Rituals: Potions vs. Straight Up Thaumaturgy

[AlanDNelson]

I have a character with Rituals: Potions.  (i.e.  The only Thaumaturgy she can do is brew potions...)

I am trying to figure out the downside of using Potions vs. straight up Thaumaturgy.

I can create a Thaumaturgical ritual that does X (say, turn lead in to gold temporarily).
There's nothing preventing me from creating a potion that does the same thing.  The potion is actually a little more useful since I can give it to someone else and "bottle the effect" until I need it.

I can't see anything in the rules that actually limits the power of the potion.  For "enchanted items" there is a hard limit based on your Lore skill... but potions specifically say I can invoke aspects (just like I can in mainline Thaumaturgy) to create more powerful effects.

So what's the downside?

     - Alan

[Mr. Death]

Not every thaumaturgy effect can be made into a potion -- Wards, for example, wouldn't really work. Things that require a linking component (like tracking spells) also probably wouldn't work.

[Melendwyr]

Primarily, that you can't do things on the spur of the moment, unless perhaps your group permits the optional rule that you can define what potions you have on hand.  Even then, I think it costs both a successful Lore roll and a fate point.

Consider also that potions (in whatever form) are physical objects which can be taken away from you.  Also, many thaumaturgic effects don't actually translate well into potions.

[Taran]

A lore declaration doesn't cost a FP.

You can build up way more complexity with a ritual.  I suppose a potion could too but there's probably less wiggle-room when it comes to making declarations on the fly.

If you're defining your potions before-hand, I suppose you could make some pretty powerful ones - the same way you'd do a ritual, although, It had never really occured to me to do it this way.

It is true that potions can be taken away...but spells can also be counter-spelled.  I get the feeling people don't use counter-spells very often in the game, although I don't see why.  Most wizards are choc-a-block with enchanted items, I don't see why enemy wizards wouldn't choose to dispel them. (I'm primarly talking about items that have duration - like armour spells and blocks - or even maneuvers)

But I digress.  You're more likely to have your potions taken from you than you are to be dispelled.

Also, what Mr. Death said.  You're going to be limited to certain types of spells - although, if you're creative, you could still have a lot available.

[Melendwyr]

A lore declaration doesn't cost a FP.

  I looked it up:  either a FP or a successful Lore roll.  That's still somewhat iffy.

[Mr. Death]

But I digress.  You're more likely to have your potions taken from you than you are to be dispelled.

Yeah, even in a game where counterspelling is prevalent, it takes a wizard of similar power to counterspell you, but any goon can empty your pockets.

[Haru]

Since potions are basically a class of enchanted items, I would make the "double lore" rule count for them as well. That means a potion, even by invoking aspects, may not exceed double the casters lore. (YS280)

If you want more powerful potions, I'd make a thaumaturgy ritual out of it, only instead of directly casting the spell, you bottle it up for later use. If you can reasonably justify the spell you want to turn into a potion, I have no objections.

Keep in mind, that "potion" in the narrative sense and "potion" in the mechanical sense are 2 different things. In the mechanical sense, any 1 use item is called a potion, like Harry's sunlight handkerchief.

[Melendwyr]

Keep in mind, that "potion" in the narrative sense and "potion" in the mechanical sense are 2 different things. In the mechanical sense, any 1 use item is called a potion, like Harry's sunlight handkerchief.

My campaign villain "The Candyman" relies on that fact... and on the canonical principle that potions can be diluted to dilute their effects.

[Taran]

  I looked it up:  either a FP or a successful Lore roll.  That's still somewhat iffy.

Yes.  Spend a FP and  you will auto-matically have the potion.  Or,  you can make a Lore Roll and risk failing.

[AlanDNelson]

Thanks for all the responses, so far.

The "double Lore" limit actually does help (and make sense)... since in that case "pure thaumaturgy" would be able to create effects which is out of the reach of a potion.

The example from my run is that the ritualist created a potion that would change the surface of any metal dunked in the potion to silver for a short period of time.  (This was not actually used to create silver bullets... it was used to create surgical tools that would actually work on a creature with Inhuman Toughness.)

Maybe I am being a little to "flexible" on the definition of a potion?  If potions are only able to be imbibed and must target the imbiber with the effect... then that would limit the flexibility of the types of things a potion could do quite considerably.  It makes sense... I just don't remember reading anything to that effect.

The only other house rule I can think of is that I could force potion makers to pay for the "shelf life" of the potion as well as the "duration of the potion's effect".  I would be less worried about the flexibility of potions if for some reason potion making was inherently less "efficient".

[Melendwyr]

Harry's made Ghost Dust before, which mechanically is a potion.  Don't be too limiting - but consider that Harry needs some strange and exotic ingredients to make potions, and sometimes those requirements are a problem.  (He hasn't been able to store sunlight for years, now.)

If the player can't find the right recipe to make the potion that is desired, or can't tell an interesting story about how they managed to create it, I'd say they don't get the potion.

[Taran]

Harry's made Ghost Dust before, which mechanically is a potion.  Don't be too limiting - but consider that Harry needs some strange and exotic ingredients to make potions, and sometimes those requirements are a problem.  (He hasn't been able to store sunlight for years, now.)

If the player can't find the right recipe to make the potion that is desired, or can't tell an interesting story about how they managed to create it, I'd say they don't get the potion.

+1

This goes for any type of Thaumaturgy.  That's exactly what the declarations for complexity are for but, sometimes, people grasp at straws making declarations just to get the complexity without really thinking about the story of the spell or the meaningfulness of the declaration.

[Hick Jr]

Thanks for all the responses, so far.

The "double Lore" limit actually does help (and make sense)... since in that case "pure thaumaturgy" would be able to create effects which is out of the reach of a potion.

The example from my run is that the ritualist created a potion that would change the surface of any metal dunked in the potion to silver for a short period of time.  (This was not actually used to create silver bullets... it was used to create surgical tools that would actually work on a creature with Inhuman Toughness.)

Maybe I am being a little to "flexible" on the definition of a potion?  If potions are only able to be imbibed and must target the imbiber with the effect... then that would limit the flexibility of the types of things a potion could do quite considerably.  It makes sense... I just don't remember reading anything to that effect.

The only other house rule I can think of is that I could force potion makers to pay for the "shelf life" of the potion as well as the "duration of the potion's effect".  I would be less worried about the flexibility of potions if for some reason potion making was inherently less "efficient".

How flexible you want to be on the definition of "potion" is between you and the player. Them taking Ritual:Potion versus Ritual:Crafting sounds like they meant for the character to be restricted to the type of potion that you drink, but hash it out with them if only to avoid confusion and make the limitations clear.

I don't think you should make them pay for how long the potion is effective, especially if they're Declaring potions into existence.

[AlanDNelson]

Hmmm... good point about the hanky and ghost dust.  The distinction:

Keep in mind, that "potion" in the narrative sense and "potion" in the mechanical sense are 2 different things.

is a good one.

I am going to stress the "Double your Lore" rule, and probably disallow using Lore to make declarations for extra oomph.  Lore is already such an important stat in potion making that getting anymore out of it seems like overkill.

The player in question doesn't actually do a lot of "declaring into existence".  Part of the game for her is she likes coming up with potions that are "generically useful"... so she doesn't leave herself with any unfilled potion slots.



Thanks for your help!

[Sanctaphrax]

Ritual (Potions) sounds like a worse version of Ritual (Crafting) to me. And Ritual (Crafting) is amply limited by its inability to perform rituals. So there you have it, a serious limitation.

The example from my run is that the ritualist created a potion that would change the surface of any metal dunked in the potion to silver for a short period of time.  (This was not actually used to create silver bullets... it was used to create surgical tools that would actually work on a creature with Inhuman Toughness.)

Sounds fine to me.