Thaumaturgy: My brain hurts

[FishStampede]

I finally managed to get how Evocation and focus items work explained to my players. I think we're at last on the same page with that one.

So then, I was going to give examples on how to build a couple thaumaturgy rituals...
one thaumaturgy ritual...
okay, this is how you pull off one of the rituals in the book...
I need a freaking drink!

Now, with my neurons having received proper ethanol-based coolant, I now need to actually figure out how to do a spell. Any spell!

Okay, for simplicity's sake, I'm going to make a summoning/binding spell. My main villain has the chops to pull off some pretty dire summoning, but I need to know how it is actually done. The villain's main minions are pretty weak mookish Cherokee demons called Raven Mockers, and sometimes there's even large numbers of them.

stats for them can be found here, at the bottom: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,33139.0.html

Not overly impressive except in ambush. How would you go about summoning and binding them? Can you walk me through a step by step on how someone would summon them?

[Rougarou]

Summoning is a two step process, three if you add binding.

The first step is to create a container to hold what is being summoned. This is a ward which functions to hold things in, not out. As such the shifts required depend on the block strength and the duration. Your Raven Mockers have Average Fists so I would say six shifts would be enough to hold them for a scene (Fists 1 + 4 for best possible roll +1 equals target block strength) add more shifts for longer containment duration.

The next step is summoning and requires the caster to beat the targets Conviction. The Raven Mockers have Mediocre Conviction so 5 shifts should ensure success here (0 + 4 + 1).

That gives a total of 11 shifts to summon and contain one for one scene with 100% success rate. At that point the caster can bargain with the target to convince it to do his will, or he can bind it and make it his slave. Binding requires another spell with enough shifts to mentally take out the target. In this case two for a mild, four for a mental, six for a severe, 5 to beat their best possible Discipline roll to defend, and three to go beyond their mental stress track. That's a total of 20 to permanently bind the Raven Mocker to the caster's will.

[FishStampede]

Okay. That actually is more simple than I thought. So, the villain can break it up into 3 different spells, with the highest complexity being 9? That's easy enough to swing for a dedicated summoner. Man, if it's that easy, my summoner should seriously be looking for higher quality help. 

Edit: D'oh! Misread the last part. That 20 is the real kicker. Finding ways to boost your complexity up to 20 would be an undertaking, to be sure...but probably doable on a mass scale if you are simply summoning multiple generic demons.

Also, just to make sure I'm reading it right, if you don't put more juice than your Conviction in, you can do it without taking mental stress? That makes summoning and binding really easy, and basically limited only by free time if you want to summon en masse. Good thing my villain has a day job. Oh, how long does each casting roll take?

This summoning breakdown is really useful, thanks. I think I will just straight up forward it to my player who is an ectomancer.

[Sanctaphrax]

(Those numbers are slightly off. Raven Mockers actually have Fair Fists and Average Conviction. So add one to those complexities.)

For what it's worth, I don't like that method of handling summoning. I honestly think it's worse than just having the GM make up a complexity number.

Because it's really exploitable, even by accident. Look at your Raven Mockers. Look at the complexity to summon them. Now pretend that your Raven Mockers have no Powers and no skills except Conviction and Fists. And then look at the cost to summon them.

It's the same. You're getting a vastly inferior creature for the exact same cost.

Plus the control scaling is bad. Controlling a Raven Mocker takes 21 shifts. Controlling a Living Sun takes 27. A 2/7 increase, for a being vastly stronger.

As you might expect, given all this whining, I use a different system.

Also, just to make sure I'm reading it right, if you don't put more juice than your Conviction in, you can do it without taking mental stress?

Yes.

That makes summoning and binding really easy, and basically limited only by free time if you want to summon en masse. Good thing my villain has a day job.

No comment.

Oh, how long does each casting roll take?

The rules do not address this issue.

[crusher_bob]

Thaumaturgy rule discussions come up frequently here's the most recent one, with some rule ideas.

[GryMor]

Drawing up power is an action taking an exchange. The practical duration should be somewhere on the order of 10 seconds to a minute. Some of the aspects of a ritual will tend to make each exchange take longer if they require acts as part of the ritual rather than merely as preparation.

From a recent session, we had a Thaumaturgist with two other practitioners helping him power it throw together an unweaving of a Denarian's ward in 3 exchanges with a total time of under a minute (Lore assesments analyzing the ward under sight, Resource assesment for coiled precious metal circle, Demon's Blood Talisman, some fate points into high concepts and 'Crazy Prepared' and 12 shifts of power per exchange). Tracking spells of similar strength have taken upwards of an hour to case due to ritual components involving chanting, intricate mandalas of ruby dust and dowsing with a ruby amulet on a map of Bremerton.

[Rougarou]

Okay. That actually is more simple than I thought. So, the villain can break it up into 3 different spells, with the highest complexity being 9? That's easy enough to swing for a dedicated summoner. Man, if it's that easy, my summoner should seriously be looking for higher quality help. 

Edit: D'oh! Misread the last part. That 20 is the real kicker. Finding ways to boost your complexity up to 20 would be an undertaking, to be sure...but probably doable on a mass scale if you are simply summoning multiple generic demons.

Also, just to make sure I'm reading it right, if you don't put more juice than your Conviction in, you can do it without taking mental stress? That makes summoning and binding really easy, and basically limited only by free time if you want to summon en masse. Good thing my villain has a day job. Oh, how long does each casting roll take?

This summoning breakdown is really useful, thanks. I think I will just straight up forward it to my player who is an ectomancer.

As Sanctaphrax pointed out, my number for the containment and summoning was off by two, it should be 13. Also, want to point out that those two must be accomplished together. Only the binding can be broken off as a separate spell.

And Sanctaphrax makes a decent point about summoning not depending on powers, but these are the rules as written. It's trivially easy to change this as GM by simply giving more powerful creatures higher conviction scores. If for some reason, you want a low conviction on something you want to be difficult to summon, give it an appropriate stunt or power to resist summoning. I'm not saying that Sanctaphrax has a bad custom method (I haven't read it, but he usually has fairly good ideas), but if you make custom rules about too many things, you can wind up losing your way.

Also, while I'm thinking about it. If your Raven Mockers would normally be Taken Out without taking mire than a moderate (like mooks tend to be), subtract six from the difficulty. Similarly, really powerful creatures might take an extreme, so add eight to theirs. 

[FishStampede]

Good point on mook rules. The Raven Mockers have already gotten a nickname of Raven Mookers, when they aren't called Raven Knockers due to the fact they're naked and sometimes female (you'd be surprised at the boob jokes a half female group will still make). They're pretty weak willed and even the original myths point out how easily they can be killed or controlled by more powerful witches (all supernatural baddies were called witches by the Cherokee), so it'd make sense to get a "discount" when dominating them. Of course, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I hope my PCs will be clever enough to realize how easy it is to control them and try to turn that against my villain.

The book actually does say that the first two steps can be done separate, and even recommends it on page 272.

I'll keep the alternate rules in mind for when/if my players start to abuse thaumaturgy, but they're really new right now and having more trouble than I am grasping the rules. Throwing in house rules is all well and good for experienced groups, but it's best for beginners if we're all (literally) on the same page.

Edit: I'm working on a few other spells for my villain. I have to spoiler this part:

(click to show/hide)

I need to know if it's possible to establish an alternate means of sympathetic connection. Harry knows about true names and things like hair clippings, but my guy's paradigm uses traditional hoodoo which also includes laying down tricks. There's different ways to do this in hoodoo, such as taking a pinch of dirt they left their footprint in. If this is possible, it's potentially really dangerous and broken. Then again, in modern times how often do we step in dirt that could leave a good enough footprint?

Alternately, you can do standard sympathetic magic backwards by making a ritual focus with a bit of you in it-such as fingernail clippings or pubic hair (ew)-then either secreting it about their person or tricking them into taking it (good trap for thieves). Obviously, this one is more risky since a wizard who survives your trick is likely to find the fingernail clippings and turn it around on you, but it's a method that most may not ever see coming.

Do you think either of these could provide the required sympathetic connection for a spell?

[UmbraLux]

(click to show/hide)

I need to know if it's possible to establish an alternate means of sympathetic connection. Harry knows about true names and things like hair clippings, but my guy's paradigm uses traditional hoodoo which also includes laying down tricks. There's different ways to do this in hoodoo, such as taking a pinch of dirt they left their footprint in. If this is possible, it's potentially really dangerous and broken. Then again, in modern times how often do we step in dirt that could leave a good enough footprint?

You need a symbolic link to the target.  I think most of use interpret that to require a direct link rather than indirect - the book's examples are certainly direct links.  I'd keep that requirement, allowing indirect links creates a lot of potential issues.

(click to show/hide)

Alternately, you can do standard sympathetic magic backwards by making a ritual focus with a bit of you in it-such as fingernail clippings or pubic hair (ew)-then either secreting it about their person or tricking them into taking it (good trap for thieves). Obviously, this one is more risky since a wizard who survives your trick is likely to find the fingernail clippings and turn it around on you, but it's a method that most may not ever see coming.

You're linking "from the symbol to the reality" not the other way around.  Using a piece of yourself would end with you as the target.  You could use a small piece of something else to target the whole.  Threads from a shirt to target the shirt, rubber from a tire to target the tire, etc.  However, in this case your target is the shirt/tire/whatever not the individual.  Destroying someones shirt isn't likely to be more than embarrassing.  A tire may be worthwhile if you can time it while the individual is at freeway speeds.

Bottom line - symbolic links are one of only two limitations on thaumaturgy.  Often they're the greater limitation.  I recommend against making them less of a limitation...unless you want the game to consist of 'who can cast the first big spell'. 

[GryMor]

Threads from a shirt to target the shirt, rubber from a tire to target the tire, etc.  However, in this case your target is the shirt/tire/whatever not the individual.  Destroying someones shirt isn't likely to be more than embarrassing.  A tire may be worthwhile if you can time it while the individual is at freeway speeds.

Both are useful for tracking until they change shirts/cars, and may be more useful if you are trying to find their home/hideout. If you are up for violating the first law, transforming someones shirt into something dangerous may be a good way to do it given a few strands of their shirt, congratulations, you are now wearing Chlorine trifluoride! _{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine_trifluoride/} (zone attack at the shirt's location)

[FishStampede]

(click to show/hide)

All good points and I see why you might not want to do this from a games-perspective. From a story perspective, it's some nice new toolkits to use and be really unexpected.

The more I think about it, the less "broken" it seems, because of the inherent limitations to these methods. For instance, for the footpath magic you need to have dirt that would maintain a footprint. You also have to be close enough behind the target to take a sample before someone else treads on it, and you have to be absolutely sure it's them. Take a footpath link after Harry's battle at wrigley field, and you could accidentally kill Matt Garza. I see this method as simply too impractical to be of any use in your average city, but out in the country or if you really go through a lot of trouble to set it up, maybe.

As for the "hiding a spell target on someone" method, I actually don't see how that is much worse than the classic "haircut mugging" method. Plus, you're handing your enemies a loaded gun with your name on it. This method I see as not being popular simply because it is so risky. You'd better make the first shot count, or it's coming right back at you.

As for issues with paradigm...the books aren't 100% accurate because they are rife with Harry's own biases and assumptions. He knows how to do it, and doesn't consider there could be another way because those ways were never taught to him or were simply impractical. Using an indirect link may be possible, just like using a mother's blood to find her daughter.

By the same token, sending the spell from the whole to the part seems to me like just an inversion of the standard method of sending it from the part to the whole. You're not targeting yourself, you're targeting part of you at another location. Actually, it may make sense to restrict this to only certain types of spells. Obviously, transforming or mind-controlling someone because they have your fingernail clippings might not work. On the other hand, a targeted summoning at their location may work just fine (like the scorpion).

Both also have a foundation in traditional magical practices, so it's not just munchkinry but trying to model real occult beliefs. That being said, I do see your points on how this may expand things too much and allow for rampant abuse if it isn't just something unique and tricky.

[UmbraLux]

@ GryMor:  I agree, you can find ways to use object nearby.  Don't give too many ideas to the mad thaumaturgist in my group though! 

All good points and I see why you might not want to do this from a games-perspective. From a story perspective, it's some nice new toolkits to use and be really unexpected.

Eh, it changes the story significantly...just like any other change to a core mechanic would.

As for how broken it is or whether or not it may be "munchkinry" as you put it, we'll have to continue disagreeing.  Bottom line for me is one question - "What will this do to the game when used by both PCs and NPCs?"  Playing a game of nuclear tag isn't what I'm looking for. 

[FishStampede]

(click to show/hide)

If used by the PCs....mainly I really don't see how it makes it much easier than the standard methods of getting a connection. A haircut mugging is simple but effective. The footpath method is too hard to actually get to work in a modern city, and could be prone to rapid decay due to wind, rain, or other people walking by if you don't collect the sample immediately.

The spell target method is absurdly high risk, and can be foiled by the target simply dropping it or changing clothes. They don't even have to do this on purpose. There's also precedent, since aside from the scorpion, Harry used a bit of his own hair attached to a fake Sword in order to track down the person who stole it in The Warrior. It worked pretty well, though the guy ditched the sword.

Besides, if my players continue their current record with investigations and trusting the villain, I'm afraid handing them a bag full of his clippings is just about the only way they'll figure it out. If they survive the bees. (My god.)

[UmbraLux]

(click to show/hide)

If used by the PCs....mainly I really don't see how it makes it much easier than the standard methods of getting a connection. A haircut mugging is simple but effective.

Mechanically it's not as easy as you might think.  More importantly, the character knows he's on a clock and will start trying to do something about it.

(click to show/hide)

The footpath method is too hard to actually get to work in a modern city, and could be prone to rapid decay due to wind, rain, or other people walking by if you don't collect the sample immediately.

And yet cops use it commonly...I think you overestimate the difficulties.  Besides if the footprint of a shoe works wouldn't a fingerprint be even better?  You'd have to live in a glass ball to be safe...and even that would have limitations.

(click to show/hide)

The spell target method is absurdly high risk, and can be foiled by the target simply dropping it or changing clothes. They don't even have to do this on purpose. There's also precedent, since aside from the scorpion, Harry used a bit of his own hair attached to a fake Sword in order to track down the person who stole it in The Warrior. It worked pretty well, though the guy ditched the sword.

Don't remember the example, but it doesn't sound anything like using a footprint.  As for targeting items, yes it's high risk as you put it.  That's a good thing - items are too easy to get hold of unaware.  Or simply give away. 

Shrug...not going to try any harder to convince you. 

[FishStampede]

I'll just unspoil and hope half the thread being unreadable will dissuade my players. You actually convinced me on the footprint issue. The fingerprint thing nailed it for me. Congrats, you won an argument on the internet.