Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...

[Xelah]

Hi everyone, new to the forums but not to dfrpg.  Searched, but could not find answers to a few of my group's questions.

We've got a Kemmlerite party member (me), and this hasn't come up yet, but it might eventually.

I can throw up to 16 shifts at necromancy effects and still have a reasonable chance to control it if I have the fate tokens.  I want to throw a 16 shift block against somebody trying to hit me with a death curse to keep them from dying.  As I understand the rules, if the death curse isn't at least 17 shifts, the curse has no effect and the caster does not die (but is taken out). If the death curse is 17 or more, the curse works, but at a reduced power.  Is this right?  If it is, does the caster still die if he has 17 shifts to throw at the.death curse?

[Taran]

Welcome to the boards

I'm not sure exactly what you mean.

A 17 shift death curse would be a 17 shift attack?  Is that how you're modelling it?

Typically, a death curse is enough shifts of damage that, given the highest defense roll of the target, they still take enough stress to fill all their consequences +1. (taking them out and allowing the attacker to dictate the take-out conditions - in this case, death...since it's a death curse)

So, with average endurance 3 stress boxes+mild+moderate+severe+extreme+1=24 shifts of damage.  Then you assume they roll ++++  So a really effective death curse is about 28 shifts of damage.  Although, I think a 17shift death curse would take out most NPC's since they probably don't use up all their consequences.

If so, a 16 shift block would negate the first 16 of 17 shifts and the target would only take one shift of stress.  They would, therefore, survive the curse.


Also, you should have an option at the bottom of the thread to delete it, if you are the one who created it so you should be able to delete the redundant thread.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think he means a caster-dies death curse, not a curse that kills the target.

As I understand it, the person casting the death curse dies regardless. They're using their death to fuel the spell, so it's unavoidable. But if the curse is less than 16 shifts, your block stops the effect of the spell just as well as a defence roll of 16 would've.

PS: Deleted your other thread.

[Lord_of_Stories]

Since the block functions by preventing their death (assuming I understood Xelah right), wouldn't a caster who failed to exceed the 16-shift block be prevented from dying (and therefore using their death to fuel it)? At least narratively speaking?

(Thanks for asking Xelah, I feel like this could be relevant to my game at some point)

[Quantus]

Since the block functions by preventing their death (assuming I understood Xelah right), wouldn't a caster who failed to exceed the 16-shift block be prevented from dying (and therefore using their death to fuel it)? At least narratively speaking?

(Thanks for asking Xelah, I feel like this could be relevant to my game at some point)

Nah, success or failure of the effect happens after.  They still gathered up their own life force and threw it at the enemy, leaving none to keep their body alive.  The fact that they threw it and missed doesnt mean they get it back any more than you can get a bullet back after you fire and miss the target. 

[wyvern]

Nah, success or failure of the effect happens after.  They still gathered up their own life force and threw it at the enemy, leaving none to keep their body alive.  The fact that they threw it and missed doesnt mean they get it back any more than you can get a bullet back after you fire and miss the target.

Except that the person blocking this is a necromancer.  I could totally buy a kemmlerite necromancer being able to block a death curse by preventing the guy throwing it from dying.  A block, on the person who's trying to throw a death curse, is definitely before they're gathering up their life force; it interferes at the 'throw life force' stage, not the 'at target' stage.  In the same way, someone who's under an explosives damping spell can try to shoot a gun, but - unless they beat the block - the gun doesn't fire and they don't lose the bullet.

[Quantus]

Except that the person blocking this is a necromancer.  I could totally buy a kemmlerite necromancer being able to block a death curse by preventing the guy throwing it from dying.  A block, on the person who's trying to throw a death curse, is definitely before they're gathering up their life force; it interferes at the 'throw life force' stage, not the 'at target' stage.  In the same way, someone who's under an explosives damping spell can try to shoot a gun, but - unless they beat the block - the gun doesn't fire and they don't lose the bullet.

Oh, I missed that entirely. I thought when he said "to keep them from dying" he was just referring to keeping the deathcurse from killing it's target (ie a block), not that he was trying to prevent his adversary from being able to perform a Deathcurse at all by preventing said opponent from Dying at all (as we saw Kumori do that time).  That's actually a fairly clever twist; Id say he'd need to be able to get that "death-lock" in place before the curse was sent, which would take some timing, but otherwise should work, and further would not actually need to oppose the full strength of the Deathcurse in the way a simple Block would

[PirateJack]

Hmm. The way I'd run it would be to set up the block and see if the would be death curser can draw up enough power to get over it. If they can, the death curse goes off but is weakened by the block. If they can't, well, no death curse for them.

[Xelah]

Sorry everyone, I probably should have phrased my question better.
 Now that I have confused some, let me clarify.

My Kemmlerite necromancer is fighting another spell caster and I am winning.

The other spell caster wants to level a death curse.
My Kemmlerite wants to stop the other spell caster from dying.  No death, no death curse.
I was asking about the mechanics of this.

Also, apologies for not multiquoting, the browser on my phone is a pain when it comes to large text boxes.

@wyvern
You raise a good point on the blocking it at the flow of life stage.  By that interpretation, they would not be able to inflict the consequences on themselves.  My only real beef with that is that the block is preventing death, not any other effect.  Mechanicswise, as I understand it, I am interrupting their ritual after they've paid the cost for it.  Which is why I think they should still eat the consequences.

@Quantus
Yeah, sorry for the lack of clarity.  The way you suggest, what would be the opppsing roll to try bypassing the block on death?

@Piratejack
That's what I was thinking.

[Rossbert]

I figure treat it a bit like a counterspell action, with a difficulty equal to the consequences that they are trying to use (20 probably).  I would say that if you succeed they don't take the consequences though, since they might be filling those spaces with dead, really dead, so very dead and unbelievably dead and that is what you are trying to prevent.

In world terms they're turning life energy into magic energy and you are saying "Nope, that stays life energy!" Since they aren't converting it in 4 pieces but as one chunck (their life) you have stop the whole thing, even though the game represents it as separate consequence slots.

[wyvern]

Hm... Actually, I'd probably treat this as an aspect invocation rather than a ritual.

Why?  Well, let's see here: if you take a target out, you get to narrate that take-out - and can easily narrate using your necromancy to hold them on the edge of life and death.  In this situation, there's no chance of a death curse at all, because it's your take-out result and you're not killing.

The other option where a death curse can come up is if they decide to pre-emptively die and throw a death curse; mechanically, I'd treat this as a concession, and negotiate it (and the outcome of the curse) as such.  And that's where you can offer up a fate point to invoke your aspect as a kemmlerite to change the available range of concessions.

[Theogony_IX]

You raise a good point on the blocking it at the flow of life stage.  By that interpretation, they would not be able to inflict the consequences on themselves.  My only real beef with that is that the block is preventing death, not any other effect.  Mechanicswise, as I understand it, I am interrupting their ritual after they've paid the cost for it.  Which is why I think they should still eat the consequences.

If you're interrupting the spell after they've paid the cost, then they would still be dead, the spell would just fizzle.  Death curses occur when the life force of a person is used to fuel a spell.  In the books it seemed to be an all or nothing thing.  Harry has never mentioned being able to use portions of his life energy.  He prepares the whole shebang or nothing at all.  (This is not to be confused with his soul when casting soulfire.)

It seems to me that in your situation, you have two choices:
1.  You can stop the spell after they've cast it.  The costs are paid, and they are dead whether the curse lands or not.
2.  You stop them from casting their life energy at you to begin with.  You effectively remove the option of them using their life energy as fuel for a spell.  Mechanically, they can't inflict the consequences to cast the spell, so they don't die and there is no spell.

EDIT: wyvern's suggestion of a concession seems like an elegant work-around to the problem.

[Rossbert]

What would the purpose be long-term? Even if you stop it they can try again next action they get. You probably just want a plain do-not-hit-me style block.

[PirateJack]

What would the purpose be long-term? Even if you stop it they can try again next action they get. You probably just want a plain do-not-hit-me style block.

I don't know about you, but if I was readying myself to take the other guy down with me and they were able to stop it, I'd be pretty damn disheartened. You've just attempted to take the final step and the enemy has just thrown how weak you are in your face. I'd find it pretty difficult to work up that sort of nerve again.

Also, if I were GMing it I'd allow the creation of an aspect that stops them from dying. Assuming this isn't part of the take out/concession, I'd model it as an extreme consequence that turns into one of their aspects, which then stops the character from taking their own life on an ongoing basis. Kemmlerian Necromancy is perfect for this due to the mixed necromancy and psychomancy, so it'd act like an enthralment using necromancy. Thou Shalt Not Die, or something similar.

[Xelah]

What would the purpose be long-term? Even if you stop it they can try again next action they get. You probably just want a plain do-not-hit-me style block.

That would depend largely on how the mechanics unfolded.  If they ate the consequences, they would have no more to throw into the curse.  If a concession as listed above is used, they don't get to dictate further action about a death curse if I have the fate token to spend.   Also, I could shave some power off the block to add some duration.

Two reasons my character would want to stop a deathcurse before it starts, we want the guy alive... or as a shield for other team members that can't throw up a 16 shift block.  They would only have to roll against normal spells.

If you're interrupting the spell after they've paid the cost, then they would still be dead, the spell would just fizzle.  Death curses occur when the life force of a person is used to fuel a spell.  In the books it seemed to be an all or nothing thing.  Harry has never mentioned being able to use portions of his life energy.  He prepares the whole shebang or nothing at all.  (This is not to be confused with his soul when casting soulfire.)

It seems to me that in your situation, you have two choices:
1.  You can stop the spell after they've cast it.  The costs are paid, and they are dead whether the curse lands or not.
2.  You stop them from casting their life energy at you to begin with.  You effectively remove the option of them using their life energy as fuel for a spell.  Mechanically, they can't inflict the consequences to cast the spell, so they don't die and there is no spell.

EDIT: wyvern's suggestion of a concession seems like an elegant work-around to the problem.

The concession is pretty good, this isn't bad either.  Gonna run all this by my gm since it is his table.

Hm... Actually, I'd probably treat this as an aspect invocation rather than a ritual.

Why?  Well, let's see here: if you take a target out, you get to narrate that take-out - and can easily narrate using your necromancy to hold them on the edge of life and death.  In this situation, there's no chance of a death curse at all, because it's your take-out result and you're not killing.

The other option where a death curse can come up is if they decide to pre-emptively die and throw a death curse; mechanically, I'd treat this as a concession, and negotiate it (and the outcome of the curse) as such.  And that's where you can offer up a fate point to invoke your aspect as a kemmlerite to change the available range of concessions.

Hrmm, this isn't bad either.  Gonna talk to my GM.