ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Moriden on January 12, 2011, 04:42:24 PM
-
I'm fairly certain its been stated that you can substitute shifts of a spell for a skill roll. [ie veils for stealth, or the complexity of a biomancy spell for fists]. Myself and my current dm are having a discussion about how you handle this mathematically though.
Say you want to get a x that you can use instead of a roll, how do you make it so that you can use that x more then once? do you simply use the persistence rules as if it was a block, meaning that you add one complexity per extra use.
Do you also have to pay shifts into duration so that the spell doesn't wear of before you use all of the charges?
Or are there simply no rules at all for such because this "isn't a block" and the persistence rules don't apply?
thoughts comments book quotes appreciated.
-
As the GM in question, I'd like to provide a bit more context on this.
The background is a PC using a biomancy ritual to "power up" for a big fight at a known time and location - enhancing his senses, instinctual responses, and physical acuity. His original statting of effect was "substitute a 12 for any alertness, stealth, investigation or athletics check, up to six times before the spell expires" - which he said was priced as a complexity 12 effect, plus five to get it usable six times instead of one. (plus a token bit of extra complexity to get the overall duration up to long enough to cover from end of ritual casting to end of known fight).
Now, it's fairly clear from the rules that you can make a ritual at complexity, for example, 12, to substitute that complexity for a single specific skill check - for example, something that lets you pull off a cheetah-like burst of speed, substituting for athletics. And you could even give that effect a duration (as long as it's not an attack), at one additional complexity per extra exchange. (Or possibly longer, if - like stealth - one skill check normally covers more than a single exchange.) But I don't think the rules even imply you can use the same cost structure for a spell that would let you sprint one exchange, not use it at all for the next three, boost your alertness the exchange after that, and then run it as a standard block against attacks for another four exchanges.
My suggested implementation was to use the ritual as a stack of navel-gazing maneuvers, adding temporary aspects like "eyes of the eagle", "speed of the panther", etc, with one free tag each, and the aspects lasting the duration of the ritual (figuring that the base duration for such a ritual is "a scene", and four shifts will push that far enough up the time chart to last "until the next dawn").
-
I don't think thaumatugy has that sort of capability (to replace a bevy of skills with one magic ritual). Either you are "Solving improbable or impossible problems" which does replace a skill roll but only in the case of simple actions and only once per ritual (I.E. replacing a contacts roll for info or similar), or you are "Creating lasting changes in people or things" which would allow for maneuvers (multiple maneuvers if desired) or transformations (in the form of taking one's self out and then rebuilding).
The only other instance I can think of of a spell replacing a skill roll is in the Hyperawareness spell on page YS294 (in which case it suggests using a block instead of an awareness roll) but even then I think it's more "A block against people sneaking up on me" than it is replacing a skill roll with a spell.
-
I am going to go with a ritual like this would really break the spirit of the game and be ridiculously OP.
The idea of the aspects that are taggable is much more functional and I think would work out alright.
-
I think making several maneuvers would be the best way to go about it balance wise. (In addition it could allow for clever compels or negatives from the gm/opposition).
However, if the bonuses are a big deal break for the player you could conceivably have the ritual build all of the desired effects.
For example, simple action with 12 shifts 4 times over a duration of one scene, say 2-4 on time increment. Could be around 50-52 (ish). Which is high but the spell is accomplishing a lot.
-
I don't have the rules on hand, but they specifically recommend that, for Wizard types with few Fate Points to spare, setting up a higher-complexity Thaumaturgy Ritual to provide multiple free-taggable instances of the same Aspect was a great option.
-
For example, simple action with 12 shifts 4 times over a duration of one scene, say 2-4 on time increment. Could be around 50-52 (ish). Which is high but the spell is accomplishing a lot.
It seems to me that the rule for making a block persistent should work the same for these. so a 12 shift affect over 4 rounds, plus 2-4 for duration would be a 20 ish level effect.
-
Except that there's only one example of a block being used as a skill roll and it's still sort-of being used as a block. Otherwise there's nowhere in RAW it says you can replace more than one simple action skill roll with a spell.
Also there's no way to pick and choose after the ritual is cast. It could be a block for four contiguous exchanges, or one of the other things for four contiguous exchanges but you can't switch back and forth or turn it off or on.
-
Also there's no way to pick and choose after the ritual is cast. It could be a block for four contiguous exchanges, or one of the other things for four contiguous exchanges but you can't switch back and forth or turn it off or on.
I'm not sure I agree. You can have an enchanted item that provides Armor, but you get to choose which incoming attacks it will apply to.
Likewise, when you place Sticky Aspects via a Thaumaturgic Maneuver, you get to choose when to tag them.
-
I'm not sure I agree. You can have an enchanted item that provides Armor, but you get to choose which incoming attacks it will apply to.
Likewise, when you place Sticky Aspects via a Thaumaturgic Maneuver, you get to choose when to tag them.
Yes but it seems to me that that's a case of them being there and you choosing when to take advantage of them (which may just be semantics). In the case of aspects the GM (or another player depending on the circumstance) could choose to invoke or compel those aspects even if you hadn't tagged them. And in the case of the enchanted item we're talking about an enchanted item, that can be turned on and off. Regardless can we agree that you can't change the spell's effects repeatedly after it's been cast?
-
Regardless can we agree that you can't change the spell's effects repeatedly after it's been cast?
I'm not sure we've ever talked about that. The original version was subbing the X for a skill roll that involved the changes done to the caster. it being able to substitute for more then one skill was part just trying to be simple about it and part expected to be told no to. What where really discussing is you do an effect that gives you X instead of a skill roll, do you have to use it, is it used before or after the roll, and if you use persistence on it do the extra exchanges have to be in sequence? the wording seems [to me] to imply that they don't, it simply says something like "the effect can be used for more then one exchange allowing you to do other things while the spell still exists" it doesn't say that those rounds need to be next to each other.
which also raises the question of if you can use the same rules for adding persistence, and if not why?
-
Just for the record, there actually *are* rules for changing the effects of a spell after you've cast it - see "Redirecting Spell Energy", YS260. I'm not sure whose point, if any, those rules support, but they do exist.
-
Just for the record, there actually *are* rules for changing the effects of a spell after you've cast it - see "Redirecting Spell Energy", YS260. I'm not sure whose point, if any, those rules support, but they do exist.
I apologize in advance for this but I'll try to keep my arguments short. That's for evocation, not thaumaturgy (which is what we're talking about) and it only applies if you haven't used the spell for it's original purpose. Sorry again, back to the topic.
This is really starting to seem like a "ask your GM" sort of situation. Seems to me you are bending a few rules for this spell and it's really up to them whether they are comfortable with that. It looks like they're kinda down on the idea though.
Or for that matter ask the other players since DFRPG is supposed to be more of a collaborative work.
-
It seems to me that the rule for making a block persistent should work the same for these. so a 12 shift affect over 4 rounds, plus 2-4 for duration would be a 20 ish level effect.
Well if you're able to get 12 shifts reliably with Evocation than by all means, thats the power level your working with. But, blocks with rituals are wards, technically not different but thematically wards have to be stationary or anchored. I was considering that you literally have 4 separate instances of a simple action at 12 shifts, with a duration of a scene costing 3 (random # between numbers I gave)
so
12*4=48+3=51 shifts of complexity.
this ritual would let you use simple actions (examples were stealth, alertness, investigation, and athletics) at 12 shifts four times in the scene.
Anyways, as was already mentioned those rules were for evocation and it sounds like that was the initial problem. Blocks and simple actions created with Thaumaturgy cant be extended in the same way. But, I think its a choice for the GM and the group. If this is the kind of power level the group feels is appropriate for a caster then it makes since to do it that way. If everyone feels like it may be to powerful then alter it to something less then, I still think the multiple aspects would be the best option.
-
Would the player be happy running into a warlock pulling the same trick? Sauce for the goose and all that...
-
Would it be acceptable for a spellcaster PC to spend a Fate Point to invoke their High Concept in order to Declare that they get a shield spell up in time? How would most GMs feel about that?
In the fiction, assassins have successfully ambushed a particularly popular spellcaster, who didn't manage to get a shield spell up in time and had to rely on enchanted clothing to stop the worst of the damage. The spellcaster didn't see an attack coming, so even a "fast as thought" spell wasn't enough.
-
Anyways, as was already mentioned those rules were for evocation and it sounds like that was the initial problem. Blocks and simple actions created with Thaumaturgy cant be extended in the same way.
What about if you have sponsored magic?
-
What about if you have sponsored magic?
Then you are attempting to use thaumaturgy, at the speed of evocation, using a rule specifically for evocation, and attempting to gain the full access to thaumaturgy's normal duration... What this is, is a blindspot in the rules. Blindspots cause bad things to happen.
But back to the original topic, were you attempting to talk about a block as in one of the actions you can take with evocation? I only ask, because I'm not certain if you were talking about Evocation Veils, or Thaumaturgical Veils. Because if I recall, neither of them ever add or do anything to your stealth score.. They instead provide a real Block for perception related challenges, so someone would need to have a high enough Alertness in order to spot someone with a good Veil up.
Second, and this is actually kind of important.. Before you ask how to replace a skill with a spell roll, or casting, or any other kind of alteration to the natural way a character should work, you should really go into HOW you want to do such a thing... Do you plan to use Biomancy to change your character? Do you rely on your sponsor for all the technical know how of how living stuff works? I could easily imagine a somewhat disappointed sponsor, leaving those indebted to them stuck in whatever lesser forms they may have taken, as a form of punishment, even if for a short period of time... Or just a whim, depending..
-
Pricing thaumaturgy requires a judgement call, so I'm not going to say there is a wrong way to do it.
However, that spell is massively overpowered. Due to the nature of the probability distribution of 4dF, skill does not scale linearly as it increases. By the time you've hit 12 with a skill, you've got to the point where you outclass deities. A 12 in multiple skills makes you practically unassailable. To even get that kind of power temporarily is plot device ascension ritual territory.
Consider these alternatives:
- thaumaturgic maneuver that can be tagged number of times equal to shifts/3, with the scope of what it can be tagged for being very limited, and only tagging it a max of once per action. I'd consider it fair to have a 12 shift spell give one of those for four free tags.
- Total thaumaturgic transformation, using 29 shifts to take yourself out and give yourself fancy new abilities. This can be on the edge of plot device power, and might be enough to justify a single skill at 12 for a period of time.
- A smaller self-transformation. I'd price the complexity at either 8+2x the number of points the powers you take are worth, or just 2x the points of the power, and require several fate points be invoked for effect.
-
to the OP, by RAW I think if you want multiple checks, you need to multiple the shifts by the times you want to be able to use it. If you want to make a skill check at +10, 10 times, that's 100 shifts. Very expensive.
I think it is ok, however, to allow checks more like a block for very limited and controlled situations. If the use is highly specific, such as seeing through Faerie Illusions, then that seems more acceptable to me. Though, perhaps that IS broken even though it is in the books -- I'm a bit undecided, honestly. Certainly the example magical item looks fine, but the fact you could easily make it as a thaumaturgy and a 10 shift effect lasting all day...that doesn't seem so cool if you are in a faerie-heavy story.
-
Yeah... Thats the major problem though.. We have a very rich universe, and plenty of lore and precedent to take away from. But the game is based around a system, and there will always be people who try to beat the said system, and it will always have a chance of breaking from the natural norms of the setting. All you can do, is keep your bats in hand, ready to beat away at the munchkins as they come crawling up the trash heap
-
Yeah... Thats the major problem though.. We have a very rich universe, and plenty of lore and precedent to take away from. But the game is based around a system, and there will always be people who try to beat the said system, and it will always have a chance of breaking from the natural norms of the setting. All you can do, is keep your bats in hand, ready to beat away at the munchkins as they come crawling up the trash heap
I don't think it is fair to say anything effective or even too effective is the work of munchkins. Often it isn't clear what is appropriately powerful, what is too weak, and what is too powerful until some playtesting is done. Take the enchanted item build, let's assume it is too powerful (to me it isn't clear), does that mean someone doing it is a munchkin? I'd say not, for it is certainly a very reasonable concept, and it isn't unreasonable to try to implement that concept as effectively as possible. If it is too powerful, that's a problem with the rules when you get down to it.
Similarly, I am not sure whether or not the item that lets you get an awesome check on seeing through faerie illusions is OP or not. If it is, I don't think it is because the designers were being munchkins. If it isn't, I don't think a player is being a munchkin if they want to make a similar item for something else that seems reasonable, but in practice is OP.
-
I don't think it is fair to say anything effective or even too effective is the work of munchkins. Often it isn't clear what is appropriately powerful, what is too weak, and what is too powerful until some playtesting is done. Take the enchanted item build, let's assume it is too powerful (to me it isn't clear), does that mean someone doing it is a munchkin? I'd say not, for it is certainly a very reasonable concept, and it isn't unreasonable to try to implement that concept as effectively as possible. If it is too powerful, that's a problem with the rules when you get down to it.
Similarly, I am not sure whether or not the item that lets you get an awesome check on seeing through faerie illusions is OP or not. If it is, I don't think it is because the designers were being munchkins. If it isn't, I don't think a player is being a munchkin if they want to make a similar item for something else that seems reasonable, but in practice is OP.
I think the real test is whether a character is doing something as a character concept or that is thematically appropriate or trying to max their "power".
Either way it doesn't concern me too much because in the Dresdenverse, there is ALWAYS a bigger fish.
-
Okay i think the original example may be something some people are getting hung up on lets rephrase it.
1] you can use a block instead of a defensive skill roll, when doing so with evocation the strength is equal to one shift a level and you can use it an extra time per shift put into duration also for some reason called persistence.
2] when useing a block in place of a defensive roll with thumaturgy, it works as above but the base duration is scene, you use the time duration chart instead of +1 round, and the block does not go away after it is breached as per the ward/veil rules.
3] can you use a "block" instead of a non defensive roll [ie alertness for initiative, fists to attack,might to lift or break things]? My current understanding based on some of iago's older posts is yes, but there may not be a lot of RAW to support this.
4] can you use the magic system to gain a +x to a skill roll instead of a "block"? Again some of the moderators earlier posts and a few examples in the book support this however there is clearly no listed system for how you would do so in the book.
5] when using thaumaturgy at evocation speeds and methods which duration system do you use? and can you then use the evocation method to boost its duration.
6] when creating a "buff" spell is it most appropriate to use "blocks", aspects, or the temporary powers rules, or some combination of them all as appropriate?
to the OP, by RAW I think if you want multiple checks, you need to multiple the shifts by the times you want to be able to use it. If you want to make a skill check at +10, 10 times, that's 100 shifts. Very expensive.
Go check the evocation building blocks section again, theres no examples of how to get a + anything [unfortunately] though you can clearly get more then one use of out a block by one exchange per shift, my question is weather they need to be consecutive or not, i personally want to say no, and that you also have to spend successes on the thaumturgy duration chart to extend the spells duration. permitting you to get the effext y times over z duration.
Would the player be happy running into a warlock pulling the same trick? Sauce for the goose and all that...
Yes. and in fact i use similar effects in the games i run. i do not however use "plot level" npcs instead preferring to stat them so its likely just a difference in preferred scale. What im trying to get peoples opinions on is more if its RAW then if its balanced. myself and the relevant gm have already discussed most of these topics extensively and figured out what will and wont be allowed in that game.