I really like those ideas.

So, my Compel based on drawing power from the storm might be something like: "Since drew down power from the thunderstorm last week to cast your binding spell against a powerful demon, the rage of the storm has left it's mark on you. Normally, what Jake said wouldn't have phased you in the slightest, but today, you lose your temper and lash out at him for his foolish attitude toward something so serious."

Yeah, I really like that.

Or maybe the next time there is a thunderstorm, the connection you had established works in reverse and the storm somehow draws power from you. A Compel that takes efficacy away from a spell or two during the session.

Ah, excellent. Thank you very much.

So, would it be a storm or a leyline having you repay your debt? Or would it be the GM offering a Compel in the theme of the storm or the leyline or whatever? I'm trying to think of how it would work if, as we are talking about in this example, the "Sponsor" was non-sentient with no Agenda of its own. If the "sponsor" was due to the power of time and/or place...

Would someone explain sponsored debt?

Meanwhile, I'm going to research it in the book.

Along those lines...

In addition to storms and leylines* how does emotion or pain fit into boosting the power (or control) of a spell? There are many times in the novels (I just finished reading Summer Knight) where Harry says that he draws on his pain and anger to fuel his magic, especially when needs to blast something when he's feeling righteous. I started thinking... How do you do that?

Would you Invoke your own Consequences? So a Mild Consequences give +2 to Power, a Moderate one gives +4, a Severe gives +6?



*In one of the scenarios put out by Evil Hat, the baddie uses leylines in his spell casting... they absorb Consequences from the stress of casting... So, you cast a spell at take 4 Mental Stress, you take that as a Consequences and defer it to the leyline. Storms or celestial alignments might do something similar.

This is part of the point I'm trying to get at. I keep seeing people say that breaking the First Law corrupts because it means you believe that you have the right to decide who lives and dies, but if on a fundamental level, what you believe is "Protect these innocents" or "punish this murderer", shouldn't that be what is enforced?

Surely, as a wizard, you can protect people without killing anyone. And isn't saying "punish this murderer" nearly the same as "this person needs to die" if punishment means killing him?

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. I'm also in agreement with Wordmaker. When I'm reading over those dubious examples of spells in the book, I'm thinking: Well, wait a second. Entanglement looks like a grapple/block and Orbius looks like an attack.

I think its the case of the manifestation of a spell (Special FX) vs the mechanical function (game terms) of a spell.

It's one of the reasons I tend to prefer the updated Fate Core interpretation of game actions because it seems a little less confusing and it flows a bit smoother. Create Advantage covers Maneuvers and Blocks in that some Maneuvers are Blocks and must be Overcome. Is that a better way to interpret how things should work or is it better to stick with the Attack/Block/Maneuver/Defend (Counterspell) type thing that Dresden Files uses?

Well, I feel like I've seen this spell in use in a novel, or at least a version of it.


I admit it gets a little confusing because there are some Aspects you can create using any method (not just spells), and those Aspects aren't just doing to go away. In reading how everything's supposed to work, I'm thinking that the writers intended using magic to Maneuver the same as using a Skill to place an Aspect on a scene or target with a Maneuver. You place an Aspect on a person, object or scene. If you get more shifts than necessary, the Aspect becomes "sticky" meaning it lasts the whole scene or until it's removed. It's just with magic, you have a variety of means at your disposal to justify placing those Aspects.

BOUND IN PLACE is an Aspect that could be placed using a spell or using some rope and a sturdy chair. These Aspects are "sticky" meaning they remain until they are removed by another character. Does that mean that the Aspect is true and in effect whether it is Invoked or not? So a person BOUND IN PLACE can't move. If I want to punch that person, I can punch them (maybe they defend with Endurance rather than Athletics or Fists, since they just have to grin and bear the punch). If I want to Invoke the sticky Aspect on them, I can punch them at +2. If the bound person wants to move, he has to overcome the Aspect (perhaps using Might or Athletics), and if I want to make it harder for them, I can Invoke the Aspect to give them -2.

I'm trying to figure out how the Maneuvers work out, but it's hard because I'm dealing with certain things that don't have real world analogs. If you set something on fire, well, of course it's ON FIRE! until the fire gets put out or the fire consumes all the fuel. If you use an Earth evocation to punch your way out of a jail cell, the Aspect MAN-SIZED HOLE IN THE WALL is going to stay there until someone fixes the wall, right? What's the difference between that and BOUND IN PLACE using a spell?

As Items of Power are different from Enchanted Items that wizards and other spellcasters make, why is there no Master List of Enchanted Items?

I feel like something like that would help alleviate this confusion about item math. You'd have the item, what it does, how it works and then explain the game-math used to make it.

I know it doesn't seem hard when you say Lore + Specializations + Foci ... but the book doesn't say that. It has four pages talking about how to do this.

EDIT: Outside of this Resource board, I found this thread -- Compilation of Focus/Enhanced Items. This is pretty much what I was talking about. So, please disregard the bulk of my post.