Newbies ask the darnest things

[Quantus]

"Broader" doesnt feel like the right word.  I think it is more that there is Faith magic that people can do, and you dont have to be particularly "special." Charity and Susan bother were able to use Crosses for that sort of glowing protection.  They always have a focus object to do it, but something tells me it's similar to how harry always uses but doesnt technically need circles: one could simply imagine it whole in their mind, but it would be needlessly difficult. 

Then there is Holy items, which possess the same sort of energy, but it's more innate to the object rather than direct from the caster/faithful.  An example of this is Holy Water, which as far as we've seen requires an ordained priest to bless.  Recall that Harry can use his amulet for a Faith Glow, but he needed to go to Father Forthill when he needed several barrels of Holy Water. 

In terms of Catches they are equivalent, but to me the Holy items have a more permanent attribute. 

[PirateJack]

Mechanics wise, I'd allow items of faith to be used as a defence against creatures that have it as their Catch, for a Fate Point.

[djerf]

browsing the site i've found several crafting foci that appear rather large and heavy, such as a lich coffin with +1/+1 or a anvil with the same bonuses, is it the assumption that these foci are used at the time of crafting as opposed to helping one utilize the crafted items? 

I've seen people mention that you can use your crafted items by paying one mental stress, however I haven't been able to find the rules concerning this, neither in any house rules nor YW/OW, could someone please point me in the right direction?

I've got a bunch of other questions but I can't remember them so this will have to do for now, thank you in advance =)

[dragoonbuster]

browsing the site i've found several crafting foci that appear rather large and heavy, such as a lich coffin with +1/+1 or a anvil with the same bonuses, is it the assumption that these foci are used at the time of crafting as opposed to helping one utilize the crafted items? 

Yes - the assumption is they're tools used during the all off-screen crafting process.

I've seen people mention that you can use your crafted items by paying one mental stress, however I haven't been able to find the rules concerning this, neither in any house rules nor YW/OW, could someone please point me in the right direction?

Last sentence of the first paragraph at the top of pg 280 of YS: "If an enchanted item runs out
of uses in a session, if wielded by a practitioner, he may make additional uses anyway by taking one point of mental stress per use."

[solbergb]

Regarding crosses/vampires etc.

This is how I see it.

Their high concept allows Conviction based maneuvers, blocks or even attacks if you've got an implement of your faith (pentacle, cross, star of david, whatever), defended with monster discipline most likely, although perhaps sometimes some other attribute.  You an also just skip the maneuver/block/attack and burn fate to invoke their high concept for immediate effect but that gives them the fate point to hose you with later, so if you're a high conviction fellow like Dresden or Father Fordhill, you'd most likely try the maneuver or block first.

Interpreted this way, the whole "you have to have faith for a cross to work" schtick makes perfect sense - low conviction folks by definition lack the kind of power to block a RCV with a cross the same way low discipline folks are unlikely to avoid being addicted by their venom, and low strength people unable to break their grasp.    But if you burn fate and invoke the high concept, that's saying that in this one moment in time,  you have enough faith to hold them off, even though most of the time a cross is just jewelry to you.   (perhaps for the first time in your life you sincerely pray to a higher power for protection, or whatever, but it doesn't stick with you unless you buy aspects and/or conviction later at milestones)

I agree that some objects seem to "store" faith (holy water being the most obvious example), letting anybody screw with certain high concepts if they have an ally with faith.  If you have a real "True Faith" person in the group, they might, for example, be able to bless the sword of the swashbuckler type, and have it beat holy item based catches, although mechanically it's likely handled by the faith person doing a conviction maneuver with a free tag passed to the swashbuckler, meaning you'll need to burn fate after the first free tag (or tags, depending on how the GM sets up the difficulty for a conviction maneuver of this sort...might work until the scene is over to beat catch, but you can only invoke for +2 or reroll once without fate...)

[djerf]

Thank you    dragoonbuster =)

How do you people handle indirect Lawbreaking, both from a story perspective (do it give Lawbreaker) and from a mechanical viewpoint (how do the Lawbreaker bonus factor in) ?

Examples:
a Summoner ( Ritual summoning -2) Summons a entity with Ritual psycomancy  (or one of the mind control powers), this entity then goes on to break the fourth law.

A artificer ( Ritual crafting -2) creates a weapon that is used  to kill mortals, would it make a difference if he paid to make it useable to another character who then went on to kill mortals?

In my mind it comes down to character concepts, the assassin I'm working on is using Ritual crafting in order to make powerful weaponry and should get lawbreaker first with aspects like " I kill".
On the other hand a holy knight I'm working on took ritual crafting instead a Sword of the Cross in order to be able to use a burning sword and magic shield and stuff, on this guy i don't feel that lawbreaker fits (for comparison I'm sure some KotC, have been forced to kill mortals without having to suffer from a lawbreaker stunt).

[Cadd]

Regarding the holy knight: Ignoring the mechanics of the powers for a moment, is the character a practicioner of magic who uses that magic in his holy fight, or is he a devout person using the magic of faith to empower his items?

Because remember, the laws of magic only apply to mortal magic. Faith magic is a whole other ballgame, story-wise. Of course you could give a character the mechanical power of Ritual (Crafting) to represent his faith imbuing items, but then the items all have to conform to that. If so, I wouldn't bring Laws of Magic into it, but I would also restrict what can be done with it along the same lines as how the Knights, Swords and Angels are restricted.

If however the character is a practitioner who is also devoutly faithful, this is mortal magic, and thus subject to the Laws, but also a lot less "externally" restricted.


Overall, these cases of "indirect lawbreaking" is complicated in the source fiction. Binder can apparently skirt the Laws (presumably both the Council's justice and the soul-staining aspect) by having his "lads" to the dirty work, which clearly involves killing. Likewise the Wardens' swords are heavily enchanted (some of it seemingly permanently as opposed to how they work mechanically in the RPG) yet obviously do not run afoul of the laws when used to kill.

[djerf]

So, a practitioner/holy knight would after killing a bunch of goons take the lawbreaker stunt and change one aspect from " fighting the good fight" to " slaying evil".
In the next room he finds the dragon that has been terrorizing the countryside and a fight ensues.

"Slippery Slope. Gain a +1 bonus to any spellcasting roll whenever using magic in a way which would break the specified Law of Magic."

Now I have paid a solid refresh for the lawbreaker stunt and during my epic fight with the dragon I want to take advantage of this, would my weapon roll get the +1 if I'm using it to swing my burning sword?
Do any attack with my magic weapons trigger the Lawbreaker stunt or only the killing blow?
Do Lawbreaker only trigger against mortals?

[Cadd]

Well... Technically it's not spellcasting (unless it is*, but we'll assume not) so by RAW you wouldn't get the bonus. I am however likely to give some kind of bonus. Possibly not to the attack itself, but instead +1 stress on successful hit.

^{*You can of course narrate an evocation attack as a sword thrust with the right justification, but your example didn't have Channeling/Evocation. You can also have an evocation attack stored in an enchanted item, which would then sort of be a spellcasting roll to activate. In the first case you would definitely get the bonus, and in the second we're back to GM call.}

Now, on it triggering only on mortals or more.
By RAW, it would technically only give the bonus when turned against mortals (since you're not breaking the law against others), but I'd probably be generous here. I find the Lawbreaker power an unsatisfying way of handling what it's supposed to do, but don't really have anything better to suggest, so I'd err on the side of giving the bonus. As you said, you have paid a solid refresh for it.

Assuming 1st Law, I would probably add the bonus to any spellcasting-related roll that is directly attempting to kill, and follow up with compels to be more aggressive and reckless than strictly motivated by the situation.

[Taran]

I go a bit further with Lawbreaker:

If you choose to use the bonus when attacking someone and subsequently Take them Out, you cannot choose how they get taken out.

So, if you're using Lawbreaker 1 bonus, a take out is always death.

But I let them use the bonus against anyone/thing they want.

There may or may not be a compel in there - it depends on the situation but, overall, I leave it up to the player to choose whether or not to use the bonus.

[Cadd]

Oh absolutely! You use the Lawbreaker bonus, takeout is death, practically no negotiation.

[djerf]

Yes, odd things happen when combining crafting and lawbreaker, I obviously don't get better at making magical swords by using one to kill with nor do I get better at sword fighting by killing with a magical sword, but then the only thing I would gain from my 1-2 refresh investment would be the promise of a quick end from the business part of a warden sword. The +1 stress is a good compromise and presents interesting narrative opportunitys.

Anyway, thank you for your opinions on the matter Cadd =)

Taran, your approach towards Lawbreaker feels like it is more in line with the books than the YS way. But I seem to recall that the general attitude is that the player should be able to chose if he kills, unless under special circumstances such as a warning from the GM or compels that he can buy of if he wish to or usage of the Lawbreaker bonus, Right?

I'm sure I've got loads of other questions but I'm drawing blank right now so lets end with, what does RAW stand for ?

[Cadd]

RAW means Rules As Written.

I'd absolutely give the player a choice. Either use the bonus and takeout is death, or don't use it and have the full freedom of dictating takeout result. I may compel you either way, but if I compel to go for the kill, I'll aim to do it early so you can use the bonus as much as possible.
I'd also probably not compel to go for the kill if you're out of fate points and thus can't refuse.

[Taran]

Yeah, it's not RAW.  It's just how I deal with it.

[McNulty]

Do red court vampires sleep during the day? Or at all?