Author Topic: Rote Question  (Read 2170 times)

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Rote Question
« on: May 06, 2010, 03:11:07 PM »
Just a quick query one of my players raised on Rote Spells. I'm at work so I can't check my updated pdf to see if this has been addressed.

When deciding on Rote Spells, what happens if your Discipline is higher than your Conviction? When I read the early-bird edition, I assumed that you could have a rote spell that, due to your high Discipline, is of a higher power than your Convicion, you'd just take the extra Mental Stress as though you were casting a regular spell.

Am I correct?

Am I also right in thinking that you don't have to have your rote spell operate at your full Discipline, if you want it to be a less-exhausting spell to cast?

Offline crusher_bob

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
Re: Rote Question
« Reply #1 on: May 06, 2010, 03:41:45 PM »
AFAIK, rotes are limited by 'taking zero' in both your power and control stats.

For example,
Harry has Superb (+5) conviction and Good (+3) discipline.
He has an evocation specialization for Fire power
And he has a blasting rod (focus item, +1 offensive fire control)

So without the blasting rod, he normally have 6 power, 3 control for fire
and with the blasting rod, for offensive stuff, he has 6 power, 4 control.

So he could have the following rotes:
Without blasting rod:
Fire attack: power 3
This is as much power as he can automatically control with his discipline.  Also, even if he does happen to have his blasting rod handy when he casts it, he only rolls his base discipline to target the rote, since the blasting rod isn't included in the rote.

Fire attack: power 4 to 6
He call call up this much power automatically with his fire power, but he can't automatically control it. So, he would be forced to take fallout every time he tried to cast it.  Note that he takes the fallout even if he got lucky on his discipline roll and happened to get enough control to have controlled the spell as if he were casting it normally, since he's using the rote.

Note that there is an exception here: if you invoke aspects on your discipline roll and now have enough to 'take a zero' and still control the spell, you can avoid taking the automatic fallout.
Example:
Fire attack: Power 5
Normally, Harry's good discipline would leave him looking at 2 fallout here, but if he invoked an aspect to add to the discipline roll, he now has enough discipline to automatically control the rote, so can avoid the fallout.  Also, he gets the to hit bonus on the discipline roll to actually target the spell.

With blasting rod:
Fire attack, power 4
He can automatically control more power when he has his blasting rod, and he gets to target this rote with his improved control.  The disadvantage is that if he loses his blasting rod, or gets it knocked out of his hand, he can't cast this rote at all.

Fire attack, power 5 or 6
Again, a rote that forces Harry to take fallout every time he cast it.  But he'll take less fallout and hit better since he is using his blasting rod.

---------------

Since the minimum stress you can take is 1, operating blow your normal power total doesn't help any. 

A proposed house rule that seems to be OK is that if you 'spend' 3 shifts on your discipline roll, you can reduce the stress of the spell by one.  So with this house rule, someone with superb (+5) discipline could throw power 2 spells around all day (as long as they rolled well on discipline, anyway).  Of course, he probably wouldn't be hitting anything with them, since he's giving up 3 shifts to hit too.
« Last Edit: May 06, 2010, 03:44:53 PM by crusher_bob »

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Rote Question
« Reply #2 on: May 06, 2010, 04:28:03 PM »
I thought Conviction wasn't rolled in evocation? It just determines so much Power you can summon before taking extra Stress?

Harry's a bad example because his Discipline is lower than his Conviction.

What if the stats were reversed? A wizard with Superb (+5) Discipline and Good (+3) Conviction, using no specialisation or focus items (to keep this simple).

Rote Spell:
Fire Attack: Power 5

If I'm right, this is acceptable as a rote, because the character's Discipline allows him to control a Power 5 spell on a roll of +0. However, the wizard should also take a total of 3 Mental Stress, because the Power is 2 higher than his Conviction, correct?

Offline crusher_bob

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 538
    • View Profile
Re: Rote Question
« Reply #3 on: May 06, 2010, 04:46:12 PM »
Hmm, after reading the rules more closely, I guess I have to agree with your interpretation.  You can throw around whatever power you can control with a rote, and just pay any extra stress that this may cause.

Offline Falar

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 714
  • A veritable treasure trove
    • View Profile
    • Falar + Sha
Re: Rote Question
« Reply #4 on: May 06, 2010, 04:48:22 PM »
Yes. You can have rotes that exceed either your Discipline or your Conviction - they're just exactly the same every time that you cast them. If you cast your 3 Mental Stress rote, even if you roll ++++ on your Discipline check, you are still taking that 3 stress. No matter what. Actually, from the version of the pdf I have access to right now (outdated), rotes don't even mention always being 1 stress. That's just where it's smart to do them at.
Lead Creator of Terror in the Twin Cities - winner of the 2010 Borden DFRPG Award for Best Location

Offline Deadmanwalking

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3534
    • View Profile
Re: Rote Question
« Reply #5 on: May 06, 2010, 05:06:12 PM »
Falar is entirely correct. And I do have the updated PDF, that bit hasn't changed.

Offline Wordmaker

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 917
  • Paul Anthony Shortt
    • View Profile
    • Paul Anthony Shortt's Blog
Re: Rote Question
« Reply #6 on: May 06, 2010, 07:17:09 PM »
Cool, thanks!