport. The spell is affecting you and not the target, so it wouldn't break any laws, right?
As I mentionned before, I probably woudln't be able to prevent someone from telling a lie, but I might be able to enhance my ability to read someones intent?
-
Can you do social attacks with spells. Like do a Glibness spell so the power acts as your deciet, or an elequence spell and have it act as your rapport. The spell is affecting you and not the target, so it wouldn't break any laws, right?
You could certianly manuever to apply Aspects...
Beyond that and I'm afriad the discussion is moving beyond my shaky grasp of the rules.
-
I just thought about my last comment. It would have to fall under some category. Evocation is all about elements, so you couldn't do social spells with evocation. Maybe it could be justified with one of the Thaumaturgy specialties...but I'm not sure. So it'd be more likely done with sponsored magic: Soul-fire- a missionary's ability to turn people to faith/find peacful solutions through negotiation, or (Un)Seelie magic and their ability to circumvent the truth even when they're not lying.
-
You certainly can do social spells with Evocation; as long as it is a maneuver, block or direct attack and you can thematically justify it with your element, it's doable. Examples include but are not limited to the following; (categorized by element)
Air
Words of Power: you adapt the tone and intensity of your words to the situation by manipulating sound waves. You can speak and be heard across a room, make your voice more alluring than normal, clear away the betraying timbre of a lie or borrow a tone of speech from a famous politician. 4-shift air maneuver to apply relevant sticky aspect to yourself.
Twisted Voice: you manipulate sound waves to distort the voice of the opposition, robbing them of credibility. An intimidating adversary may find himself with a new girlish voice, a white-court seductress now croaks like a frog or, more subtly, a witness' voice might tremble with doubt, a lawyer's voice might sound condescending to the judge and jury and so on. 6-shift air maneuver to apply relevant sticky aspect.
Silence: you may rob a target of the ability to speak to counter your words or impose silence on a room to forcibly end arguments or unwanted comments. Your targets may not like being thus silenced but barring use of their own magic or resorting to nonverbal signals, there's not much they can do. Air block vs Social actions. Strength/area depends on your power.
Unnerving Ambience: you produce ambient sounds (usually at supersonic or subsonic frequencies) that instigate fear to most mammals in the area. 6-shift air maneuver to apply sticky aspect in the area taggable/invokeable for intimidation.
Earth
Fluctuating Gravity: by manipulating gravity, you make the target's weight rapidly and constantly shift by a tiny margin, disrupting their balance and causing debilitating nausea. Being violently sick is as debilitating in a party or legal meeting as it is in combat - if not moreso - and gravity based spells are only visible to supernatural senses. Offensive Social (or physical) block, power/duration varies.
Forced Obedience: you telekinetically force the target's body to assume a simple, brief stance: forcing them to kneel, bow to you, kiss your hand or similar action that shows your superiority. In many situations this ensures your social dominance. In other situations, this might enrage your target. In some situations, this may backfire if it fails so use it wisely. Social Attack opposed by Might or Rapport, whichever is higher.
Crumble: using earth magic, you weaken a small metal, stone, wood, crystal or similar object to the point of breaking; when someone next handles it it will shatter with harmless but potentially embarassing results; a glass of wine breaking and wasting someone's clothes, a chair crumbling and depositing its occupant to the ground, a belt buckle snapping and no longer holding someone's trousers and other fun stuff to do in a party, business meeting or legal battle. 4-shift earth maneuver, applying sticky aspect to be tagged/invoked for effect.
Water
Cold Shower: you feel as if you're under a continious, really cold shower; seductive vixens, infuriating smartasses, canny smoothtongues - they all find it exceptionally hard to get the expected reaction out of you. Defensive Block vs social, power/duration varies.
Taste of Winter: you drastically lower the temperature of the gathering's formal dinner, drinks, pool or other relevant, socially-important accessory, causing the host more than a little discomfort. Alternatively, do it on a single target's accessory to disrupt their good time and social graces. 6-shift water maneuver, applying taggable aspect on object or area.
Slippery Slope: you cause someone to slip by forming a thin layer of ice in their shoes. That can be embarassing, especially at crucial moments like when giving a speech, performance or presiding over a major social event. 6-shift water maneuver, tagged/invoked for effect.
Fire
Rising Tempers: you cause the target to warm physically and emotionally by warming him up and speeding up his pulse and body - or everyone in a zone to do the same. 8-shift fire maneuver applying 2 relevant taggable (sticky) aspects on a target, 10-shift for a zone.
Searing Pain: you send a powerful shock through the target's body, similar to (but usually stronger and more refined than) a brief bout of torture via electricity. Useful for torture, intimidation, really shutting someone up, briefly disabling them or enraging them, depending on the situation and how it is used. Have fun. Block vs all actions OR intimidation attack. Power/duration varies.
Spirit
Terror: you conjure a brief but thoroughly terrifying illusion you can use to scare people. Intimidate attack. Power varies.
Strip Emotion: you deaden the target's capacity for certain emotions. The target is now much harder to seduce, infuriate or intimidate, being able to think clearly regardless of how opponents try to undermine him. Social Defensive spirit Block, power/duration varies. Using this on someone without their consent violates the 3rd Law.
Cloak of Insignificance: you impose a subtle but powerful sensory veil on the target, making everyone else ignore them, their actions and their words. The target fades into insignificance, unable to affect the social situation. Social Offensive spirit Block, power/duration varies. Using this on someone without their consent does not break any Laws as it affects the perception of others and not emotions or thoughts.
Tower of Iron Will: you butress your thoughts with magic, enforcing rigidity and resilience. You can fall back on this spell when your natural discipline is insufficient for the task. Power 8 spirit maneuver applying 2 sticky aspects taggable/invokeable for defense with Discipline or the closing-down aspect of Rapport.
You really don't want to see what non-standard elements like Death (for Kemmlerian Necromancy) or Void (for Outsider Magic) can do in social/mental combat.
-
With all of this I would say that it all depends on how you want to play things.
Regarding breaking the laws It would really depend on how everyone felt it was done. This using the power of the white god I could easily see it being a gentle and wonderful feeling of peace coming over everyone. As you stated Jack the cop could have developed some disorders had it worked out that way, however it could have just as easily been a situation where he simply dropped his gun, sure that he was safe and that no harm would come to anyone while this feeling was maintained. That's the way I would see it coming from the white god, but everyone is going to see it differently and the important thing is that your group figures out what they find the most fits their story.
As for social attacks I have two minds on this. On the one hand I could see someone casting physical spells like Belial mentioned that could be childish yet effective social attacks. Things like people slipping and falling, their clothes mysteriously shifting in embarrassing ways, inappropriate noises or odors, etc. These things could be described as either maneuvers or attacks and it would be justified either way. Mechanically however one must consider this. Social combat is one of the few arenas where everyone is on the same footing, and skills really make the difference. There are no social weapons (though there could be I suppose), nothing at all to increase the amount of social stress dealt other than the skill of the attacker. Introduce to that arena wizards capable of dealing weapon:6-10 social attacks (not to mention being the sole possessor of such ability) and it makes wizards many times more powerful. Things to consider when introducing a wizard's power to the social arena.
-
As for social attacks I have two minds on this. On the one hand I could see someone casting physical spells like Belial mentioned that could be childish yet effective social attacks. Things like people slipping and falling, their clothes mysteriously shifting in embarrassing ways, inappropriate noises or odors, etc. These things could be described as either maneuvers or attacks and it would be justified either way. Mechanically however one must consider this. Social combat is one of the few arenas where everyone is on the same footing, and skills really make the difference. There are no social weapons (though there could be I suppose), nothing at all to increase the amount of social stress dealt other than the skill of the attacker. Introduce to that arena wizards capable of dealing weapon:6-10 social attacks (not to mention being the sole possessor of such ability) and it makes wizards many times more powerful. Things to consider when introducing a wizard's power to the social arena.
Hmm...hence the reason for the Laws of magic. So wizards don't go around ruling the world...but is it IMPOSSIBLE.
I admit that was the first barrier I saw to making a social attack spell. A power x rote social spell would blow anyone out of the water, if only because it's considered a weapon x attack. These seem harder to justify in social combat. It seems that maneuvers and blocks are more appropriate for social combat, at least in my mind.
Belial666's example reminds me how programmed I am from years of D&D to think things in terms of numbers. But I'm seeing it's all about justifying and imagining the spirit of the effect, then trying to figure out how to make it work.
I want to confirm one last thing that I brought up earlier.
If I do a zone-wide maneuver, how does tagging it work? Do I get a free tag on everyone who failed to resist? After the initial free tag, do I have to pay a FP for each target?
Is there a difference in tagging an aspect on a scene to affect everyone in the zone vs tagging an aspect that is on each person in the zone? I'll use the obvious example: I cast a zone-wide darkness(an aspect on the scene) and tag for effect vs casting a blindness spell that affects everyone(an aspect on each person) in the zone and tag for effect.
-
Here's an answer that may surprise you. You can't do a zone-wide maneuver on individual targets. Look it up on YS251-253. Both attacks and blocks mention a specific way (spending an extra 2 shifts) to effect a zone. However the only way maneuvers mention is making an environmental maneuver. One could extrapolate from the others that you could spend 2 shifts to maneuver against everyone in the zone, but to be honest I don't see a reason to when you have environmental maneuvers, which effect everyone in the zone anyway and also can't be resisted by individuals.
My call on the tag-compels has a lot to do with how I look at that process. A while ago Fred described the process as the player tags for effect then the GM negotiates the compel with the FP economy handled by the GM. So the way I see it is you're tagging the environmental aspect to create a situation where that aspect is important to the story, and then the GM is compelling everyone whom that effects (possibly even you). So if you called up a fog for example then tagged it to make it hard for everyone to see in the soup then the GM would be compelling everyone who was trying to see something and couldn't.
Hmm...hence the reason for the Laws of magic. So wizards don't go around ruling the world...but is it IMPOSSIBLE.
Edit: You'll note however that there is no law of magic preventing people from making social attacks. The second law prevents you from physically changing someone's form, the third law prevents you from looking into another's mind and the fourth prevents you from mentally compelling another. While those could hamper your ability to attack socially, there's nothing preventing you from physically causing situations that would be embarrassing or upsetting.
-
Hmm...hence the reason for the Laws of magic. So wizards don't go around ruling the world...but is it IMPOSSIBLE.
I admit that was the first barrier I saw to making a social attack spell. A power x rote social spell would blow anyone out of the water, if only because it's considered a weapon x attack. These seem harder to justify in social combat. It seems that maneuvers and blocks are more appropriate for social combat, at least in my mind.
Belial666's example reminds me how programmed I am from years of D&D to think things in terms of numbers. But I'm seeing it's all about justifying and imagining the spirit of the effect, then trying to figure out how to make it work.
I want to confirm one last thing that I brought up earlier.
If I do a zone-wide maneuver, how does tagging it work? Do I get a free tag on everyone who failed to resist? After the initial free tag, do I have to pay a FP for each target?
Is there a difference in tagging an aspect on a scene to affect everyone in the zone vs tagging an aspect that is on each person in the zone? I'll use the obvious example: I cast a zone-wide darkness(an aspect on the scene) and tag for effect vs casting a blindness spell that affects everyone(an aspect on each person) in the zone and tag for effect.
I'd rule the tags on other people to create more powerful effects than one on a scene.
The reason is because a scene is just a difficulty factor to put an aspect on. Aspects laid on other people are usually defended against.
-
Edit: You'll note however that there is no law of magic preventing people from making social attacks. The second law prevents you from physically changing someone's form, the third law prevents you from looking into another's mind and the fourth prevents you from mentally compelling another. While those could hamper your ability to attack socially, there's nothing preventing you from physically causing situations that would be embarrassing or upsetting.
The nice thing there is that while the Wizard can use his earth magic to make your pants fall down in the middle of a debate, that creates an aspect that can be tagged for a benefit. It's not like that is a D8 Rote spell, Embarrassing Pants. It mirrors the source material well, Harry can do lots of things physically, but he can't really control how someone thinks, feels or behaves without triggering the whole black magic thing.
-
Consider though, that regardless of the social attack one never controls someone's response to it. Were I to de-pants someone without magic I could call it a social attack (though it would be much less subtle and reflect poorly on me in most civilized situations) and how much social stress they took would depend on their defense. Same with a magical de-pantsing. Same with any other social attack magical or otherwise. Social stress very much represents someone's composure and reputation, both of which could be affected depending on how someone dealt with the situation (I.E. how well they defended).
Really I'm not trying to argue that it should be done because of the mechanics issue. I'm just saying that I can very much see a reasonable thematic argument for it. I would just say that we could call it a house rule that we can all agree on that magic can't be used for a social attack, but as far as the RAW and thematics there's plenty of justification to allow it.
-
Oh, I'm not against magic making social attacks. I just think that directly attacking someone socially with magic, meaning dealing social stress with magic, is likely going to involve at least skirting close to law breaker for mucking with someone's mind. Manipulating the environment physically to make things difficult for them is not a direct social attack. I find it hard to see such indirect manipulations as a "social attack" as opposed to a maneuver. Hence, my example with the pants. Why would a 8 strength telekinesis pantsing do more social stress than a 3 strength telekinesis pantsing? Assuming both spells are successful, the effect is essentially the same.
To me if you want to do social stress with magic, you're going to have to do something to them. And that's going to at least involve flirting with black magicks and possibly bringing your wizard some trouble. And to me trouble is generally a good thing.
-
To me if you want to do social stress with magic, you're going to have to do something to them. And that's going to at least involve flirting with black magicks and possibly bringing your wizard some trouble. And to me trouble is generally a good thing.
So here's where I disagree...and yet don't know how to do it mechanically. Do you HAVE to affect your target? Can you make yourself more alluring/charismatic/convincing.
Let's say you want to lift a car. You use a power 9 telekenisis/ or more likely biomancy spell to give yourself the effective Might of 9 which enables you to lift the car. As stated in YS, there may be consequences to the person lifting the car...just because your strong enough, it doesn't mean your bones can handle it.
For social combat, could you give yourself the equivalent of a 9 rapport. It spell doesn't act as an attack, it just boosts your skill making you better in social combat. What kind of consequences would this cause. My only issue with this is that a wizard can be better than anyone at any skill.
-
So here's where I disagree...and yet don't know how to do it mechanically. Do you HAVE to affect your target? Can you make yourself more alluring/charismatic/convincing.
Let's say you want to lift a car. You use a power 9 telekenisis/ or more likely biomancy spell to give yourself the effective Might of 9 which enables you to lift the car. As stated in YS, there may be consequences to the person lifting the car...just because your strong enough, it doesn't mean your bones can handle it.
For social combat, could you give yourself the equivalent of a 9 rapport. It spell doesn't act as an attack, it just boosts your skill making you better in social combat. What kind of consequences would this cause. My only issue with this is that a wizard can be better than anyone at any skill.
A wizard could very easily do a thaumatergical spell that gives him or her like 3 aspects for a day that would lend to social combat.
This would allow the wizard to basically have 3 free fate points in social combat.
So yeah - to an extent Wizards are as good at pretty much everything as every other class. They're the jack of all trades. The downsides of course being that wizards are complicated, require creativity to play, and don't do well around technology (which is fun to compel the crap out of!).
-
So here's where I disagree...and yet don't know how to do it mechanically. Do you HAVE to affect your target? Can you make yourself more alluring/charismatic/convincing.
Let's say you want to lift a car. You use a power 9 telekenisis/ or more likely biomancy spell to give yourself the effective Might of 9 which enables you to lift the car. As stated in YS, there may be consequences to the person lifting the car...just because your strong enough, it doesn't mean your bones can handle it.
For social combat, could you give yourself the equivalent of a 9 rapport. It spell doesn't act as an attack, it just boosts your skill making you better in social combat. What kind of consequences would this cause. My only issue with this is that a wizard can be better than anyone at any skill.
For evocation I think it's important to keep in mind that it's primarily a blunt instrument. Doing refined stuff is hard/impossible. In other words if you want to conjure up a big magical boot to kick a car so it rolls over on the side that's no problem. Doing more subtle things with the car could be quite a bit harder. Biomancing yourself to have might 9 would be hideously complex and IMO outside of what can realistically be done with evocation and would require a lot of time and research with Thaumaturgy.
As for rapport 9 how would you even begin to do that? Just because magic is used doesn't mean the player doesn't need to justify how the action is possible. The only way I can think of to do that would be mucking around with you own mind and even so you still have to figure out how a rapport 9 mind looks like. Hideously complex, only possible with Thaumaturgy, and likely to screw up your own brain the way mind altering magic tends to do. You could probably skirt the laws by saying you weren't invading the mind of another.
As BumblingBear says you could use Thaumaturgy to create aspects, but I don't think that necessarily amounts to X free fate points per day. There has to be a reasonable explanation for both how the aspect is created and how it benefits the character in the specific situation. Just casting a spell to create the aspects Charming and People-person each morning wouldn't fly IMO. Also of cause casting Thaumaturgy takes time so depending on the complexity of the aspects being created there might not be time. Personally I tend towards the opinion that the use of magic in social situations is limited, as seen in the books where magic rarely is used in a social conflicts. The rules aren't very clear though so YMMV.
-
As BumblingBear says you could use Thaumaturgy to create aspects, but I don't think that necessarily amounts to X free fate points per day. There has to be a reasonable explanation for both how the aspect is created and how it benefits the character in the specific situation. Just casting a spell to create the aspects Charming and People-person each morning wouldn't fly IMO. Also of cause casting Thaumaturgy takes time so depending on the complexity of the aspects being created there might not be time. Personally I tend towards the opinion that the use of magic in social situations is limited, as seen in the books where magic rarely is used in a social conflicts. The rules aren't very clear though so YMMV.
Oh, I would let a PC do a thaumatergy ritual for 3 social aspects every morning for sure...
But it would take time.
It would cost a lot of money.
And it would charge up that character with magic, garnering unwanted attention and hexing the crap out of everything.
No power is free. There are consequences for things like this.
So yeah, the PC /could/ do it in my game, but before long they'd be broke, and the rest of the group would probably engage them in social combat to stop so they'd stop hexing every piece of technology in 50 feet and attracting the attention of every nasty thing in town.
-
For evocation I think it's important to keep in mind that it's primarily a blunt instrument. Doing refined stuff is hard/impossible.
No it's not. Evocation can Veil, which require subtlety.
Harry Dresden (our narrator) is just really bad at finesse, but Carlos, Elane, and Molly are great at subtle, finessed Evocations.
I really wish that was more defined in the rules setting, it's not.
-
For social combat, could you give yourself the equivalent of a 9 rapport. It spell doesn't act as an attack, it just boosts your skill making you better in social combat. What kind of consequences would this cause. My only issue with this is that a wizard can be better than anyone at any skill.
Interesting questions. You could definitely give yourself aspects that would represent being more physically attractive, changing pheromones, making your voice more resonant, being taller, etc. Could you give yourself a Rapport 9 with psychomancy the way you could give yourself a Might 9? I could see doing this by channeling another entity who has more people skills, but just magically boosting your Rapport sounds strange to me.
-
I just thought about my last comment. It would have to fall under some category. Evocation is all about elements, so you couldn't do social spells with evocation. Maybe it could be justified with one of the Thaumaturgy specialties...but I'm not sure. So it'd be more likely done with sponsored magic: Soul-fire- a missionary's ability to turn people to faith/find peacful solutions through negotiation, or (Un)Seelie magic and their ability to circumvent the truth even when they're not lying.
That is why I made this statement. So I'm obviously misinterpreting some of the rules of spellcasting. You can't actually "buff" skills, especially social ones(which is why beast change doesn't let you increase your social skills). I'll re-reread the thaumaturgy section...
-
That is why I made this statement. So I'm obviously misinterpreting some of the rules of spellcasting. You can't actually "buff" skills, especially social ones(which is why beast change doesn't let you increase your social skills). I'll re-reread the thaumaturgy section...
You can't buff skills, but you can replace them magically for awhile with Thaumaturgy. There is one apocryphal example in which Thaumaturgy *does* buff a skill: the Seeing "potion" (actually an ointment) which Harry uses to see past Faerie Glamour. But the community generally agrees that it is an exception to the general no-buff rule (and possibly an editing error).
-
So if I wanted to lift a car I would have to use thaumaturgy to give myself one of the Strength Powers, which would cost me a fate point.
If I(or the evil NPC sorcerer I'm was running) wanted to be better at manipulating people, the only thing I can think is be able to take incite emotion but that would break Laws, and it does mental damage, not social...but at least you could tag the consequences in social combat. And it costs a fate point.
-
So if I wanted to lift a car I would have to use thaumaturgy to give myself one of the Strength Powers, which would cost me a fate point.
If I(or the evil NPC sorcerer I'm was running) wanted to be better at manipulating people, the only thing I can think is be able to take incite emotion but that would break Laws, and it does mental damage, not social...but at least you could tag the consequences in social combat. And it costs a fate point.
If this is for an evil NPC, why would it matter if you break the laws of magic?
If you're running an NPC where refresh doesn't matter, you can really kind of do whatever is thematically appropriate.
-
Oh, I'm not against magic making social attacks. I just think that directly attacking someone socially with magic, meaning dealing social stress with magic, is likely going to involve at least skirting close to law breaker for mucking with someone's mind.
I would like for you to then explain to me how people with no magic, simply high social skills are directly altering the minds of others. When one makes a social attack (regardless of how you make it) one is creating a situation. How the person deals with it is always up to them and the better the defense they make against said attack would determine how they deal with the situation (and thus how much social stress they take). Were I to use deceit to tell someone something upsetting to enrage them (which is a social attack) it isn't much different than if I was trying to create a physical situation (with magic or otherwise) that might enrage them like pulling down their pants.
I think people have a disconnect with some of the laws. There is no law of magic saying that you can't prevent someone from doing what they want. I could telekenetically hold someone in place for months if I desired and so long as I'm feeding them (so that they don't die) I haven't broken any laws of magic (though no one's arguing that people would like you for it). There is a law against going in to someone's mind and changing it so that they work in a specific way. As long as I don't alter someone's mind I'm not breaking the law. Also of note mind magic normally deals mental stress, it being the representation of your mental and emotional health. That's usually my indicator of whether they broke the laws. Did they deal mental stress in an attack? If yes lawbreaker, if not then the target still retains his will and chose how they dealt with the situation.
-
So in the example of the "calm the f- down" spell, it prevented them from doing hostile actions, but didn't change their desire to do those things and therefore doesn't break the law. So, is it then irrelevant HOW it's preventing them from doing those actions?
The one thing I've seen that doesn't jive with using mental stress as the line between breaking and not breaking the laws: Putting someone to sleep. I've seen, somewhere on these forums, people doing mental stress until the person fall unconcious/asleep. Or doing enough to cause a consequence you can invoke. Is this breaking the law?
@BumblingBear: I was just using the Evil sorcerer as a way of saying "laws of magic aside".
-
So in the example of the "calm the f- down" spell, it prevented them from doing hostile actions, but didn't change their desire to do those things and therefore doesn't break the law. So, is it then irrelevant HOW it's preventing them from doing those actions?
It does depend on how you did it. If you physically prevented them from attacking then you're all roses, but if you made them calm down (I.E. altered their minds to make them chill out) then you're walking grey areas if not breaking the law outright.
The one thing I've seen that doesn't jive with using mental stress as the line between breaking and not breaking the laws: Putting someone to sleep. I've seen, somewhere on these forums, people doing mental stress until the person fall unconcious/asleep. Or doing enough to cause a consequence you can invoke. Is this breaking the law?
This is why I don't do sleep spells as mental stress though I suppose it could go either way. I figure you're causing a physical effect in making the body tired. It could be chemical or it could be that you're drawing off energy but either way I figure you're doing physical stress. Read the whole section on mental conflicts on YS217-218 and you'll get why I usually reserve mental stress for invasive mind magic and not more gentler effects.
-
No it's not. Evocation can Veil, which require subtlety.
Harry Dresden (our narrator) is just really bad at finesse, but Carlos, Elane, and Molly are great at subtle, finessed Evocations.
I really wish that was more defined in the rules setting, it's not.
Evocation is very much a blunt instrument and while it's not enormously clear in the rules it is there. "Evocation is the quick-and-dirty method of using power; it’s basically the art of slinging magical energy around more-or-less directly."
Concerning the possibility of using evocation to move yourself it there's a coment of "Well... Yeah, you could use an evocation to push you along somehow, like a super powerful gust of wind, but it would just push you there in a straight line since evocation is so direct. Things like walls would mess you up en route; you’d hit them at full speed. So, doable. But foolish."
Granted veils do seem to require some subtlety and there's nothing to clearly indicate how much subtlety is and is not possible, but it is clear that there is a limit.
-
... I shoot the bear to little effect and then this guy jumps up and shouts "Calm the F- down" and all my religious beliefs reinforcing non-violence are slammed into my head and I have to dig deep down just to point my gun at the very large bear blocking my escape route from the other crazies.
@sinker: I'm using this quote because it probably is most thematically appropriate
Bombarded with religious beliefs the target already has...is this breaking the law? He still wants to shoot, but he now has a conflict...
-
Evocation is very much a blunt instrument and while it's not enormously clear in the rules it is there. "Evocation is the quick-and-dirty method of using power; it’s basically the art of slinging magical energy around more-or-less directly."
I think we're arguingpast each other. I'll conceed Evocation is direct. However I believe with the proper control it can be subtle.
Granted veils do seem to require some subtlety and there's nothing to clearly indicate how much subtlety is and is not possible, but it is clear that there is a limit.
I disagree on this point. The only limits should be based on your control and your target being in LOS.
-
@Taran Thats a really tough one actually. You aren't actually compelling them(which is technically the exact wording), you're manipulating the emotions and hoping that influences them enough. I would call it illegal in the likely to stain your soul way (I.E. lawbreaker) but by the letter of the law it's not technically wrong. Also hard to control technically. I know quite a few people who would react with anger or hostility to someone reminding them of said religious beliefs.
-
The emotional beliefs come from within the victims won't necessarily know they were induced... even so, if they were Believers, they might not see it as a bad thing, especially if it lead to a peaceful resolution.
If they are backsliders, athiests, or Recovering Ex-Religious, then I could see some anger if they found out where the emotions and beliefs came from.
-
I've got a good one, and it'll probably be my last point regarding the Laws. With sponsored magic, it says with things like biomancy, the sponsor takes care of figuring out how to put the body back together when healing. (i'm paraphrasing, obviously). With a sponsor like Soul-fire, can the sponsor take care of pesky things like corrupting the spellcaster and his targets?
Here's what I mean:
An evil corrupt entity would purposely try to corrupt the target of a spell as well as the person casting it.
An entity that gives you soul fire would try to avoid that. How did the spellcaster know the cops were religious, or had beleifs of non-violence? He didn't. The caster cast a spell that made everyone calm down, the Sponsor took care of the rest.
Obviously, you have free will when it comes to soul-fire, but if you start wanting to murder people with it, you're gonna get compels urging you not to. If you ignore them, you'll become tained, lose your sponsor and get hunted down my wardens BUT if you are trying your best to do good, your sponsor will do its best to help you acheive your goal. (you still might get hunted down by wardens...but you might not be tainted.)
Anyways, that's just an interpretation, and it doesn't apply to regular spellcasters.
-
If they are backsliders, athiests, or Recovering Ex-Religious, then I could see some anger if they found out where the emotions and beliefs came from.
Sure they'd be angry. I get angry when someone cuts me off in traffic, but it doesn't force me to run the guy down. I just ignore it and keep driving...mostly...
-
Sure they'd be angry. I get angry when someone cuts me off in traffic, but it doesn't force me to run the guy down. I just ignore it and keep driving...mostly...
What I'm saying is the type who feverently don't Believe or whom are turning or have turned away from Belief when filled with Belief and then told "I cast a spell which filled you with Belief" would trigger that anti-religious fire.
Or it could lead to a resurgence of Faith if they had lost it along the way.
All I was saying.
-
...and then told "I cast a spell which filled you with Belief" would trigger that anti-religious fire.
It's possible to justify such a reaction, but it sounds a lot closer to the munchkinly Champions disadvantages "Berzerk: only when Presence Attacked" or "Berzerk: Only when mind-Controlled."
-
Regarding the subtlety/magic discussion, this is discussed some on YS179. Basically, my interpretation is that it seems to filter down to the idea that a character's emotion-related aspects can be applied to spellcasting. So, for example, Dresden has the aspect "Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger". This can be compelled in social environments as normal. In addition to that, though, it could be compelled when Dresden tries to use magic that requires a subtle touch. Generally, Dresden tends to steer clear of such magic because he knows he's bad at it. Likewise, such an aspect could be invoked to boost other sorts of magic. Emotions like anger can feed power into offensive fire spells for example. Dresden does this, from time to time, too.
I don't get the impression that all spellcasters must specialize toward subtle or non-subtle in this way (the section I referenced mentions that "some" spellcasters have "blind spots" of this sort.
edit: corrected a typo I happened to notice...
-
Sure they'd be angry. I get angry when someone cuts me off in traffic, but it doesn't force me to run the guy down. I just ignore it and keep driving...mostly...
@evileyore: Sorry, I wasn't trying to lessen your comment, I was trying to make a point that just 'cause they got angry doesn't mean they're damaged in some way or that they lost their free will. And to go back to my earlier point, if they were ex-religious folk who wouldn't appreciate being bombarded with religious thoughts because doing such a thing would cause them psychological trauma, then perhaps the Sponsor would have chosen a different method.
-
I would like for you to then explain to me how people with no magic, simply high social skills are directly altering the minds of others.
They aren't.
When one makes a social attack (regardless of how you make it) one is creating a situation. How the person deals with it is always up to them and the better the defense they make against said attack would determine how they deal with the situation (and thus how much social stress they take). Were I to use deceit to tell someone something upsetting to enrage them (which is a social attack) it isn't much different than if I was trying to create a physical situation (with magic or otherwise) that might enrage them like pulling down their pants.
Is there an example of a physical skill like Might being used to make a social attack in this way? It feels like something I might do in SotC, but not so much DFRPG. If someone used magic this way, you would roll the Evocation v. Conviction to determine the amount of social stress? My mind is breaking on the amount of social stress you could dole out with a 30 shift thaumaturgical pantsing ritual.
-
My mind is breaking on the amount of social stress you could dole out with a 30 shift thaumaturgical pantsing ritual.
LOL
-
@evileyore: Sorry, I wasn't trying to lessen your comment, I was trying to make a point that just 'cause they got angry doesn't mean they're damaged in some way or that they lost their free will.
True. And I agree, specifically in the case of Soulfire, the Source would be acting in a beneficent manner.
Something to discuss with the table when those types of spells are cast.
Regarding the subtlety/magic discussion, this is discussed some on YS179. Basically, my interpretation is that it seems to filter down to the idea that a character's emotion-related aspects can be applied to spellcasting. So, for example, Dresden has the aspect "Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger". This can be compelled in social environments as normal. In addition to that, though, it could be compelled when Dresden tries to use magic that requires a subtle touch. Generally, Dresden tends to steer clear of such magic because he knows he's bad at it. Likewise, such an aspect could be invoked to boost other sorts of magic. Emotions like anger can feed power into offensive fire spells for example. Dresden does this, from time to time, too.
I don't get the impression that all spellcasters much specialize toward subtle or non-subtle in this way (the section I referenced mentions that "some" spellcasters have "blind spots" of this sort.
Yup that's exactly how I take it. Again, I wish the rulebook was better with examples.
My mind is breaking on the amount of social stress you could dole out with a 30 shift thaumaturgical pantsing ritual.
(http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-scared-smileys-283.gif)
-
Is there an example of a physical skill like Might being used to make a social attack in this way? It feels like something I might do in SotC, but not so much DFRPG. If someone used magic this way, you would roll the Evocation v. Conviction to determine the amount of social stress? My mind is breaking on the amount of social stress you could dole out with a 30 shift thaumaturgical pantsing ritual.
Again, not arguing that wizards should run around pantsing people and dealing ridiculous social damage just arguing that there's plenty of thematic and RAW justification for it. At my table we have a gentleman's agreement that wizards won't start throwing around 8-shift social attacks (in fact I don't think the wizards have ever thrown a social attack, they mostly maneuver and block) so as to maintain the equality of the social conflict. But mostly what I'm saying is that I see that as a house rule (and a really justified house rule at that) not as RAW.
As for how I would deal with it, I would have them defend with whatever social skill they could justify, Discipline to keep their cool, Presence to pull it off with dignity, Deceit, Performance or Rapport maybe if they wanted to play the wounded puppy. In the social arena it's all about face, so it's not about them resisting the pantsing, it's about how they deal with the situation afterwards and how people see them as a result.
As for lawbreaking via sponsored magic there are a couple of layers to my thoughts on the power itself. Firstly when you take lawbreaker part of it is the representation of what doing something like that with a part of you that represents the core of what you are (I.E. Your magic) actually does to you. Seems to me that isn't applicable when you aren't using your magic. However in my opinion there is more to the lawbreaker power than just that one aspect. There is also the part that everyday mortals have to worry about. The part where people aren't programmed to be able to kill/invade/transform one another in such an intimate fashion. That doing so requires justification in one's mind, and once justified it gets a little easier. Once it's easier maybe it requires less justification and you start doing it for other not so good reasons, and eventually you're a madman, killing/invading/transforming just because it has a slight benefit. Seems to me that sponsored magic wouldn't make a difference in that case but that kind of thing would also depend greatly on the person, how they dealt with things and who they were. Also there's the part about a powerful organization trying to kill you.
Finally what I was trying to say when I said that kind of thing might make people angry was not that it might lead to lawbreaking but that it would be an unpredictable block in some cases. What may prevent some people from shooting might also drive others to further hostility. If there was someone there who was very angry at the christian faith they might take that kind of imagery in an entirely different manner than was intended and become more belligerent. Not saying they'd shoot you outright, but they'd definitely be less interested in talking. Of course as a GM the only reason why I'd say that there was someone like that in the crowd was if someone had an aspect that I felt justified said compel.
-
Regarding the subtlety/magic discussion, this is discussed some on YS179. Basically, my interpretation is that it seems to filter down to the idea that a character's emotion-related aspects can be applied to spellcasting. So, for example, Dresden has the aspect "Not So Subtle, Still Quick To Anger". This can be compelled in social environments as normal. In addition to that, though, it could be compelled when Dresden tries to use magic that requires a subtle touch. Generally, Dresden tends to steer clear of such magic because he knows he's bad at it. Likewise, such an aspect could be invoked to boost other sorts of magic. Emotions like anger can feed power into offensive fire spells for example. Dresden does this, from time to time, too.
I don't get the impression that all spellcasters must specialize toward subtle or non-subtle in this way (the section I referenced mentions that "some" spellcasters have "blind spots" of this sort.
That's partially correct. Dresden does have subtlety issues and Molly does have non-subtlety issues. The rules do however explicitly say that you can't make a move action with Evocation because you'd bang into everything along the way. Controlled movement requires more control AKA subtlety than evocation allows. That's a limitation to all evocation not just evocation by wizards with subtlety issue like Dresden. A reasonable inference can be made that if controlled movement is impossible a number of other things must be impossible as well. What inferences can be made is up for debate, but the subtlety limitation on controlled movement is explicit RAW.
Is there an example of a physical skill like Might being used to make a social attack in this way? It feels like something I might do in SotC, but not so much DFRPG. If someone used magic this way, you would roll the Evocation v. Conviction to determine the amount of social stress? My mind is breaking on the amount of social stress you could dole out with a 30 shift thaumaturgical pantsing ritual.
Well there are several reasons you could use to justify limiting or not allowing something like that.
1) To keep beating the subtlety hose: Can you actually depants someone with evocation? Increase the gravitational pull on their pant without increasing it on anything else? Bear in mind that unless they're wearing sweatpants you might not be able to pull their pants down without unbuckling their belt and unbuttoning the pants (or ribbing them).
Leaving the poor horse on the wayside you could also reasonably argue that.
2) It's a maneuver, not an attack, you've depantsed them, congrats, that places the embarrassed aspect on them, but it's not going to scar them for life like 30 mental stress would.
3) Magic generally involves pseudo-latin or gestures. You start chanting pseudo-latin and gesturing weirdly at someone you're having an argument with and their pants fall of and anyone even slightly magic-savvy will do the math. Even someone non-savvy would probably figure it out even if they rationalized it as some kind of trickery. That means that you could easily face the same kind of social consequences from a magical depantsing as from a physical one.
I tend to see magic in social conflicts as requiring a fair amount of justification and being of fairly limited usage just like other non-social skills. Still possible in some cases just like you could use justify Might or Fists in for example an intimidation attempt.
-
It's apparent in the books that you can do transitory effects on people's minds without it being lawbreaking. Acting like any magic that affects anyone's mind in any way breaks the Laws is just not supported by the novel text or the rulebooks (or frankly any usefulness running the game, which would trump the other two).
"Keep-away" wards, fear effects, and Harry's lust potion[1] are are examples and they are even discussed in Your Story in the "in-character" asides. My easy lawbreaking rule of thumb would be that you can mess with people's minds to the extent of maneuvers to place aspects or blocks, but once you get to the point of inflicting mental stress you're lawbreaking.
[1] Particularly this one. Harry gives an in-world explanation that it's just unlocking latent desires, but in a game-mechanical sense the potion is clearly doing a maneuver to place a mental aspect.
-
2) It's a maneuver, not an attack, you've depantsed them, congrats, that places the embarrassed aspect on them, but it's not going to scar them for life like 30 mental stress would.
This was actually my original argument.
It's apparent in the books that you can do transitory effects on people's minds without it being lawbreaking. Acting like any magic that affects anyone's mind in any way breaks the Laws is just not supported by the novel text or the rulebooks (or frankly any usefulness running the game, which would trump the other two).
Nor was I suggesting it was lawbreaking, merely that it starts to get into a grey area pretty quickly. The discussion of the lust potion you mention says essentially the same thing, pointing out that it's "walking the line."
-
I get what you guys are saying, and again I don't think we need wizards to be slinging attacks in a social conflict. I just think that there's just as much justification to call it an attack as there is to call it a maneuver. Seems to me that everyone's trying to justify shutting a player with this kind of idea down, whereas my school of thought is why not simply tell them the truth. There is plenty of justification, and nothing in the RAW that says no, but we generally don't because it's massively unbalanced.
-
Seems to me that everyone's trying to justify shutting a player with this kind of idea down, whereas my school of thought is why not simply tell them the truth. There is plenty of justification, and nothing in the RAW that says no, but we generally don't because it's massively unbalanced.
Cuz I'm honestly interested in this discussion and not 100% sure of my response.
-
I get what you guys are saying, and again I don't think we need wizards to be slinging attacks in a social conflict. I just think that there's just as much justification to call it an attack as there is to call it a maneuver. Seems to me that everyone's trying to justify shutting a player with this kind of idea down, whereas my school of thought is why not simply tell them the truth. There is plenty of justification, and nothing in the RAW that says no, but we generally don't because it's massively unbalanced.
That might be what you think is the truth, but I certainly don't agree. Granted the rules do not explicitly forbid making social attacks, but they don't explicitly permit it either and they do explicitly forbid invading the mind of another. Allowing social attacks don't just create game imbalance, it also creates huge consistency issues in the game world. If you can mindfuck people without breaking the laws of magic, why isn't it being done on a much grander scale?
If memory serves we've seen very few examples of mind altering magic. Most have been lawbreaking and those that wasn't, such as the love potion, has been identified as borderline lawbreaking, have been thaumaturgical and can easily be accounted for as a maneuver rather than an attack. Even when talking about maneuvers I honestly can't think of a single example of non-lawbreaking magic being used in a social conflict, can you? If not then I don't see how you think it's a stretch maintained solely for game-balance that magic is not that useful in social conflicts.
-
That might be what you think is the truth, but I certainly don't agree. Granted the rules do not explicitly forbid making social attacks, but they don't explicitly permit it either and they do explicitly forbid invading the mind of another. Allowing social attacks don't just create game imbalance, it also creates huge consistency issues in the game world. If you can mindfuck people without breaking the laws of magic, why isn't it being done on a much grander scale?
If memory serves we've seen very few examples of mind altering magic. Most have been lawbreaking and those that wasn't, such as the love potion, has been identified as borderline lawbreaking, have been thaumaturgical and can easily be accounted for as a maneuver rather than an attack. Even when talking about maneuvers I honestly can't think of a single example of non-lawbreaking magic being used in a social conflict, can you? If not then I don't see how you think it's a stretch maintained solely for game-balance that magic is not that useful in social conflicts.
Ok, normally I am much more evenly tempered, however this is just irritating me. I have never, ever suggested that mind magic would not be against the laws. I have never, ever suggested that one could deal mental stress without breaking the laws. Social stress and mental stress are two different things. To create social stress one does not need to manipulate the target at all (one never controls how someone responds to social attacks) one needs to manipulate the situation. Belial made a pretty huge list of social magic not two pages back and for the last five or six posts I have been talking about one specific method of social magic none of which is mind magic. Perhaps you should read the posts before you respond to them.
Ok... Deep breath.... Sorry, I'm better now.
Cuz I'm honestly interested in this discussion and not 100% sure of my response.
Ok, I was trying not to argue because it seemed like everyone had a set opinion, but if you'd like to be swayed here goes.
I'll start with whether something is an attack or a maneuver. I'll admit that I could see any of these magics as working for either, but it would primarily have to do with intent and circumstance. If you are trying to put someone off balance so that someone else can really get a good solid dig at them then a maneuver makes complete sense. If however your intent is to dive them off in a huff or make them flee from embarrassment then an attack seems more appropriate. Another thing to consider is how the person would look in the situation. If it's at a stuffy social club and the target is likely to be remembered for months as the guy who lost his pants and then ran off crying then that's totally consequences taken as the result of an attack. If you're in a more casual or less public setting I'd go for a maneuver as it might be distracting but not necessarily damaging to the target's reputation.
1) To keep beating the subtlety hose: Can you actually depants someone with evocation? Increase the gravitational pull on their pant without increasing it on anything else? Bear in mind that unless they're wearing sweatpants you might not be able to pull their pants down without unbuckling their belt and unbuttoning the pants (or ribbing them).
I can think of two methods without even really thinking about it. Water magic to corrode the metal (and only the metal) of the buckles and clasps makes plenty of sense as does earth magic to tear the metal (and only the metal) away or effect it in other ways. On top of that there are many other things one could do other than pantsing someone as pointed out earlier.
3) Magic generally involves pseudo-latin or gestures. You start chanting pseudo-latin and gesturing weirdly at someone you're having an argument with and their pants fall of and anyone even slightly magic-savvy will do the math. Even someone non-savvy would probably figure it out even if they rationalized it as some kind of trickery. That means that you could easily face the same kind of social consequences from a magical depantsing as from a physical one.
Just because it involves phrases or gestures does not mean that you have to yell them at the top of your lungs or wave your hands around conspicuously. One could mumble or whisper what you wanted and get the job done just as easily. One could gesture under a table or simply twitch while the hand is laying somewhere. Hell I talk with my hands a lot, does that mean that people should start accusing me of witchcraft?
My final thoughts have to do with the earlier statement here.
Granted the rules do not explicitly forbid making social attacks, but they don't explicitly permit it either
A while ago Fred expressed his thoughts on this kind of thing. He said that while everything isn't expressly stated in the books, he desire is that people would take what is there and extrapolate it. Assume that what works in one situation would work in another similar situation, provided that there is justification. When we get to the section on social conflict it doesn't discuss every action the player can take, what it says is that social conflict works like physical conflict, only with a social skin. That mechanically they have the same workings. So why would you assume that a broad tool, that works in physical conflict wouldn't work in social conflict provided that the justification was there?
Finally I would like to point out that were someone were to run a 4th lawbreaker (as I have before) what would stop them from simply using their mind magic in a social situation?
-
I see a 30 shift social attack by thaumaturgy as more than a de-pantsing. It's a minor entropy curse that starts wearing a person down during the day with little mis-haps here and there to "throw them off their game". As it reaches its peak, the stars align and the target is put in a position for maximal embarrasment, maybe in front of peers in a formal setting, in front of that girl he's trying to court etc...and THAT's when he loses his pants.
I'm probably being thick, but why can't you do an social attack that DOESN'T affect a persons mind. I see a rapport attack as knowing just the right thing to say at just the right time. Why can't magic give you that moment of inspiration to say the right thing at the right time? I don't see evocation as being able to do that kind of thing and maybe, as stated before, you could use Thaumaturgy to give you lots of aspects to tag for a rapport attack...and maybe that's the only way of doing that kind of thing.
-
Since this is such a contested issue and is a discussion about a fairly simple rules issue, has anyone asked Fred about it?
I know he doesn't like to give an official word on stuff like this, but we could ask him how he would run it at his table.
Otherwise continuing to argue is just going in circles.
-
I can think of two methods without even really thinking about it. Water magic to corrode the metal (and only the metal) of the buckles and clasps makes plenty of sense as does earth magic to tear the metal (and only the metal) away or effect it in other ways. On top of that there are many other things one could do other than pantsing someone as pointed out earlier.
Finely focused Entropic ritual aimed at unraveling the pants, further uses of Entropomancy could be in the lead up adding taggable aspects to the final attack, so it isn't just "His pants falls down for a 30 shift Social attack" but a "30 shifts worth of his life has been falling apart tagged Aspects Social Attack".
A very subtle and patient Warlock could really ruin the hell out of someone's life without even really ever attacking them directly.
[EDIT]
I see Taran responded while I was reading and typing. I agree with his assessment as well. A skilled curse would suck the life right out of your day.
[/EDIT]
Hell I talk with my hands a lot, does that mean that people should start accusing me of witchcraft?
If you have the weight of a duck...
Finally I would like to point out that were someone were to run a 4th lawbreaker (as I have before) what would stop them from simply using their mind magic in a social situation?
Nothing. Hell it'd be fast and easy to simply flood their mind with trauma, visions, voices, or feelings.
-
Another brilliant non-mind magic social attack occurred to me as I began to drift off last night. Air can be used to manipulate sounds, how about having an argument that only the target can hear. Now he's talking at you for some reason. If you can upset him then maybe he begins yelling at you while you stand there and look confused. Better yet get him to yell at someone else or create a directed illusion with spirit by aiming light at him or veiling yourself from all directions but his. Now he's yelling at nothing. You better believe that having a "psychotic break" (not an actual psychotic break but what everyone else will perceive as such) and yelling for no reason at nothing is going to effect your reputation.
-
Just got caught up on this thread... And I thinking about one of the spin offs
If a physical attack puts someone in an embarrassing situation, would it also require social maneuver or would it be creating the circumstance for the aspect to exist?
For example - the depantsing spell/attack/maneuver. Personally I'd see it as a sort of grapple, but let's say someone comes up behind another character and pulls his gym shorts down.
It's a physical action. Call it a grapple of maneuver or whatever, having Might at Fair or better will matter more than having high social skills. It ends with the target character's gym shorts down - a physical effect. Someone else might use a navel gazing maneuver involving Presence, Intimidation, or Rapport to lay the aspect "Your Pants Are Down" or "I See London, I See France" as part of a social attack, or on the next exchange the bully might go "Ha, Ha - your pants were down" as part of a social attack, but pulling down someone's pants is a physical action.
That's not the only Physical bit that could lead to a social tag. Using a hose, bucket of water, or supersquirter someone could do a physical maneuver and give a girl wet T-Shirt. You could push someone fully clothed (say in fancy dress) into a pool. There's hitting someone in the face with a pie. You could... Well, there are countless physical ways to put someone in an embarrassing situation. All of them operating off of physical, not social, actions.
Not to say that just because a physical move works the social attack will too. The cool kid (high social skills) in gym class will turn things around on the bully that pantsed him. A dignified cold stare could counter the wet T-Shirt. Some politicians have been pied and turned that around - joking with the press while they still have pie on their face. In order words the physical move gave someone an aspect to tag but the victim won the social conflict.
Or am I off base here on a play balance issue?
Richard
-
I'm probably being thick, but why can't you do an social attack that DOESN'T affect a persons mind. I see a rapport attack as knowing just the right thing to say at just the right time. Why can't magic give you that moment of inspiration to say the right thing at the right time? I don't see evocation as being able to do that kind of thing and maybe, as stated before, you could use Thaumaturgy to give you lots of aspects to tag for a rapport attack...and maybe that's the only way of doing that kind of thing.
You can use magic to summon entities to get information, but knowing the right thing to say requires things like intellect and personality. A spell that told you the right thing to say seems very boring to me. Harry has to summon Bob and dig for information, he doesn't just cast a spell and know all the answers. That makes for grabby stories.
-
Magic is great at doing maneuvers that can give you taggable Aspects for social conflict. It's not so great for doing the attack rolls themselves. I recall a social conflict where my wizard started with an Air/Force Evocation that made the sights and sounds of everything except my character seem murky and far away. He followed it up with a Soulgaze to grab some Aspects from his opponent, and then used a base Good Intimidation and invoking one of his own Aspects to smack down an experienced mortal politican with a social attack that was at +11 before the roll.
The great part is that the politician didn't really understand we were even in a social conflict before the soulgaze, so he wasn't attacking back while all those set-up maneuvers were going on.
-
Magic is great at doing maneuvers that can give you taggable Aspects for social conflict. It's not so great for doing the attack rolls themselves.
I think this is the thing that I can't get over. No one has given me a thematic reason why. Why is it bad at making attack rolls. I mean I understand the mechanical and balance reasons for this, but why is it thematically impossible to anger or upset someone indirectly using magic? If I tell someone a lie to upset them (using deceit to attack) how is that different from showing them an illusion or creating a situation (like pantsing or tripping them) that would upset them? Someone please answer this question for me.
-
Okay, an answer.
It is a matter of causation. What is directly causing the social stress the target takes? Is it magic directly or is it an event that is carried out via magic.
Take your example of dropping someone's pants. In this case, it is the act of the pants dropping in front of others that is causing the social stress regardless as to the exact mechanism by which one uses to bring the pants down. The use of magic is just a means that could easily be replaced by normal actions for the same result. In this case, after the pants are down, the individual who is now embarrassed can still attempt to play it off (roll rapport perhaps?) and avoid the stress. Or, someone can step in and use the moment of the pants falling to lay into the poor guy to add to the stress inflicted. In both cases, the magic is used as the method by the which the pants are dropped and it is the targets inability to adjust/play it off that causes the stress with the lack of pants being a hindrance to him. Which is exactly why this is magic being used as a maneuver to a social attack; either to add a +2 to someone's attack or as a compel.
Take the other example of using Air magic to talk to a person such that no one else could hear your words. Easy enough to accomplish with magic (though it would be debatable as an evocation). But, really, what is causing the social stress in this instance? Is it the magic, or that the person is reacting irrationally in front of others? It is the later. After all, if you used the same magic to secretly communicate with an ally, your ally would not take social stresses from the conversation. The Air magic is a means. It is the carefully chosen words spoken (Empathy Roll perhaps?) designed to evoke a reaction from the target in front of others. In this case, magic would be a maneuver as well that places an aspect along the lines of "Voices in your Head".
Even the mass Entropy Curse example is simply a giant maneuver (or maneuvers) that takes a toll on a person. But it does not directly attack his social standing.
This is because of the nebulous nature of one's Social Stress Boxes. This represents, one can argue, the combination of a characters social standing in society (whatever that society at that moment happens to be) and his own self-image. In essence, it is about perception. His perception of himself as well as others perception of him. And, yes, I'm using a generic "him" pronoun here... could be a her or it. To attack this, you have to alter perceptions. You can do this, as is most often, though manipulation. Or, if you have magic, you can use it to directly alter one's mind and adjust that perception. BUT, if one goes the direct route, you are certainly breaking a Law of Magic there. You can still do it... but you are breaking the Law by altering someone's mind.
The indirect method, though, is to simple create a situation where people perceive something that causes them to change their own mind. That can be seeing a guy lose his pants; for sure. But it is the pants dropping that changes their perception and, therefore, inflicts the social stress upon the target... not the magic that caused the pants to come down.
For magic to be the direct cause of social stress means that magic would have to directly inflict stress upon one's social standing.
-
Okay, an answer.
It is a matter of causation. What is directly causing the social stress the target takes? Is it magic directly or is it an event that is carried out via magic.
Nice explanation, but it's skipping one glaring fact:
Magic is causation.
Use air magic to shove someone off a building. They die from the fall, yet somehow your magic is still to blame.
Create a ball of ball (heat) and project it at someone, once launched you have no more control over it than you do a bullet fired from a gun.... however it is still your magic that would cause the death if they were to die.
Thus the same with the 30 shift "depantsing".
-
I don't think you can compare physical combat with social combat.
-
I don't think you can compare physical combat with social combat.
It's what the book does. ;)
I like the answer Kommisar (and it's a good one) but I still have a hard time and here's the reason why. How is one directly influencing perception using Deceit or rapport? One is creating a situation, and the response of the person makes the difference in their social standing, exactly as if you had pantsed them. This is the part that I can't get over. I don't see a difference between magically creating said situation and doing it with Deceit or Rapport.
-
Creating a situation is not in and of itself embarrassing. It's how everyone reacts.
Example: Someone is giving a lecture and BAM - magically his pants are around his ankles. Someone laughs and the victim turns to the logical suspect and says "Is this high school? Junior High? Grow up why don't you." - then pulls up his pants and continues talking.
That's two actions - magic to drop the pants, then a social attack tagging "his pants are down" and maybe others - depending how many people created aspects on his pantless condition. Some might say that everyone who laughs is doing a social maneuver to tag the victim with another "embarrassed" type aspect. The victim then wins the social act, launching one of his own to embarrass the prankster.
Is that likely to happen? No, not unless the person who was pantsed has ridiculously high social skills, but it could.
And I have seen some politicians get pied in the face and make light of it, joking with reporters about it. Most people who are pied are shocked and embarrassed, but if the character can win the social conflict then the character can when the social conflict.
If Bill is a master of air magic and picks up a pie, sending it into Ted's face, then that's a physical action. Bill can tag "You've got pie on your face", "You look ridiculous", or other temporary aspects in the following social attack, but having high social skills won't make that pie land any harder.
Richard
-
So to compare could you give me an example of a social conflict using only social skills to achieve a similar taken out result of embarrassed (or not as is the case above)?
-
We've had such discussions before, and it was successfully demonstrated that the same humiliating (or bolstering) spell effect can have different levels of success depending on the savoir-faire of the target. Some people are just going to be easier to jerk around socially than other people, and there just aren't compelling reasons for a given magical spell to consistently, successfully affect two different people the same way in a Social conflict.
At the end of the day, the most logical and efficient way for magic to supplement Social combat in this game system is to create taggable Aspects - that is, until one commits to using Mental spell effects to manipulate the target and/or any audience/bystanders in a position to weigh in on the Social Conflict.
"Winning the Crowd" can be as easy as a taggable Aspect from a Spell Maneuver, or as hard as a massive Thaumaturgical Ritual designed to entice everyone in "the Crowd" to start making their own Social attacks against the true target.
-
I also think that social combat is more than trying to embarrass someone, it's also trying to win an argument or make someone see your point of view. This thread is an example of a massive social combat and it's done with reasoning and words and I don't see how magic can do that. I'm inclined to side with those who've been saying that you can only maneuver or block and not attack.
Richard won me over...I concede...
-
there is absolutely nothing in the rules that forbids creating a thaum. ritual that replaces your rapport skill with a magical skill of 9 (or 13, or whatever) until the next sunrise. RAW, that's completely valid.
So is a spell that replaces your guns with a 9 for the same duration.
The rapport spell only breaks the fourth law of magic if the guns spell breaks the first. Did increasing your guns skill magically mean you "killed them with magic"? Most GMs that I've read here seem to say no. Does using your rapport of magical 9 mean you are convincing them to do something other than what you want? Yes. Is it lawbreaking? Probably not.
Now, everyone pretty much seems to agree that doing mental stress would be a lawbreaker. But now we're adding that social stress also seems to do the same thing?
-
there is absolutely nothing in the rules that forbids creating a thaum. ritual that replaces your rapport skill with a magical skill of 9 (or 13, or whatever) until the next sunrise. RAW, that's completely valid.
Absolutely.
The question is: can a Ritual or Evocation deal direct Social Stress?
-
Magic dealing direct social stress isn't, as far as I read, stated directly in the books. But we KNOW it can deal mental, we KNOW it can deal physical, and it seems counterintuitive and counterproductive to then limit it away from social stress. The system is supposed to allow magic to be ultimately versatile. If you can think of it as a spell, it should be possible. And I know I've seen it modeled on one of the major blogs.
The interesting thing about that, though, is the thought that yes, magic can deal mental and physical stress, but BOTH go lawbreaker pretty quickly. Avoiding lawbreaker means using blocks and maneuvers instead of "attacks". So if we extrapolate from that, I guess if you caused social stress with magic it does indeed make sense for it to go lawbreaker.
-
What about socially maneuvering someone to where they're in or near a school before pantsing them?
Then they're a federal felon to boot.
-
Here was my original question regarding social attacks:
Can you do social attacks with spells. Like do a Glibness spell so the power acts
as your deciet, or an elequence spell and have it act as your rapport.
Here was the first few answers I got specifically regarding buffing your skills:
A wizard could very easily do a thaumatergical spell that gives him or her like 3 aspects for a day that would lend to social combat.
This would allow the wizard to basically have 3 free fate points in social combat.
As for rapport 9 how would you even begin to do that? Just because magic is used doesn't mean the player doesn't need to justify how the action is possible. The only way I can think of to do that would be mucking around with you own mind and even so you still have to figure out how a rapport 9 mind looks like. Hideously complex, only possible with Thaumaturgy, and likely to screw up your own brain the way mind altering magic tends to do. You could probably skirt the laws by saying you weren't invading the mind of another.
But now I'm getting this:
there is absolutely nothing in the rules that forbids creating a thaum. ritual that replaces your rapport skill with a magical skill of 9 (or 13, or whatever) until the next sunrise. RAW, that's completely valid.
So is a spell that replaces your guns with a 9 for the same duration.
The rapport spell only breaks the fourth law of magic if the guns spell breaks the first. Did increasing your guns skill magically mean you "killed them with magic"? Most GMs that I've read here seem to say no. Does using your rapport of magical 9 mean you are convincing them to do something other than what you want? Yes. Is it lawbreaking? Probably not.
Now, everyone pretty much seems to agree that doing mental stress would be a lawbreaker. But now we're adding that social stress also seems to do the same thing?
So which is it?
EDIT @ devonapple Just read your post...sorry...but I was lead to beleive I couldn't do this.
-
I'm having a thought...
Both physical and mental stress represent actual internalized "injury", physical is the character's body, mental the character's mind.
Social stress represents externalized injury. There is really no actual damage done to the person directly, social consequences affect how one is percieved by society, the organism to which the character belongs.
In this light I could see a thaum curse set at 30 shifts that ligthly influences the way someone interacts with society, the slowly building bad day/week/season, the growing tension between them and the people they interact with, when the character speaks his words are taken in a bad if not the worst light, when they act their intentions are misunderstood, misrepresented... culminating in them eventually being "socially taken out". In this case, I can see Lawbreaker applying, but it's a tenuous connection. No one's mind has been influenced permenantly, directly, or to lasting harm.
I could even see Evocation Social Attacks, but it would require a different set of elements than the Hermetic White Council is used to dealing with.
The Fae could do it certianly, it's right in their bailiwick, but they are never shown operating in this manner, it's all physical illusions, light bending and fairy dust, or direct mind fraking.
Canonically, I don't think we've ever seen an example of it, but then I think Jim has kept his magic on a Hermetic base, he has pretty much ignored non-European Traditional magical styles. The three most prevalent magic slinging groups have all been of European origin, White Council, the Fae, and the Black Court.
-
It's what the book does. ;)
I like the answer Kommisar (and it's a good one) but I still have a hard time and here's the reason why. How is one directly influencing perception using Deceit or rapport? One is creating a situation, and the response of the person makes the difference in their social standing, exactly as if you had pantsed them. This is the part that I can't get over. I don't see a difference between magically creating said situation and doing it with Deceit or Rapport.
Well, I agree. There is no difference in that both are used as a means to create the situation that deals another social stress. My point, is that magic is not directly dealing said social stress. For instance, using your de-pantsing spell, it would have no effect targeting an Amazonian tribal leader that isn't wearing any. Were as, shooting someone with a fireball is shooting someone with a fireball. You are capable of dealing physical stress to the target (even if they have armor, dodge it or whatever).
As for the other arguementNice explanation, but it's skipping one glaring fact:
Magic is causation.
Use air magic to shove someone off a building. They die from the fall, yet somehow your magic is still to blame.
Create a ball of ball (heat) and project it at someone, once launched you have no more control over it than you do a bullet fired from a gun.... however it is still your magic that would cause the death if they were to die.
Thus the same with the 30 shift "depantsing".
You are confusing the argument. Pushing someone off a building with air magic and, therefore, causing a death with magic is a 1rst Law argument. Not an effect argument. Most everyone agrees that with pushing someone off a building with air magic the actual, technical, cause of the physical stress (and possible death) is blunt trauma from impacting the ground and not the air blast that pushed him. There are MANY posts and threads here concerning 1rst Law interpretations and I will leave those there.
The difference here is that using magic to drop someone's pants is not a violation of the Laws of Magic.
As for a 30-shift "depantsing" spell; I would not allow this spell to operate as you have outlined its effects in a game I run. I would allow the spell; no doubt. But I would not allow for it to cause 30 shifts of social stress for the simple reason that I do not believe that in all instances and circumstances that having one's pants fall down would cause that much social stress to someone. Under the right conditions, yes, it could. But that is the kicker right there: "under the right conditions." That is the very definition of setting up Aspects with maneuvers, declarations, and such and tagging them for effect. Example:
Declaration: "In front of a big crowd" Aspect
Maneuver: "Hounded by Scandal" Aspect (Contacts roll to get Media on him perhaps)
etc...
Then you hit him with a 30-shift spell to cause his pants to fall (or pick other embarrassing incident that does not directly cause physical or mental stress to the individual). Well, unless he has some very significant magical defenses around him, his pants are coming down. I might even give a bonus for effect depending on the means by which your spell drops those pants. But it will not automatically cause 30-shifts of social damage. For the same reason that if you cast a 30-shift magical spell to create a slick spot in the shower for him to slip on the fall in the shower will not automatically cause 30-shifts of physical stress. I would say that his shower is really, really slick! Make him roll his athletics against a difficulty of 30. He's sure to fall... but not to take 30 shifts of physical damage. Now, drop a satellite on his home....
You are targeting his pants (or belt) with the spell. Not him. He suffers indirectly from the spell that is effecting his pants. His pants are toast, though.
My challenge in this issue is trying to think of a way that one would directly attack someone socially with magic.
- You can turn him hideously ugly; but that is a physical attack (transformation) that has social repercussions
- You can inflict him with a curse that causes him to swear or say inappropriate things... but that is a mental attack again with social repercussions
- You can use magic to manipulate his environment in an infinite number of ways. But those are maneuvers you stack for a social attack.
- You can use magic to give yourself an enhanced rapport, intimidation, presence or, well, any other skill with which you could then use to attack someone socially. But you are using your skill to cause social stress to the target; not magic. Even if that skill is boosted by magic.
Am I missing a method here? Because I simply can not think of a way that one can sling a direct bolt of social stress causing magic at someone. Now, the rules allow for it because the rules are infinitely flexible in many regards. But just because the rules allow for such an action out of their inherent flexibility does not mean that one has to allow it in game.
As an aside, a target should always be allowed a defense roll of some sort and social attacks are no different. Presence is a solid default roll in most situations. Such as playing off losing one's pants or getting hit in the face with pie.
-
I think one way to cast a clear light on the question is to take this out of Dresden Files for a moment and look at another setting: let's use a fantasy-enabled version of Feudal Japan. A game group may opt to take the "Social" stress track and reframe it as an "Honor" or "Face" track. This may end up looking like a straw-man argument, but bear with it for a moment.
So you have your high-Presence Samurai roaming the wilderness, flush with four Social/Honor stress boxes and a few honor-related Aspects. Nobody else around. Until a dastardly Wu-Jen pops from behind a tree and lets loose with a 20-shift spell attacking the Samurai's honor (targeting the Social stress track).
What is that spell going to look like?
-
- You can use magic to give yourself an enhanced rapport, intimidation, presence or, well, any other skill with which you could then use to attack someone socially. But you are using your skill to cause social stress to the target; not magic. Even if that skill is boosted by magic.
I still don't see why I can't just create the "The Shame of Being Depantsed" Spirit Evocation spell, shift it up to around 10 and fire it off. Just because it's meant to cause "shame" from being depants doesn't mean it actually will if it's resisted. Anymore than my level 10 Death Bolt automatically kills people, it doesn't unless it deals enough stress.
However if the spell is successful, his pants drop, he takes stress. If it's enough to take him out, I declare how.
As I said, the Canon doesn't deal with social magic because the genre it's set in doesn't favor that style.
I think one way to cast a clear light on the question is to take this out of Dresden Files for a moment and look at another setting: let's use a fantasy-enabled version of Feudal Japan. A game group may opt to take the "Social" stress track and reframe it as an "Honor" or "Face" track. This may end up looking like a straw-man argument, but bear with it for a moment.
So you have your high-Presence Samurai roaming the wilderness, flush with four Social/Honor stress boxes and a few honor-related Aspects. Nobody else around. Until a dastardly Wu-Jen pops from behind a tree and lets loose with a 20-shift spell attacking the Samurai's honor (targeting the Social stress track).
What is that spell going to look like?
Likely it'll cause him to face any and every shameful or cowardly act he's ever committed. He'll have to reasses his Honor, failure to resist and he takes Honor Stress, his moral fabric is weakened. That all this takes place in a heartbeat is appropriate for the genre.
-
I think the limitation of, "Okay, explain how that works," shouldn't be underestimated here. Even for magic.
Yes, there are very few rules limitations on what magic can do, but ever with full Evocation or Thaumaturgy you're still supposed to have a magical 'style' and trappings that you use to determine what is or isn't reasonable for your PC's magic to accomplish. I mean, why limit it to magic? Why can't I say, "I'm going to use an Athletics roll to socially attack him."?
There might be circumstances where you can do that. Maybe the social conflict is with a gymnist, and you're shaming him by performing an intricate routine that puts efforts to shame. I don't know. It's easier to justify with magic, but the ultimate limitation is that everybody around the table thinks it's reasonable and that the narrative justification has been established.
-
Well, I agree. There is no difference in that both are used as a means to create the situation that deals another social stress. My point, is that magic is not directly dealing said social stress. For instance, using your de-pantsing spell, it would have no effect targeting an Amazonian tribal leader that isn't wearing any. Were as, shooting someone with a fireball is shooting someone with a fireball. You are capable of dealing physical stress to the target (even if they have armor, dodge it or whatever).
All social attacks have circumstances attached to someone, because the things people value/admire/like in others are different for everyone. What I really am wanting someone to do is describe to me how mundane social attacks differ from magical social attacks. Thus far I just can't see a difference. They both seem to have specific circumstances under which they would work, they both seem to require some sort of social response(I.E. defense), and neither of them seem to directly effect the target, but how the target is viewed by others. How is one different from the other?
I think one way to cast a clear light on the question is to take this out of Dresden Files for a moment and look at another setting: let's use a fantasy-enabled version of Feudal Japan. A game group may opt to take the "Social" stress track and reframe it as an "Honor" or "Face" track. This may end up looking like a straw-man argument, but bear with it for a moment.
So you have your high-Presence Samurai roaming the wilderness, flush with four Social/Honor stress boxes and a few honor-related Aspects. Nobody else around. Until a dastardly Wu-Jen pops from behind a tree and lets loose with a 20-shift spell attacking the Samurai's honor (targeting the Social stress track).
What is that spell going to look like?
Without long term mind/appearance/fate-altering effects that would cause the Samurai to do something unusual in the presence of others it's not possible. You can't effect how someone is viewed in an immediate manner unless there's someone to view them. If he was standing in the middle of the area capitol on the other hand that's different.
-
Without long term mind/appearance/fate-altering effects that would cause the Samurai to do something unusual in the presence of others it's not possible. You can't effect how someone is viewed in an immediate manner unless there's someone to view them. If he was standing in the middle of the area capitol on the other hand that's different.
I somewhat disagree with this. Social combat, as I've mentionned before, is more than shaming someone in front of their peers. If characters are having a debate to convince each other of something, you would use social combat. I could see a missionary coming to the "New World" and using social combat to convert the locals to his faith. This would be an extreme consequence aimed at changing someones High Concept and it would take time. I see the social stress track as how a person perceives themselves and their place in the world/universe and how confident they are in it. This is my issue with magic doing direct social stress. Yes, the Wu-Jen makes the samuai re-live every dishonourable deed he's ever done, it causes an extreme consequence and his sense of who he is and his honour is changed. I really like this example, but it's a Law-breaker. You're going into his head and forcing him to re-live shameful events.
-
I see the social stress track as how a person perceives themselves and their place in the world/universe and how confident they are in it.
Except this is the very definition of mental stress. Check out the chapter on mental conflict.
-
Yes, the Wu-Jen makes the samuai re-live every dishonourable deed he's ever done, it causes an extreme consequence and his sense of who he is and his honour is changed. I really like this example, but it's a Law-breaker. You're going into his head and forcing him to re-live shameful events.
So what we seem to have so far:
Magical Social Maneuvers:
One can use magic to create Aspects to tag in Social Conflicts.
Requires justification, but it is usually easy.
Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Magical Social Attacks:
One can use magic to directly attack one's Social Stress track during a Social Conflict.
Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options must be extremely well-justified.
Magical Social Blocks (Target: Others):
One can use magic to directly Block another's actions during a Social Conflict.
Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options must be extremely well-justified.
Magical Social Blocks (Target: Self):
One can use magic to directly Block actions against oneself during a Social Conflict.
Lawbreaker options are very easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options require a little more justification.
-
So what we seem to have so far:
Magical Social Maneuvers:
One can use magic to create Aspects to tag in Social Conflicts.
Requires justification, but it is usually easy.
Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Magical Social Attacks:
One can use magic to directly attack one's Social Stress track during a Social Conflict.
Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options must be extremely well-justified.
Magical Social Blocks (Target: Others):
One can use magic to directly Block another's actions during a Social Conflict.
Lawbreaker options are easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options must be extremely well-justified.
Magical Social Blocks (Target: Self):
One can use magic to directly Block actions against oneself during a Social Conflict.
Lawbreaker options are very easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options require a little more justification.
I am willing to accept Lawbreaker is a likely occurance to unsubtle, uncarefull, Social Magics.
Long term Thaumaturgical cursing seems a much easier and less "Law Breakery" method, but it has the draw back of "not immediately usefull". Like a long slow curse instead of a Fireball to the chops.
-
there is absolutely nothing in the rules that forbids creating a thaum. ritual that replaces your rapport skill with a magical skill of 9 (or 13, or whatever) until the next sunrise. RAW, that's completely valid.
So is a spell that replaces your guns with a 9 for the same duration.
This is pretty much directly out of the Thaum. section of YS, and is allowed. The complexity of the ritual is equal to the level you want to set the skill. All thaumaturgy ends, unless you intentionally change duration by varying complexity, at the next sunrise.
So every morning any thaumaturgist could cook up a simple little ritual that gives him 5 alertness. (or any other skill).
Superior Senses (Biomancy)
Complexity 5
The character uses magic to heighten his own senses, fine-tuning them to perfection. This lasts until the next sunrise.
If you're a high discipline person, you could easily dump 3 points of power into this spell every exchange and have it completed in 2 exchanges. As the exchange time for thaumaturgy is NOT listed in the books but IS supposed to be longer than that of a combat round (as that is evocation's speed), I'd argue that any thaumaturge worth his salt could pull this off in 2 minutes.
Because this quickly turns into an alchemist with lore 5, item strength +5 (from foci and specializations), so the person now has access to on-the-fly spells that give them a rating of 10 in any skill they want, I -as a GM - began imposing a consequence for any spell that set your attribute over your normal maximum skill level for your refresh level. I also ruled that all potions last at most one scene, and the default potion time is "a few moments". Which is more generous than the novels, where potions tend to last what would be just a few combat rounds/exchanges.
An example of this from our game was:
Eagle Eye Potion, take 1 (potion strength 10)
Drinking this potion gives the character guns 10 for a few moments. After the potion wears off, the imbiber takes a mild consequence of "blurry vision".
Eagle Eye Potion, take 2 (potion strength 10)
Drinking this potion gives the character guns 5 and alertness 5 for a few moments. No consequence is applied (neither skill went over the normal maximum of 5 for that character, he just made the potion effectively carry 2 spell effects, which is allowable)
---- Anyways, yes, you can totally use a spell to raise your rating in a skill to a level equal to the complexity of your spell. Whether or not you can do this on the fly with soulfire (thaum at the speed of evocation) is up to your GM, as that issue hasnt been clarified (soulfire doesnt specifically say "at the speed of evocation", where every other sponsored magic says that. It has not been clarified if this was simply forgotten, or was not supposed to apply to soulfire... so it's debatable).
If you CAN use it on the fly, then you could model the character's CALM DOWN! action as raising your intimidation skill to the level of power you set the spell at, then making a normal intimidation attack. That attack would deal normal stress and cause consequences but would NOT specifically inhibit actions as you stated. However, if someone got an aspect of "cowed" or the like, you could then, yes, invoke for effect (tagging the consequence for free, as you can do once with any consequence that you create), meaning that the bad guy either can't act but gains a Fate point, or can act but pays a fate point.
-
I am willing to accept Lawbreaker is a likely occurance to unsubtle, uncarefull, Social Magics.
I see it as a sort of Dark Side/Light Side type of situation. The Dark Side's appeal is usually its ease of use: if you're willing to resort to Lawbreaker-status solutions, a lot of these tactics can be pretty easily justified in the narrative.
---- Anyways, yes, you can totally use a spell to raise your rating in a skill to a level equal to the complexity of your spell. Whether or not you can do this on the fly with soulfire (thaum at the speed of evocation) is up to your GM... If you CAN use it on the fly, then you could model the character's CALM DOWN! action as raising your intimidation skill to the level of power you set the spell at, then making a normal intimidation attack. That attack would deal normal stress and cause consequences but would NOT specifically inhibit actions as you stated. However, if someone got an aspect of "cowed" or the like, you could then, yes, invoke for effect (tagging the consequence for free, as you can do once with any consequence that you create), meaning that the bad guy either can't act but gains a Fate point, or can act but pays a fate point.
And a masterful return to the original question!
-
Magical Social Blocks (Target: Self):
One can use magic to directly Block actions against oneself during a Social Conflict.
Lawbreaker options are very easy to justify.
Non-Lawbreaker options require a little more justification.
i'd put non-lawbreaker as easy to justify... theoretically you are creating a mental ward, not invading someone else's mind or forcing someone to act against their own wishes.
-
Except this is the very definition of mental stress. Check out the chapter on mental conflict.
Yes, you're right. It's right there word for word. So, in order to convince someone to change their beleifs, you need to do mental damage? How would you even do that mechanically - without magic, I mean. It really seems to suit social conflict. Or make someone see your point of view?
When two PC's are in disagreement as to how to proceed, the easiest way, in game, is to have them do social combat in order to convince the other. So if one is firmly defending his position because of religious beleifs, you have to do mental stress? This doesn't make sense to me.
Anyways, just stepping back and seeing everyone's opinions, this is what I came up with and it is very similar to evileyore listed:
1. You can buff your social skills with thaumaturgy
2. you can use thaumaturgy to give yourself aspect that you can tag in social combat
3. You can maneuver and block with evocation and this will not break any Laws (but is grey and be used with caution)
4. You can use Thaumaturgy and Evocation to do direct social damage as per attacking with magic.
#4 attacks a persons sense of self or self-identity and is considered a Law breaker. **
**apparently it doesn't attack a persons sense of self...it just attacks...something no-one can quantify. In any case, it invades their mind.
@mostlyawake. Thank-you, you summed it up very nicely.
-
Yes, you're right. It's right there word for word. So, in order to convince someone to change their beleifs, you need to do mental damage? How would you even do that mechanically - without magic, I mean. It really seems to suit social conflict. Or make someone see your point of view?
If we take Night Fears to be canon (at least DFRPG canon, if not the Dresdenverse at large) then Mental Attacks do not seem to be all that difficult. Take it this way, those kids in Night Fears stand a chance of a trip to the loony house just by trying to scare each other with ghost stories. Social Stress, sure. But Mental Stress? Well, it seems you cannot swing a dead cat without inflicting Mental Stress.
-
Yes, you're right. It's right there word for word. So, in order to convince someone to change their beleifs, you need to do mental damage? How would you even do that mechanically - without magic, I mean. It really seems to suit social conflict. Or make someone see your point of view?
When two PC's are in disagreement as to how to proceed, the easiest way, in game, is to have them do social combat in order to convince the other. So if one is firmly defending his position because of religious beleifs, you have to do mental stress? This doesn't make sense to me.
I think this is the part that I'm really having a hard time with and the question I'm trying to answer myself. If social stress is a flat representation of someone's social standing or face, then I don't see why one couldn't easily create a situation influencing that with non-lawbreaking magic. If it has more depth to it then there's some weird overlap with mental stress. Does anyone have a firm grip on social stress and how it works? I think I'm going to spend some of my time tonight reading about it.
-
I take Night Fears to be a special case. It's a bunch of teenagers in a horror story. It would probably take more to inflict mental stress in almost any other situation.
By the way, I would not allow social evocation attacks even with Lawbreaker.
-
I see it as a sort of Dark Side/Light Side type of situation.
Ah yes, the Force. A Light Side, a Dark Side, and it requires both to hold the Universe together. :D
By the way, I would not allow social evocation attacks even with Lawbreaker.
Do you know how I know you're a fun ruiner? ;)
-
I see it as preserving the fun, actually.
Unless you mean fun on this thread, in which case I don't know what you're talking about.
-
Likely it'll cause him to face any and every shameful or cowardly act he's ever committed. He'll have to reasses his Honor, failure to resist and he takes Honor Stress, his moral fabric is weakened. That all this takes place in a heartbeat is appropriate for the genre.
Sounds like a mental attack, to me.
-
My challenge in this issue is trying to think of a way that one would directly attack someone socially with magic.
- You can turn him hideously ugly; but that is a physical attack (transformation) that has social repercussions
- You can inflict him with a curse that causes him to swear or say inappropriate things... but that is a mental attack again with social repercussions
- You can use magic to manipulate his environment in an infinite number of ways. But those are maneuvers you stack for a social attack.
- You can use magic to give yourself an enhanced rapport, intimidation, presence or, well, any other skill with which you could then use to attack someone socially. But you are using your skill to cause social stress to the target; not magic. Even if that skill is boosted by magic.
Could an evocation that is something of an illusion or a glamour that translates normal conversation to bad language and crass behavior: "Hi how are you?" ----> "Sup jerk? You know you smell funny?"
Could an illusion or ritual cause an illusion or mask settle over a target making him look ugly? These aren't exactly transformations, nor is it mind control.
I'm likely a poor person to discuss social combat since we threw it out of our game enitrely and treat social combat as strictly roleplaying or if need be (to determine the effectiveness of a speech) simply set a difficulty and roll the appropriate skill against a target number. It totally negates part of the system and likely isn't poplular, but it totally skips all of this and personally I'm glad for it.
-
Could an evocation that is something of an illusion or a glamour that translates normal conversation to bad language and crass behavior: "Hi how are you?" ----> "Sup jerk? You know you smell funny?"
Could an illusion or ritual cause an illusion or mask settle over a target making him look ugly?
Sounds like a maneuver invoked-for-effect to instigate a compel, to me.
-
Ok, so I just read the social conflict section and I think this is where we are getting stuck.
Social conflicts tend to vary more than physical
conflicts do in terms of what constitutes
the nature of an attack or maneuver, and they
require that the participants be very clear about
the nature of the conflict and what the conflict
is intended to do. Intimidation has little place
in a conflict about trashing an opponent’s reputation,
but a conflict about winning the favor
of a particular patron might open up several
avenues of attack depending on the resources
of each participant. Likewise, someone trying
to provoke an opponent into hostility probably
won’t use Rapport.
So a social conflict varies enough that any one action (mundane or magical) is never going to be appropriate in all situations, or even most situations. There is no blanket rule about what works and what doesn't because the intent of the conflict can be entirely different in two different situations. As it has been said there are some situations where pantsing someone will be effective and some where it would do nothing at all. Futher:
Ultimately, a good guideline is that an attack
is any action meant to directly take someone
out of the conflict in one way or another, and a
maneuver is any action meant to provide a situational
advantage to make those attacks more
effective. Taken together with a clear picture of
what the conflict is about, this can help provide
a guide for what kinds of skills can be used.
Which means that it is also situational as to whether something is an attack or a maneuver, and the same thing could be both in different situations. I can definitely see situations in which a pantsing could be used to attempt to take someone out (in fact in the arena you usually see it, I.E. secondary school, that's most often the way it's used), and other situations where it would serve to improve another's roll, while still others it would again do absolutely nothing. It's all situational. Finally:
As with parsing out the combat actions, figuring
out what stress and consequences mean in a
particular social conflict can take some wrangling
and, as before, looking at the nature of
the conflict is the best place to start. Remember
that consequences are meant to represent the
outcomes of a conflict that “stick” to the participants—
as soon as the scene’s over, anything
recorded as stress is really just narrative color.
In terms of consequences, the easiest way
to represent the effects of social conflict is
through negative emotional fallout—aspects
like Stressed Out, Crappy Mood, Nervous,
Edgy, and Guilt-Ridden can all come into
play later in dynamic and colorful ways. Another
potential option is to let the consequences reflect
changes in how other people perceive the character
after the conflict shakes out. If a character’s
reputation is ruined, representing that with
a Smeared Name aspect can lend mechanical
weight to what might otherwise be just a
narrated effect.
Sometimes, the most important effect of
a social conflict comes from the new circumstances
the event brings into the character’s
life—if a character has a significant other,
falling for a seduction attempt could create
Relationship Doubts or something similar.
Play around with any and all of these types of
consequences to give your social conflicts a far reaching
impact on play.
So there can be some overlap between mental and social consequences, however I think of mental as a step above. Social consequences may put you in a bad mood, even a really bad mood, but mental can put you in the hospital's psych ward.
In conclusion the answer to the question of "By RAW can magic (or any action of any kind) cause social stress without breaking the laws" is yes.....Sometimes.
Edit: Of note sorry for the long post.