Author Topic: Scale Houserules  (Read 5612 times)

Offline vultur

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #15 on: June 01, 2014, 10:11:51 PM »
I think it really needs to be used with a complexity-from-Declarations cap.

I suggest 3 x your "no-prep" Complexity taking foci and specializations into account.

(e.g. Harry, as statted after Storm Front on page 136 of OW, has Lore 3 and no Complexity foci or specializations, so he could get up to Complexity 9 with Declarations, and would have to take consequences or spend fate points or whatever for more.)

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #16 on: June 02, 2014, 03:32:02 AM »
Just wanted to chime in - as with all codification of rules, I think that this is awesome and pretty damn convenient, but rather susceptible to munchkinism. If possible I'd suggest adding limits on how far you can expand it by taking Powers - RAW, a Submerged character could use Incite Effect on an entire city.

I'm okay with that, actually. If you're gonna be a one-trick pony, it better be a good trick.

And honestly, how often is hitting an entire city gonna be useful?

While it should be possible, for things like the Darkhallow, doing it as a starting character seems off. I'd like to suggest a maximum cap equal to your skill cap - it allows for legendary god-like beings and archmages like Cowl and Kemmler without breaking the setting, and it gives the GM more precise control over how high-powered the game is going to be.

I can see where you're coming from. Personally I'd recommend GMs handle it the same way they handle Mythics...even if Mythic Strength isn't significantly better than 6 Refresh of intelligently-chosen other stuff, it affects the tone of the game.

Also, I understand that spellcasting is powerful, but doubling the cost for the power still seems off to me, especially when the new rules already allow casters to spend complexity (which RAW is practically free, unless you use my houserules) to expand the area of effect.

My thinking was that the Evocation bonus was a situational +2 stress and therefore worth 1 Refresh, while the Thaumaturgy bonus was a bit better than a situational +2 complexity and therefore worth a bit more than 1 Refresh.

(Yes, I know, Refinement for Thaumaturgy complexity is a bad buy. But it is what it is, and honestly complexity shouldn't be as easy as it is.)

What would you think of making the first purchase or the first two purchases cost 2 Refresh, while the ones after that cost 1 each?

Also, I like that stuff like the ritual bloodline curse can now be statted out without GM fiat. Have you tried statting up the Darkhallow?

I like that too. But no, I haven't. Because wiping out the city isn't the goal, it's part of the complexity-building process for the apotheosis effect.

I think it really needs to be used with a complexity-from-Declarations cap.

I suggest 3 x your "no-prep" Complexity taking foci and specializations into account.

(e.g. Harry, as statted after Storm Front on page 136 of OW, has Lore 3 and no Complexity foci or specializations, so he could get up to Complexity 9 with Declarations, and would have to take consequences or spend fate points or whatever for more.)

I'd rather not use a hard cap. I'd prefer a scaling difficulty or a mechanic that makes rituals take a long time when you push their complexity.

But yeah, Thaumaturgy needs more limits than canon gives it.

Offline vultur

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #17 on: June 02, 2014, 03:50:37 AM »
I'd rather not use a hard cap. I'd prefer a scaling difficulty or a mechanic that makes rituals take a long time when you push their complexity.

I can see a scaling difficulty, but just taking more time isn't enough for me, IMO. Somebody like Kravos shouldn't be able to blow up a city just by spending 20 years on it... he needs an actual power source.

And I think the hard cap is a lot simpler than the scaling difficulty, and it doesn't really lock you out of stuff you SHOULD be able to do, IMO... a Feet in the Water Focused Practitioner with just Ritual could have a cap of 18 (Great Lore + 2 for focus... though a +1 Complexity +1 Control focus would be better, for a cap of 15), while someone with a Superb skill cap, Thaumaturgy and a couple of Refinement could have up to 30ish (Superb Lore + 2 specialization +2-4 for focus).

Hmm, that actually looks too high. Maybe it should be (3 x Lore) + specializations and foci, so that Focused Practitioner has a cap of 10 or 11, and that Thaumaturgy guy has a cap of 19-21. Those are still very powerful rituals, and Sells had to do a lot of stuff with extra people and sacrifice an animal to do his death spell.

And it's not really a "hard" cap, you can go a lot higher if you're willing to take consequences or spend fate points (or take sponsor debt: and honestly I'd allow one-time deals for sponsor debt with a big spell).

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #18 on: June 02, 2014, 04:58:24 AM »
I can see a scaling difficulty, but just taking more time isn't enough for me, IMO. Somebody like Kravos shouldn't be able to blow up a city just by spending 20 years on it... he needs an actual power source.

And I think the hard cap is a lot simpler than the scaling difficulty, and it doesn't really lock you out of stuff you SHOULD be able to do, IMO... a Feet in the Water Focused Practitioner with just Ritual could have a cap of 18 (Great Lore + 2 for focus... though a +1 Complexity +1 Control focus would be better, for a cap of 15), while someone with a Superb skill cap, Thaumaturgy and a couple of Refinement could have up to 30ish (Superb Lore + 2 specialization +2-4 for focus).

Hmm, that actually looks too high. Maybe it should be (3 x Lore) + specializations and foci, so that Focused Practitioner has a cap of 10 or 11, and that Thaumaturgy guy has a cap of 19-21. Those are still very powerful rituals, and Sells had to do a lot of stuff with extra people and sacrifice an animal to do his death spell.

And it's not really a "hard" cap, you can go a lot higher if you're willing to take consequences or spend fate points (or take sponsor debt: and honestly I'd allow one-time deals for sponsor debt with a big spell).

I made something like that a while back, actually. Have you seen it?

Offline vultur

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #19 on: June 02, 2014, 05:10:04 AM »
I made something like that a while back, actually. Have you seen it?

Yes, I did. It makes sense, but I still prefer the "cap" idea as simpler.

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #20 on: June 02, 2014, 05:31:34 AM »
To each their own, then. :) I prefer a more comprehensive fix.

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #21 on: June 02, 2014, 06:29:22 AM »
I'm okay with that, actually. If you're gonna be a one-trick pony, it better be a good trick.

And honestly, how often is hitting an entire city gonna be useful?

I can see where you're coming from. Personally I'd recommend GMs handle it the same way they handle Mythics...even if Mythic Strength isn't significantly better than 6 Refresh of intelligently-chosen other stuff, it affects the tone of the game.

Fair enough
My thinking was that the Evocation bonus was a situational +2 stress and therefore worth 1 Refresh, while the Thaumaturgy bonus was a bit better than a situational +2 complexity and therefore worth a bit more than 1 Refresh.

(Yes, I know, Refinement for Thaumaturgy complexity is a bad buy. But it is what it is, and honestly complexity shouldn't be as easy as it is.)

What would you think of making the first purchase or the first two purchases cost 2 Refresh, while the ones after that cost 1 each?

It all depends how on how you see it, I suppose. I see adding a non-situational +2 stress as good enough for 1 Refresh, and I prefer to balance Powers as is, instead of how it was supposed to be, if that makes any sense. A relic of my D&D days, I guess.

But yeah, that's a good compromise.
I like that too. But no, I haven't. Because wiping out the city isn't the goal, it's part of the complexity-building process for the apotheosis effect.

True enough, in a fluff context.
I'd rather not use a hard cap. I'd prefer a scaling difficulty or a mechanic that makes rituals take a long time when you push their complexity.

But yeah, Thaumaturgy needs more limits than canon gives it.

Actually, now that you mention it, I was working on a Thaumaturgy rewrite, based on what I already posted before, some of the houserules I've seen around here (mostly yours), and some stuff I came across in some of my Mage stuff. I still have my notes, in fact. Would you mine if I borrowed your rules?

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #22 on: June 02, 2014, 08:24:25 PM »
Somebody like Kravos shouldn't be able to blow up a city just by spending 20 years on it...

Why not? I could do that and I don't even have magical powers.

I see adding a non-situational +2 stress as good enough for 1 Refresh, and I prefer to balance Powers as is, instead of how it was supposed to be, if that makes any sense. A relic of my D&D days, I guess.

True enough, in a fluff context.

I think it's true mechanically, too. Nobody really wanted to wipe out Chicago. They wanted to become gods, wiping out Chicago was just a side effect. So it wouldn't make sense for them to spend shifts on nuking the city.

Actually, now that you mention it, I was working on a Thaumaturgy rewrite, based on what I already posted before, some of the houserules I've seen around here (mostly yours), and some stuff I came across in some of my Mage stuff. I still have my notes, in fact. Would you mine if I borrowed your rules?

Go ahead. They're there to be used.

Offline AstronaughtAndy

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #23 on: June 03, 2014, 03:39:42 AM »
Random thought about the human sacrifices thing...what if the number of sacrifices you had to make to get another complexity boost went up the table? So 1 sacrifice for +2, 2 for +4, etc.?

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #24 on: June 03, 2014, 07:07:26 AM »
Random thought about the human sacrifices thing...what if the number of sacrifices you had to make to get another complexity boost went up the table? So 1 sacrifice for +2, 2 for +4, etc.?

So, basically treating them as automatically successful Declarations, but for boosting scale? It's a fix. Not the one I'm thinking of, but it could work.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #25 on: June 03, 2014, 08:43:58 PM »
I'd rather just use sacrifices as a normal complexity-builder. And while the current 20 shifts/body is probably too much, I wouldn't want to make sacrifices that weak.

Offline vultur

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 3942
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #26 on: June 04, 2014, 04:09:34 AM »
I'd rather just use sacrifices as a normal complexity-builder. And while the current 20 shifts/body is probably too much, I wouldn't want to make sacrifices that weak.

Maybe 20 for the first, 10 for the second, 5 for the third, 2 (like a Declaration) for the fourth and on?

Offline Locnil

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1303
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #27 on: June 04, 2014, 07:16:42 AM »
Maybe 20 for the first, 10 for the second, 5 for the third, 2 (like a Declaration) for the fourth and on?

I'm thinking more of a fluff-based factor. I seem to remember something of that sort in Mage the Ascension.

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: Scale Houserules
« Reply #28 on: June 04, 2014, 06:36:11 PM »
For me, it's easier to think of Thaumaturgy like technology;

Killing spells:
1) If a sniper who has line of sight to a target (equivalent to a sympathetic link), a good high-powered rifle (focus equivalent), the right ammunition (focus equivalent), a high-quality scope (declaration), an automated range-finder (declaration), a good vantage point (declaration), compensated for elevation (assessment/maneuver), compensated for the wind (assessment/maneuver), compensated for air density (assessment/maneuver), compensated for the Earth's spin (assessment/maneuver), aimed at the target (maneuver), held his breath to get a steady hand (maneuver) can go and shoot someone dead in a single shot at three thousand yards I got no problem with it. Similarly with a wizard pulling off a killing spell; they just use different tools.

City-leveling blasts:
2) If an engineer who has coordinates for a target (equivalent to a sympathetic link), the right equipment and workspace for the job (focus equivalent), the right manuals and blueprints (focus equivalent), gets titanium alloy for the body (declaration), high-quality inertial GPS for guidance (declaration), graphite parts for propulsion exhaust (declaration), liquid oxygen/hydrogen tanks for fuel (declaration), the right electronics for the control systems (declaration), a high-quality impact trigger (declaration), gets high explosive for the initiator (declaration), neutron reflectors for the trigger (declaration), plutonium for the tamper (declaration), uranium for the first stage (declaration), tritium for the second stage (declaration), shapes the high explosive bricks into the right configuration to build the initiator (multiple maneuvers), shapes the plutonium into the tamper without killing himself (multiple maneuvers), enriches the uranium until it is usable (multiple maneuvers), shapes the uranium around the plutonium into a decent spark plug (multiple maneuvers), concentrates the tritium out of the base supplies and clears away any of it that decayed and positions it between the uranium and plutonium layers (multiple maneuvers), encodes the bomb's programming, navigation, control and evasion systems (multiple maneuvers), assembles all the individual components into a functional and perfectly measured whole (multiple maneuvers per component), pulls off the right subterfuge, stealth and deceit to avoid detection while doing all of the above (multiple maneuvers) and then successfully launches what he created after several years of work, I'd have no problem with him hitting New York with a ten-megaton nuclear missile. Because building a nuclear missile is very much doable given enough time, resources, physics expertise, crafting expertise, programming expertise, the wherewithal to actually do it and enough foresight and preparation to do it in secret or with enough backing that people don't stop you. It has literally been done tens of thousands of times by people all over the world with government backing.
Therefore, making a big spell that levels a city should be just as possible. Except that wizards with centuries of experience have far better skills in their craft than scientists and workers with a couple decades of training, and have had centuries to build up the right tools, procedures and knowledge to perform such a casting a good deal faster than their scientist colleagues - though scientists and engineers have the advantage of numbers.


Magic and Tech in general:
Neither have an upper limit. Not really. The upper limit in what tech can build is what resources declarations you can sink into it, what labor declarations you can use to construct it, and what knowledge/skill declarations you can do to design and pull off a functional concept in the first place. The upper limit in what magic can do is... pretty much the same. It just uses different skills than tech, and its tools and trappings are often intangible magical constructs rather than material supplies.
As mentioned above, it should be noted that a full Wizard has much higher skills and more powerful abilities than any equivalent mortal and thus can do it much faster. Teller and Uram, the designers of the hydrogen bomb, could at best pull off a +7 to +8 in aspects of Sholarship (+5 to +6 base, +2 in various different trappings via stunts) relevant to their work. A submerged thaumarugist can easily pull off +11 (+5 base, +2 specialization, +2 focus, +2 lawbreaker for warlock types or further +2 through higher refinement for non-warlocks). This means that a submerged wizard should be capable of pulling the same results a great deal faster than major scientists. It is only through sheer numbers and the general complacency of wizards that mortals are doing better than the magic guys.


On human sacrifice:
20.000 workers were killed during the construction of the Panama canal. Tens of thousands more of them suffered heavy injuries and were perpetually ill - i.e. had conditions inflicted upon them. That was less a direct contribution to the work than a willingness of themselves and/or their employers to go on with the work despite dangerous conditions. The work would have never been completed at the tech level we had back then without those sacrifices. In a more modern attempt there would be far fewer sacrifices but the individual workers would be far more skilled, providing declarations and assessments to the work through those skills, and they'd have far, far better equipment and resources (which comes again to declarations), and the engineers would have far better knowledge and understanding of the science required (which comes again to assessments and declarations).
Similarly for magic, you can either get skilled helpers to provide you with aid, more resources and higher skills to get the declarations required for the complexity, or you can choose to sacrifice people. Only the flavor changes; instead of the sacrifices meaning doing business despite harsh conditions and running your workers to the point of death in completing your work, you get metaphysical power from the sacrifice itself. The end mechanical result is pretty much the same, with the only differences being the ease with which wizards can get power from sacrifice... but the utterly corrupting nature of those sacrifices, not to mention their being far more illegal and pursuable by the various authorities than worker exploitation.






Ultimately, Thaumaturgy is about as problematic as technology. If you are having difficulties allowing a wizard knock down a building with thaumaturgy, you'd have just the same problems with your average mundane bad guy loading a van with a ton of gas and fertilizer and blowing it up. Both would take the same number of declarations game-wise. The tech way is a lot slower but doesn't require paying up multiple refresh for it, while the magic way is faster and more efficient but more costly in refresh and there are Laws and other metaphysics you have to contend with.