I've noticed that some premade digital GM screens I've used say that consequences give you -2, -4 and -6 to your attack value, but can't seem to find this in the core book.

Is this just something I'm misunderstanding, or does it mean that if you, for example, get a mild consequences of "dazed", does your attack value get a -2 on it? As in you attack with Fight +3, but you get a -2 on top of that because of the consequence?


2 Answers 2


Consequences do not give an ongoing minus to a person's attack value.

The GM screen you're reading is probably alluding to the rules for resolving attacks in a conflict — specifically the part where if someone lands an attack on you, you can "reduce the shift value of the attack" (as the rules put it) by taking a consequence, e.g. your medium consequence (-4) and your first stress box (-1) to absorb an attack worth +5 shifts of harm and avoid getting taken out.

Having that consequence provides no ongoing direct penalty to your actions (or attacks). It's available to be compelled or invoked against you, and the person who gave you the consequence in a conflict gets their free invocation for a one-off +2 bonus or reroll, but there's no inherent ongoing effect other than whatever the consequence aspect says being always true.


No. As you found when you went to the Fate Core book, consequences which you have taken do not give you a minus to your subsequent attacks.

In fact, there is nothing at all in Fate Core which has a mechanical effect like that. Modifiers are always positive. Negative modifiers are avoided and not recommended by the Fate Core designers.

The designers have stated this intention many times in various blog, social media and forum posts, but I think this one captures the spirit very well, while showing how the math is the same when it's mechanically treated as someone else's advantage versus your disadvantage: http://www.evilhat.com/home/consequences-as-positive-currency/

  • \$\begingroup\$ The designers didn't call negative modifiers "mean" as a general aspersion; they just suggested specifically bottoming the skill pyramid out in the negatives would be mean. (It means all untrained skills would be attempted at -1.) I've removed that interpretation since it doesn't accurately reflect what the designers said. If you think they still feel the way you said, I'd recommend finding a superior quote to point to. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 0:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ I felt like the "mean" comment in FST is congruent with the pattern of attitude expressed more explicitly elsewhere. I'll stick with the one remaining citation. \$\endgroup\$
    – Beanluc
    Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 0:52
  • \$\begingroup\$ Perhaps that reference I removed would be best presented as an example of their dislike? (I just found suggesting that spot is an aspersion on all negative values to be misrepresentative, but it could well be an example of the broader phenomenon of disliking negatives.) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Jan 24, 2017 at 1:29

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .