An idea for modeling completely untrained magical talent

[Sanctaphrax]

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22430.0.html

Personally, I like this idea.

But Lawbreaker does not apply its bonus to social rolls.

Invokes for effect can do literally anything if the GM says its okay. If one of my players wanted to take OMNIPOTENT GOD as a High Concept for a Feet In The Water mortal character, I'd let them. And you know what? They wouldn't actually be any stronger than the rest of the group as a result. Because I would not be permissive when it comes to Invocations and Declarations.

Being able to use magic--any magic at all--costs Refresh.

Do you have any actual evidence for this statement? Because I'm fairly certain that it's factually incorrect.

[Mr. Death]

Do you have any actual evidence for this statement? Because I'm fairly certain that it's factually incorrect.

You mean besides the fact that all the magical powers that give you a significant advantage, or let you do things differently or better than a mortal, have a refresh cost associated with them?

If you let someone cast spells without having the power and refresh cost, what's the incentive to ever actually take magic powers?

Or any power, for that matter. What's to stop me from using a fate point to declare that, while I don't have claws, my fists are Weapon:2 for a scene because I have the aspect "Lethal Weapon"? I could do it once a scene and just keep the 2 refresh I'd normally have to spend for the power.

[sinker]

Then you don't have to monkey with the Aspect system to make it do things it's not meant to do.

Aspects are supposed to match up with and modify a powerset. Not make a free replacement of them.

Here's the thing Death. Cowboy is not suggesting that aspects do anything that they are not supposed to do. He's suggesting that one use an aspect (by spending a fate point) to give one an occasional situational bonus, or narrative advantage. This is literally how aspects work. This is exactly what they do.

Now that I'm thinking about it further though I think that as a GM I would ask for a specialization aspect (like Dresden's "Not so subtle", etc). I see the young talents only having access to those effects that might come naturally to them (veils or sensitive effects for Molly, fire or force for Dresden, etc).

You mean besides the fact that all the magical powers that give you a significant advantage, or let you do things differently or better than a mortal, have a refresh cost associated with them?

If you let someone cast spells without having the power and refresh cost, what's the incentive to ever actually take magic powers?

Or any power, for that matter. What's to stop me from using a fate point to declare that, while I don't have claws, my fists are Weapon:2 for a scene because I have the aspect "Lethal Weapon"? I could do it once a scene and just keep the 2 refresh I'd normally have to spend for the power.

Because these aren't things that aspects allow you. Aspects do not allow you use of the evocation system (and Cowboy is not suggesting that they do). Aspects do not give you more than +2 once in a scene (without multiple fate points anyway). Nobody is suggesting that these aspects do anything that aspects can't do.

Edit: Though I would point out that "Lethal weapon" would be a decent excuse to make the argument that you were carrying knuckle dusters or brass knuckles.

[Mr. Death]

Making a veil, magically boosting your jumping ability, and setting fires without any outside tools are all things that are explicitly under the purview of the evocation system.

There are certainly ways that aspects can add a +2 to those--but if you're using magic to do it, then you have to, well, use magic to do it.

Now that I'm thinking about it further though I think that as a GM I would ask for a specialization aspect (like Dresden's "Not so subtle", etc). I see the young talents only having access to those effects that might come naturally to them (veils or sensitive effects for Molly, fire or force for Dresden, etc).

Alright, I'll just ask: Why? Why do that instead of just taking Channeling and using the aspect to modify and restrict it? What's the problem with using Channeling (aka, the beginner's magical power) to represent a beginner in magic use that makes this sort of thing preferable?

[sinker]

Making a veil, magically boosting your jumping ability, and setting fires without any outside tools are all things that are explicitly under the purview of the evocation system.

However, invoking an aspect to add +2 to stealth (and describing it as a veil), or invoking an aspect to add +2 to athletics (and describing it as force added magically), or invoking for effect to start a fire are all also things you can do with aspects. They are not explicitly under the purview of the evocation system, as I have just explained three RAW ways of doing those things. Casting spells is explicitly under the purview of the evocation system, but invoking aspects has absolutely nothing to do with evocation, and can achieve those effects even using a non-magical aspect (for example invoking "stealthy" to get a +2 to stealth, invoking "athletic" to get a +2 to athletics, or invoking "pyromaniac" to start a fire).

Edit: Heck, if you really want to get technical, by RAW you can't use evocation to boost your jumping ability at all. You can use it to create an aspect that gives you a bonus, but then again you can do that mundanely as well. So I can't see how you could say that that is "explicitly under the purview of the evocation system" in the first place.

Alright, I'll just ask: Why? Why do that instead of just taking Channeling and using the aspect to modify and restrict it? What's the problem with using Channeling (aka, the beginner's magical power) to represent a beginner in magic use that makes this sort of thing preferable?

Because channeling is controlled. Channeling involves will on the part of the user and at least a little understanding of how to control this. A character with Channeling: Fire and a 0 discipline/conviction is still capable of throwing 4 shift fireballs, blocks and maneuvers. A character who only has the aspect "Innate Pyromancer" is capable of occasionally starting a fire. They can't attack, block or maneuver. There's a significant difference there.

[Mr. Death]

However, invoking an aspect to add +2 to stealth (and describing it as a veil), or invoking an aspect to add +2 to athletics (and describing it as force added magically), or invoking for effect to start a fire are all also things you can do with aspects. They are not explicitly under the purview of the evocation system, as I have just explained three RAW ways of doing those things. Casting spells is explicitly under the purview of the evocation system, but invoking aspects has absolutely nothing to do with evocation, and can achieve those effects even using a non-magical aspect (for example invoking "stealthy" to get a +2 to stealth, invoking "athletic" to get a +2 to athletics, or invoking "pyromaniac" to start a fire).

The difference is that second set of aspects isn't using magic. In a setting that stresses that magic is a part of you, and changes who you are (the refresh cost sapping your free will), it seems wrong to me to let people use magic without costing them refresh.

Edit: Heck, if you really want to get technical, by RAW you can't use evocation to boost your jumping ability at all. You can use it to create an aspect that gives you a bonus, but then again you can do that mundanely as well. So I can't see how you could say that that is "explicitly under the purview of the evocation system" in the first place.

If you're using magic to do it, yes. It's doing something within the setting to give yourself a boost, while a normal invoke is just "I'm good at jumping" rather than "I'm using magic to be temporarily good at jumping."

Because channeling is controlled. Channeling involves will on the part of the user and at least a little understanding of how to control this. A character with Channeling: Fire and a 0 discipline/conviction is still capable of throwing 4 shift fireballs, blocks and maneuvers. A character who only has the aspect "Innate Pyromancer" is capable of occasionally starting a fire. They can't attack, block or maneuver. There's a significant difference there.

An Innate Pyromancer could certainly do all three easily under this interpretation. Maybe he starts a fire on someone's clothes (or hair)--or sets a fire to block pursuit or to create a distraction.

So someone with, say, Stealth at 4 can invoke that aspect to create what is essentially a Power:6 block of a veil, without spending any refresh or taking on any stress?

If I were a GM, I'd allow it once--then stipulate that if the character wants to use magic to their advantage or on purpose, they have to buy a power that lets them use magic. That's pretty much what the book recommends about using a different skill for a dodge or action--allow it with an invoke and at a penalty the first time to encourage the player to just buy it with a stunt instead.

[sinker]

An Innate Pyromancer could certainly do all three easily under this interpretation. Maybe he starts a fire on someone's clothes (or hair)--or sets a fire to block pursuit or to create a distraction.

How? The interpretation you are discussing is allowing an aspect to be invoked for a bonus or invoked for effect. How do you invoke for attack?

[Mr. Death]

Probably adding a Weapon rating to some other skill's attack roll. If the GM just let him set fire to an inanimate pile of sticks before, why wouldn't he be able to set fire to the equally/more flammable hair on a guy's head?

[sinker]

Well then, we're invoking an aspect for a single +2 on an attack, which is something everyone can do all the time. Heck, using that reasoning I'd want to require that the +2 is applied to the weapon rating rather than the attack value (minor disadvantage, but disadvantage nonetheless).

[Cowboy]

@Sanctaphrax  Dang, looks like its not an original idea after all! I probably shouldn't have said social. Can intimidation make a mental attack? Maybe it's just not the best way to build a warlock...and the lawbreaker stunt applied to aspects is really pushing it anyways. Although it could be an innocent middle school start to an NPC who goes on to become a real nightmare...

[Sanctaphrax]

@Cowboy: Sorry, Lawbreaker only benefits spellcasting rolls. It won't help mental attacks either, unless you define them as spellcasting with some kind of mental judo.

@Mr. Death: There are rules for temporary powers. They don't cost Refresh. And there are free magical abilities like Cassandra's Tears. Both allow the use of magic at no cost in Refresh.

Now, I'm going to say something fairly important. Please read the next sentence with great attention:

You can do absolutely anything with Fate Points and Aspects as long as your GM lets you.

Sufficient FP spending can, by the Rules As Written and (probably) by the Rules As Intended, duplicate every Power in the book. But only if the GM says okay.

The point of taking a Power or a Stunt is to access a capability reliably and without spending FP.

[Becq]

I'm going to back Sanctaphrax's last couple of posts.  That is, technically an aspect can be invoked for any effect that the GM allows -- but those last four words are key.  The GM and player(s) should work together to define each character aspect in a way that is sensible, reasonable, and fun (for everyone, not just the player).  And I'll go further to say that as a guideline, the benefit of each invoke should be somewhere in the 2-shift range (which is sometimes subjective).

One thing I will say is that even if the GM does allow this sort of interpretation, the player making use of it should absolutely not count as a Pure Mortal at the least -- because what defines a Pure Mortal is the lack of any supernatural abilities.  In addition, it seems to me that an aspect can only be used to boost a capability that you already have, not create a new capability.  By this I mean that a character with a 'Pyromaniac' aspect might be very good at setting fires (bonus to rolls to do so) but can't simply create fire from thin air.  So I'd probably charge at least a -1 for the ability to "perform impossible feats" through invoking the aspect.

I'd probably think about pricing this as a -1 power focused on a specific element, because in general,

[Mr. Death]

@Sanctaphrax: Yes, there are rules for temporary powers--but that's not what this is talking about. This is talking about something that the character can do naturally and consistently which is beyond the capabilities of normal humans--aka, a magical power.

Say for the sake of argument that Lil Molly can invoke her innate power for a +2 to veils. Can full-grown Wizard Molly do the same, spending one fate point for a free veil at +2 to her stealth or deceit score, without incurring any stress? Or does she have to actually cast a veil (either a straight block, or a 3-shift maneuver) to get the benefits of a veil?

If yes, then she's better off never casting a spell or making focus items, and instead just boosting her Stealth score if she wants to focus on veils (which, being the character's strong suit, she would). If not, then an untrained, powerless kid can be significantly better at making magical veils than someone who's training as a wizard--without ever incurring stress or consequences for it.

One thing I will say is that even if the GM does allow this sort of interpretation, the player making use of it should absolutely not count as a Pure Mortal at the least -- because what defines a Pure Mortal is the lack of any supernatural abilities.  In addition, it seems to me that an aspect can only be used to boost a capability that you already have, not create a new capability.  By this I mean that a character with a 'Pyromaniac' aspect might be very good at setting fires (bonus to rolls to do so) but can't simply create fire from thin air.  So I'd probably charge at least a -1 for the ability to "perform impossible feats" through invoking the aspect.

This. This is the point I've been trying to make the whole time.

[Cowboy]

Say for the sake of argument that Lil Molly can invoke her innate power for a +2 to veils.
If yes, then she's better off never casting a spell or making focus items, and instead just boosting her Stealth score if she wants to focus on veils (which, being the character's strong suit, she would). If not, then an untrained, powerless kid can be significantly better at making magical veils than someone who's training as a wizard--without ever incurring stress or consequences for it.

Maybe, if you built a Wizard Molly with very low discipline, conviction and a very high stealth it would be better to invoke an aspect for +2 stealth. Otherwise, she will cast a veil based on discipline and conviction (probably much higher than her stealth) add in her focus and specialization bonuses and then ON TOP of that she still has the option of tagging an aspect for a +2. That should be much higher than stealth +2.

I think the white court opening portals example shows that non-spellcasters can invoke aspects for magical effects. Also I seem to remember in the novels that white court can make simple tracking spells, and knights of the cross can do some cool magic(ish) things that their power set doesn't cover

[Mr. Death]

Maybe, if you built a Wizard Molly with very low discipline, conviction and a very high stealth it would be better to invoke an aspect for +2 stealth. Otherwise, she will cast a veil based on discipline and conviction (probably much higher than her stealth) add in her focus and specialization bonuses and then ON TOP of that she still has the option of tagging an aspect for a +2. That should be much higher than stealth +2.

Yes, she could. Or, she could boost Stealth to 5, and have a 7-shift block at will without costing any stress or needing those focus items.

I think the white court opening portals example shows that non-spellcasters can invoke aspects for magical effects. Also I seem to remember in the novels that white court can make simple tracking spells, and knights of the cross can do some cool magic(ish) things that their power set doesn't cover

Nope. It's not an invoke, and it's Thomas using a specific spell that Harry more or less set up for him. The Knights do nothing that their template doesn't cover with its powers.