Conjuration Question

[computerking]

Ok, aside from the book's assertion that if you want a sword, "Go out and buy one, already", I am considering a character making an enchanted item that conjures a sword. The character's Lore is Superb, so at a base level, he can make a 5-point EI. The book mentions being able to make "typical handheld weapons" with a 3 complexity, and that if left alone, the sword will disappear at sunrise. If a character wanted to conjure a sword (3 Complexity), didn't care if it looked ephemeral/unreal(0 complexity towards believability), but wants the sword to have a Weapon rating of 3 instead of 2 (making it, perhaps as sharp as a Warden sword?) would the total complexity be 5 (assuming +2 complexity for the damage upgrade)?

Or would it be more fitting to have the summoned sword have the aspect Unnaturally Sharp, for a total of complexity 6 (assuming +3 for addng the Sticky Aspect)?

In response to Billy the Werewolf's suggestion to just go buy a sword, I ask why buy a sword when you can have one whenever you need one wthout having to hide it in a trenchcoat all the time or worry about it getting confiscated?

[devonapple]

In response to Billy the Werewolf's suggestion to just go buy a sword, I ask why buy a sword when you can have one whenever you need one wthout having to hide it in a trenchcoat all the time or worry about it getting confiscated?

Mental Stress, ultimately. There is a general belief that most spellcasters can belt out 4 spells in a given conflict, with more options with Consequences. Taking one of those away to have a melee weapon can be useful if getting that melee weapon to the location was going to otherwise be impossible, obviously, but otherwise, better to have that "slot" free to devote to something else.

[Sanctaphrax]

5 sounds about right.

I don't think I'd let the process go much further, though. You aren't getting a weapon 5 sword for 9 complexity.

As far as I know, there are no specific rules for this.

[Haru]

I don't think there should be much of a difference between summoning a weapon:2 or a weapon:3 sword. I would however stick to the books recommendation and make a weapon:3 sword be 2 handed. If you want the sword to be more deadly, an additional aspect should be the way to go. And of course, a spell like that should be thaumaturgy, but since you are binding it into an enchanted item, that point is moot.

I think Billy's suggestion has more to do with the fact, that any half decent spell-slinger should be able to counterspell it, and fighting with a handful of goo is kind of silly.

[computerking]

Mental Stress, ultimately. There is a general belief that most spellcasters can belt out 4 spells in a given conflict, with more options with Consequences. Taking one of those away to have a melee weapon can be useful if getting that melee weapon to the location was going to otherwise be impossible, obviously, but otherwise, better to have that "slot" free to devote to something else.

That's why I was going for the Enchanted Item that summons, so instead of a fast cast thaumaturgy spell my Item can summon it for me. Unless.... Um, guys, if an enchanted Item casts a spell with a Complexity/Power level over your Conviction, does the user take Mentas stress still?

5 sounds about right.

I don't think I'd let the process go much further, though. You aren't getting a weapon 5 sword for 9 complexity.

As far as I know, there are no specific rules for this.

Nah, I wasn't considering anything that silly. And what do you think of Haru's restriction?

I don't think there should be much of a difference between summoning a weapon:2 or a weapon:3 sword. I would however stick to the books recommendation and make a weapon:3 sword be 2 handed. If you want the sword to be more deadly, an additional aspect should be the way to go. And of course, a spell like that should be thaumaturgy, but since you are binding it into an enchanted item, that point is moot.

I think Billy's suggestion has more to do with the fact, that any half decent spell-slinger should be able to counterspell it, and fighting with a handful of goo is kind of silly.

I was mainly thinking of stealth in a fight, and avoiding Lawbreaking. Veil, sneak up on Baddie, Pop sword, Stick pointy end in Baddie. That sort of thing.

[Sanctaphrax]

About taking mental stress if item is too strong: No, you don't.

About Haru's restriction: I probably wouldn't enforce it myself, but it does seem sensible.

[Discipol]

Perhaps "believable" would also mean real. Perhaps an unreal sword wouldn't make any damage, or would pass through matter without affecting it.

[Haru]

I was mainly thinking of stealth in a fight, and avoiding Lawbreaking. Veil, sneak up on Baddie, Pop sword, Stick pointy end in Baddie. That sort of thing.

You are still using magic to kill. Indirect, sure, but you are summoning the sword for exactly one purpose, which makes it dangerously close to breaking the law.

If summoning the sword is a major part of your character concept, there is another way to go:
take Claws with Human Form and rephrase claws, so it is a conjured sword instead of actual claws. No casting stress, no enchanted items, just a 1 refresh power, and you can use it as often as you like. From the narrative point of view, it would just be an upgraded enchanted item.

[zenten]

Saying this is close to breaking the 1st Law is like saying any Warden carrying a Warden's sword is close to breaking the 1st Law.

[polkaneverdies]

No its not. A warden sword is a sword with some fancy counterspelling built in. It is the sharp metal that does the killing. What the op is talking about would be goo held together by magic doing the killing. I would avoid killing humans with that if I were you.

I believe the comment about avoiding lawbreaking was referring to mortal laws about carrying around swords.

[Haru]

Jepp, polka pretty much said it already. A bit further: Carrying a sword is a mundane choice leading to a mundane killing. Summoning a magic sword for the purpose of killing is the same as doing the killing directly with magic. Even holding someone with a spell to kill them can be enough to warrant a lawbreaker. It all boils down to one thing: using magic with the intent of killing someone.

That does not mean you get a lawbreaker, if you catch a guy in a block and your buddy empties his clip into him. If you planned on your buddy to do so, the block becomes a lawbreaker. Intent is the important part, and in this case that is obviously given.

[zenten]

Jepp, polka pretty much said it already. A bit further: Carrying a sword is a mundane choice leading to a mundane killing. Summoning a magic sword for the purpose of killing is the same as doing the killing directly with magic. Even holding someone with a spell to kill them can be enough to warrant a lawbreaker. It all boils down to one thing: using magic with the intent of killing someone.

That does not mean you get a lawbreaker, if you catch a guy in a block and your buddy empties his clip into him. If you planned on your buddy to do so, the block becomes a lawbreaker. Intent is the important part, and in this case that is obviously given.

OK, this is dragging into lawtalk which derails too many threads, but I just want to say that I disagree with you completely here.  At the very least both the RPG and the novels are vague on these points.  But if we want to debate this further we should probably do so in a new thread.

[Richard_Chilton]

An enchanted item can cast a thaumatury spell and that can include a conjuration spell.  Personally, I like the item of a sword hilt that conjures the blade, but that's just me.

Duration is something to think about.  I could be wrong but I think the basic duration is 15 minutes or half an hour - so you might want to add to a step to duration if you want it to last long.  Then again, that might defeat the purpose of a "now you see it, now you don't" sword.

Steps devoted to quality usually makes it a 'better' fake.  For example, if you conjure a $20 bill then you'd probably want it to be Good (or even Great) quality to fool cashiers.  But if you conjure an Epic $20 bill it's still just a $20 (not a $50 or $100) - which is a long way of saying that if you want a weapon 3 sword you should conjure a two handed sword.

As for Lawbreaking, I'd say no.  Lawbreaking is making the decision (even an unconscious one) to bring about death.  In this case the spell ends when the sword appears and after that you make decisions about what do with it.  If hexenbelts involved lawbreaking or if the Alphas were all lawbreakers then I would call killing with a conjured sword lawbreaking, but neither of those things cause lawbreaking.  Opening yourself up to an evil power that will turn you into a werewolf so you can kill "people who deserve killing" - if that doesn't result in the lawbreaker stunt then using a conjured object wouldn't.

Richard

[polkaneverdies]

As always in law talk I would point out the distinction between having your head chopped off for "lawbreaking" and magic warping your brain for "lawbreaking".

Harry thought Denton and company framed the lycanthropes for the cops and MacFinn for the white council. If there was no issue "law" issue with the belts why did Harry think they needed a whitecouncil fall guy? Have the Alphas killed any humans? I can't recall any but I might be spacing out.

Edited to say I will cease and desist law talk to prevent further derailing. Just Talk to your gm so you know if killing with a conjured sword will be an issue.

[Richard_Chilton]

Harry thought Denton and company framed the lycanthropes for the cops and MacFinn for the white council. If there was no issue "law" issue with the belts why did Harry think they needed a whitecouncil fall guy? Have the Alphas killed any humans? I can't recall any but I might be spacing out.

The White Council views itself as the protectors of humanity.  When a monster is out of control they will respond as best they can (even if all they can do is to contact another accords signatory and say "rein him in").  Of course the White Council doesn't have the ability to monitor the entire world and if word isn't getting out (say if the local police and FBI agents are hushing things up) then they don't know there's a problem.  Even when they know they don't have an unlimited supply of wardens.

But if someone of national (or international) importance (say some like Marcone) is killed by something mystic the White Council would eventually look into it.  When they did they would discover that Marcone was the enemy of a Loup de Gau (not sure of the spelling) and taken action against McFinn.  Why would they investigate more than that? Mobster was ripped to pieces, McFinn rips people to people like that, McFinn hates mobster, why bother investigating?

Imagine the police are called to a shooting and they find three people down and it looks as if the shooter killed himself.  They'll call out CSI but unless there's something majorly wrong with the evidence the cops will view it as an open and shut case.   I suspect the Wardens would operate the same way - "ripped to pieces by a werewolf, there wolf, take down the wolf... shit, did anyone inherit something silver?" would be how Morgan saw it.

Richard