Demonic Co-Pilot - Too Cumbersome?

[EldritchFire]

Last week or so, I statted up a template for my next DFRPG character. You can find it here.

Anyway, from the source material, many different versions could have Demonic Co-Pilot. However, it seems to be a really "bean counting" power. Every time you use the +1, you have to roll to avoid stress? That seems like too much work! Why oppose every roll you make?

Do y'all think it'd be alright to change it to a Consequential Contest instead (YS193)? For those AFB, it's one roll that instead of inflicting Stress, it goes straight to the consequences. You have to absorb the shifts by your consequences. So for DCP, you'd roll once at the end of the conflict you used it in, vs the highest skill used (with the +1 bonus, of course). If you succeed, you resist the influence of the co-pilot. If you fail, it deals mental damage in the form of consequences.

This does a few things that I think are good:

• Reduces the number of rolls
• Makes using it an all-or-nothing choice (in for a penny, in for a pound)
• Gives lasting...uhh....consequences with dealing with the devil

I don't know, I guess I just find it "off" to be rolling twice for one action--once for the action, once against your own action. Does this sound like a good houserule?

Thanks in advance!

-EF

[Taran]

That's not how I saw demonic co-pilot.  I just run it that the player ALWAYS get's a +1 if what they are doing is in keeping with the agenda of the demon.

The only time you make opposed rolls is when the Demon wants you to do something that a character would not want to do: 

Like if the Demon wants the character to kill his mother, that would be opposed mental combat.

[EldritchFire]

That's not how I saw demonic co-pilot.  I just run it that the player ALWAYS get's a +1 if what they are doing is in keeping with the agenda of the demon.

The only time you make opposed rolls is when the Demon wants you to do something that a character would not want to do: 

Like if the Demon wants the character to kill his mother, that would be opposed mental combat.

The rules for Demonic Co-Pilot say that:

" When [gaining the +1 bonus], you must roll Discipline against the result, as if you were defending against an attack. Failure...results in mental stress..." (YS175).

So anytime you roll with the bonus, you have to defend against your own roll. At least, that's how I'm reading it.

-EF

[InFerrumVeritas]

That's not how I saw demonic co-pilot.  I just run it that the player ALWAYS get's a +1 if what they are doing is in keeping with the agenda of the demon.

The only time you make opposed rolls is when the Demon wants you to do something that a character would not want to do: 

Like if the Demon wants the character to kill his mother, that would be opposed mental combat.

EF's reading is RAW.  Disc vs. mental stress whenever you use the +1.  I don't find it cumbersome, but EF's houserule seems like it could be a good idea.

I'd say that the severity of the consequence would depend on the number of times the power was used.  1-2 times, mild.  3-4, moderate.  5-6, severe.  7-8, extreme.  After 8, repeat (so 10 times would be an extreme consequence AND a mild one).  

[Bruce Coulson]

I'm using a modified form of Demonic Co-pilot to create zombies who don't require a drumbeat to remain in motion, and have a little more intelligence (they can be given some basic orders; 'kill anyone except x,y, or z who enters', 'when you hear the tone, move out and kill everything living', that sort of thing).  It makes the catch 'Holy Stuff' for Toughness.  (It also makes the zombies more eager to kill things; these aren't the kind of zombies you use to take people alive...)

The necromancer who managed this modification is hoping to attract the attention of the surviving Kemmlerites and become a member.

[Becq]

I agree that you're reading the rules correctly.  As to your houserule, obviously you have every right to use house rules at your table.  I wonder, though, if it might make the downside too weak?  After all, a single roll might make it too easy to spend a bit of Fate on to ensure that the consequence is either nil, or perhaps no more than a minor.

As an alternative, if you want to simply reduce the number of bouncing dice, you might consider using a system a bit like that used in Evocation: one die roll used for two checks.  For the case of Demonic Co-pilot, the character would make their bonused roll as normal, resolving their action.  Then, instead of making a second roll, simply compare the first roll against their Discipline, and mark off stress as though the roll was an attack and their Discipline was the defense.  This works because of the nature of the Fudge dice; basically you'd just be assuming an average roll on the Discipline check (+0).  If the character has an aspect that wouldhave been appropriate if he'd actually rolled his defense, let him invoke it to increase his Discipline 'roll' for purposes of this check.

[EldritchFire]

I agree that you're reading the rules correctly.  As to your houserule, obviously you have every right to use house rules at your table.  I wonder, though, if it might make the downside too weak?  After all, a single roll might make it too easy to spend a bit of Fate on to ensure that the consequence is either nil, or perhaps no more than a minor.

As an alternative, if you want to simply reduce the number of bouncing dice, you might consider using a system a bit like that used in Evocation: one die roll used for two checks.  For the case of Demonic Co-pilot, the character would make their bonused roll as normal, resolving their action.  Then, instead of making a second roll, simply compare the first roll against their Discipline, and mark off stress as though the roll was an attack and their Discipline was the defense.  This works because of the nature of the Fudge dice; basically you'd just be assuming an average roll on the Discipline check (+0).  If the character has an aspect that wouldhave been appropriate if he'd actually rolled his defense, let him invoke it to increase his Discipline 'roll' for purposes of this check.

I had thought of that as an option, but isn't that really the same thing? You have the option to spend Fate Points to reduce/remove the consequence?

-EF

[Taran]

That's not how I saw demonic co-pilot.  I just run it that the player ALWAYS get's a +1 if what they are doing is in keeping with the agenda of the demon.

The only time you make opposed rolls is when the Demon wants you to do something that a character would not want to do: 

Like if the Demon wants the character to kill his mother, that would be opposed mental combat.

You're right.  I was wrong.  I re-re-read the Power. 

[MijRai]

I figure that is the part of the power. The things with Demonic Co-Pilot in the books don't usually care if they lose it. They don't bother with discipline, take the stress, and instead of using a consequence they get 'taken out,' letting the Co-Pilot take over.

[Becq]

I had thought of that as an option, but isn't that really the same thing? You have the option to spend Fate Points to reduce/remove the consequence?

In a way, yes.  But it's much easier to manipulate a single roll by spending Fate than it is to do so with the number of rolls that, say, a hexenwolf would have to deal with over the source of a typical combat.  As an example, consider Agent Deborah Benn (OW111).  Boosted attacks at Superb +5 and defense at Great +4, and both qualify for the co-pilot stress.  Discipline is Average +1.  On average, this character will take a 3-stress from attacking and a 2-stress from defending each exchange.  She has 2 mental boxes.  She *will* be taking consequences -- and not just minor ones -- in no time flat, even assuming one of her unrevealed aspects gives her an appropriate channel for spending Fate to resist the stress.

Taken as a single hit that bypasses stress boxes, that looks like a moderate consequence that could easily become a minor with a Fate and an appropriate aspect.

Now, if you argued that Demonic Co-pilot as is is unreasonable, and your change balances it, I might be inclined to agree (now that I've done the math, it seems that your best bet in fighting them is to go with a full dodge and wait until they take themselves out).  But as a straight roll reduction mechanic, I don't think so.

For players, I'd probably consider replacing the stress mechanic with debt (per Sponsored Magic).  One debt per boosted roll seems too high, and one per scene seems too low.  Perhaps count the number of exchanges in which the bonus was used, subtract Discipline from the total, minimum 1?

[Sanctaphrax]

Not a big fan of Demonic Co-Pilot. Its design encourages you to use it to boost your lowest skills rather than you're highest ones, which somehow seems wrong to me. Maybe each use incurs an attack with a rating equal to the number of times you've used it this scene. So the first use is harmless, but the eighth will mess you up.

By the way, I really like MijRai's take on this. I feel kinda dumb for not having thought of it myself.

[Magus Black]

Wanted to hear others thoughts on this: Would you considered it legal for a character with Demonic Co-pilot to have a Mortal or Supernatural Stunt that gives them a bonus to Discipline rolls for the D.C.P's effects?

Something like:

Master of My Own Demon (Discipline)
Prerequisite: Demonic Co-Pilot
Benefit: A character with this stunt that uses the +1 bonus from Demonic Co-pilot gains a +3 to Discipline rolls to resist mental damage.

[Sanctaphrax]

I would definitely allow such a stunt.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that I've posted characters with a similar stunt to this forum before.

I'd probably limit the bonus to +2, though.

[Magus Black]

Well techniqually its a 'very focused' skill use, which is +3; +4 if it only works on one Demonic Co-Poilot. Say for instance you have one (un)naturally and pick up an object (or major Curse) with the Demonic Co-pilot Supernatural Stunt. The "Master of My Own Demon" Stunt will only provide a bonus against the one you have normally, and are on your own for any others.

A +2 I'd say would be if it applies to any and all Demonic Co-Pilots you encounter (which may be the better buy in the long run).

[Becq]

You should consider the frequency of use when determining a stunt.  This would end up being an extremely frequently used bonus, therefore the bonus should be lower; at most +2.  Given that it would likely be used as often as a combat stunt or more, I'd consider arguing for a +1 bonus, with an additional benefit added in ... perhaps a once per scene ability to spend Fate for an additional +3 bonus on a roll the co-pilot assists on?