Newbies ask the darnest things

[Troy]

I know that that Rote Spells in the book are to be taken with a grain of salt. I do, however, have a question about something they introduce to the game.

Magic dictates how the target of the spell Defends against the attack or maneuver. Is that a feature or a bug?

[Mr. Death]

I know that that Rote Spells in the book are to be taken with a grain of salt. I do, however, have a question about something they introduce to the game.

Magic dictates how the target of the spell Defends against the attack or maneuver. Is that a feature or a bug?

The nature of any attack or action, I feel, dictates how the target can defend against it.

[Haru]

It's a feature. Though, as you say, to be taken with a grain of salt.

The thing is, depending on how I describe my spell, some skills to defend against them make sense, others don't. A fireball can be dodged or miss, because I move a lot in a fight, so it makes sense to defend with athletics. If I do a wind attack causing a vacuum in your lungs, then you can't really dodge that, it happens inside you. Endurance as the defense skill makes more sense here.
And so forth.

The same should actually go for all actions, not just magic. At the same time, there should be some leeway for the defender to describe why another skill might be employed. Instead of endurance, I could use discipline to fight through the pain.

However, the choice of skills should not be made in a vacuum. You should always have a grasp on how your character employs his skills, and that in return should limit what he does and how he might limit his opponents defensive actions.

[UmbraLux]

I know that that Rote Spells in the book are to be taken with a grain of salt. I do, however, have a question about something they introduce to the game.

Magic dictates how the target of the spell Defends against the attack or maneuver. Is that a feature or a bug?

Neither, it's false.  Or at least a major assumption made from flimsy evidence.

The narrative is what shapes the defense. 

Rote spells only show half the narrative - that defense may well be changed if / when the defender is able to modify the narrative.  Showing a default doesn't mean it becomes the "one true way". 

[Troy]

So, all Defense rolls are "default" or suggestions? Although, situations vary and, if appropriate, you can defend using whatever makes sense? That makes sense to me.

Are there ever situations wherein the default defense would not be allowed?

[UmbraLux]

The skill descriptions define how they're used...so it depends on context.  Someone shoots at you - you probably dodge with Athletics.  But what if you're driving a car?  Athletics no longer makes sense.  Action instigates the reaction, it will almost always have the primary say in what gets used simply because it is proactive.  But, sometimes, you can add a twist to the narrative and change things...

[Quantus]

The skill descriptions define how they're used...so it depends on context.  Someone shoots at you - you probably dodge with Athletics.  But what if you're driving a car?  Athletics no longer makes sense.  Action instigates the reaction, it will almost always have the primary say in what gets used simply because it is proactive.  But, sometimes, you can add a twist to the narrative and change things...

Well, it makes a little sense in that Athletics covers most of your reaction time and hand-eye coordination.  But if your driving skill isnt up to the task you would just end up over-correcting and probably crashing or something.  In that circumstance Id probably make you use whichever was the weaker of the two, viewing it as the skill Bottle-neck, so to speak. 

[InFerrumVeritas]

Well, it makes a little sense in that Athletics covers most of your reaction time and hand-eye coordination.  But if your driving skill isnt up to the task you would just end up over-correcting and probably crashing or something.  In that circumstance Id probably make you use whichever was the weaker of the two, viewing it as the skill Bottle-neck, so to speak.

I'd just have it restrict.  That way you get to duck or whatever.

[cold_breaker]

Eh, depends on their wording of the defense. If they say they're going to drive in such a way to make the car difficult to hit, go for a driving roll. If they're going to sink down in their seat and continue driving, make it a dodge restricted by a driving roll.

[UmbraLux]

Agreed. 

The defaults are there because they are common but don't fear changing the default when it makes sense.  Locking ourselves into a single method of reacting gets old. 

[InFerrumVeritas]

Agreed. 

The defaults are there because they are common but don't fear changing the default when it makes sense.  Locking ourselves into a single method of reacting gets old.

I hear what you're saying, but I will always allow the player to defend with the default skill (although possibly restricted by circumstances).  If another skill is appropriate, I'll let them use that instead if they wish (or will compel them to use that instead).  But I've found that "pick the skill you want them to defend with" generally leads to players trying to game the system more than I like. 

If a player has a stunt that lets them defend with a different skill, this is a pretty cheesy way to negate that stunt.

[Troy]

Evocation & Thaumaturgy: do the bonuses from specializations and focus items apply prior to the roll or after it?

If I need a FAIR roll to control the power of my spell and my bonus is +3 power, do I need a SUPERB roll to control my spell? Or would the fair roll do, and then my spell had 5 shifts of power?

[Cadd]

You always count based on the sum of skill+dice+modifiers (like invocations), so I suppose that would be "before" in your description. The only thing a Power bonus does is give you higher effective Conviction, it sets the amount of power you can use without taking extra stress higher.

The way I read it is:

• Decide on amount of power you want to use
• See if that power costs you 1 stress (if below or equal to Conviction+Power bonuses) or more (if above Conviction+Power bonuses)
• Attempt to control all of it

So really your example skips a step in the beginning. If you "need a FAIR roll to control the power of my spell" you have already decided on drawing only 2 shifts of power for the spell.
If you instead look at "How much power can I draw for only 1 Mental Stress" you'll add your Conviction+Power bonus and then ask yourself "Do I want to try to control this much, or do I want to set the spell lower to be safer?"

[Troy]

You always count based on the sum of skill+dice+modifiers (like invocations), so I suppose that would be "before" in your description. The only thing a Power bonus does is give you higher effective Conviction, it sets the amount of power you can use without taking extra stress higher.

I can understand that, but Invoking an Aspect can be done after the fact. I roll Fair, I want better, I Invoke an Aspect. My roll becomes Great.

Bonuses for Thaumaturgy and Evocation do not work this way, then?

[Cadd]

I'm saying it doesn't matter when you add something, as the Power part is a done deal before any dice hit the table.

You decide on a power amount, and calculate how much stress that will cost. The Power you draw can be absolutely any number you want. If however it exceeds your Conviction + Power (+ invokes, it's not 100% clear if the rules allow invoking aspects here, but I think most allow) it costs more than the single mental stress.

After that is complete, and you have decided how much power you draw (whether or not that exceeds your "almost effortless" limit), then you try to control that amount of power.


You have to look at the spellcasting as two separate "rolls", even though you only actually roll dice for one of them. First you set the power, then you control it. Once you move to trying to control the power, the amount is set and won't change.

Evocation example:
I have Good Conviction, Fair Discipline, a Power bonus of +3 and a Control bonus of +2.
I decide to draw 7 shifts of power. This exceeds my Conviction (3) + Power bonus (3) by 1, so it will cost 2 Mental stress.
Then I have to control the 7 shifts. My Discipline (2) + Control bonus (2) adds up to 4. I still need 3 more from the dice and invokes, so I'd better have a few FP saved up.

For thaumaturgy, the only real difference is that the stress cost is one lower, since you don't pay anything up to you "effortless" level.

Does that clear it up?