if your doing so as a concession then you would but if not then I would think it falls to the gm's desecration. As a GM I wouldn't let you do so just to get a powerful spell off and then drop... id make you take all available consequences first unless it was a concession. But I would do it along the lines of the more consequences you took the lesser the narrative for the take out would be... for instance if you did it on first action so you could hit someone with a 20 stress attack and then fall I might have it kill you or seriously limit your abilities. If you had taken a minor, mod, sever, and then fell i would probably treat it as your body finally wore out from the pain and you fell asleep.
for instance if you did it on first action so you could hit someone with a 20 stress attack and then fall I might have it kill you or seriously limit your abilities.I don't think a character could do that, though. When they choose how many shifts of power they want to summon up, I think they take the stress at that point, and would be Taken Out before they could even focus the power into a spell. Without taking Consequences, they could only summon up enough power to take them out that way, which would be their Physical Stress Track +1. If they take Consequences they can get up to that (Consequences) + (Stress Track) stress mark. Any more than that and, once again, they are Taken Out before they can cast.
I don't know, that's pretty murky territory. If you model it that way then you have all sorts of issues with casting. I say stress could be applied before casting, but regardless the spell ought to still work. Taking yourself out to cast a spell is entirely pointless otherwise, and it's just too dramatic and interesting an option to completely exclude.
If just calling up energy is enough to take you out... I'd say that's death curse territory.
So if you're playing a Mage, and you inflict enough mental (or physical if it's backlash) stress on yourself to be Taken Out, who narrates what happens?Since whomever takes out a victim sets the victim's fate and the character always "owns his own death scene", the player of the mage would narrate what happens. See YS203.
Am I getting this right, folks? 1: Choose Shifts of power, 2: Take Stress, 3: Roll Discipline, 4: Take backlash/Make Fallout?I use 1) set shifts of power and take any stress or consequences devoted to increasing power, 2) roll Discipline and take backlash stress / consequences if needed or desired.
Since whomever takes out a victim sets the victim's fate and the character always "owns his own death scene", the player of the mage would narrate what happens. See YS203.
I'm surprised that none of you are interested in maintaining something that could be so very good for a story.
I'm surprised that none of you are interested in maintaining something that could be so very good for a story. I guess I can understand if that's RAW, but still, I know that in my games taking your self out via casting (without it being a death curse) will always be an option, because it's wonderfully dramatic.I would be concerned with the ease of abuse. How is it good for the story if every fight turns into the Wizard casting a 5000 shift spell (heck, lets go wild and make in 5,000,000 just to make sure!), choosing to take himself out due to casting stress without sacrificing consequences (since they wouldn't make any difference), taking out all of the opposition (and allies as well) in one spell, then narrating the entire result (since he triggered everyone's take-outs) to ensure that he and his friends are knocked unconscious and come to seconds later to see the unconscious/dead forms of all of their enemies surrounding them?
I would be concerned with the ease of abuse.
I'm surprised that none of you are interested in maintaining something that could be so very good for a story.Not all of us are against it.
But if you go with that reasoning, then the next question is how many shifts into "take-out" territory can you go? If you've already used up (or choose not to use) your consequences, and all of your mental stess boxes are marked, then 1 stress is enough to take you out. So would you only allow the player to pull that much power? Or maybe 5 stress worth? If the player asks for 5 stress one time and you ok it, then the next time he *only* needs 7 stress to cast a spell that will take out the last foe and himself in the process, is the 7 ok? How about 10? Or 5000? There has to be a line *somewhere*. So really it's just a matter of deciding where.
@ Becq - Every shift needs to be "paid for". If you've got 23 shifts of stress and consequences, a declaration, and a fate point with an aspect to invoke you get a maximum of 27 shifts in the spell. Trying to go out with a 50 shift spell means 23 shifts are fallout which a) reduces the power of the spell and b) is up to the GM to narrate. Whatever the narration, it shouldn't be beneficial to the caster's intentions. If I thought abuse was intentional, I'd probably have the fallout disrupting the controlled portion of the spell as an unintentional block.
Just need to be a powerful wizard to do it.Although it wasn't said directly, I'm pretty sure Ebenezar used Thaumaturgy for his Sputnik-mancy.
Ask Eb.
A death curse wouldn't work with your logic as a with a death curse you draw all of your life out of you during casting it meaning given your logic you would die before casting it.A Death curse is a special case, and could be considered the only exception to the rule (If you consider this the "rule" as the books look at it).
Of note all this comparison to the death curse is moot, since a death curse is thaumaturgy, so the shifts to stress model isn't involved. Look it up, YS282.My bad, forgot about that in my zeal to disagree. But as a rules model, moving around that much power perhaps should be the realm of Thaum.
Not all of us are against it.Not at all! Let's say I decide to cast that 5000 shift spell. I have Conviction 4, so I'm going to take a 4997 mental stress for casting it. I can reduce that by as much as 2+4+6+8=20 by taking consequences .. but why bother? I'll just take myself out and leave the consequences for later. Now, in my opinion the spellcasting sequence stops right there; the power-gathering step failed. (If it was important, only 8 shifts were gathered, because the 8th shift was what edged the stress into the non-existent 5th box.)
@ Becq - Every shift needs to be "paid for". If you've got 23 shifts of stress and consequences, a declaration, and a fate point with an aspect to invoke you get a maximum of 27 shifts in the spell. Trying to go out with a 50 shift spell means 23 shifts are fallout which a) reduces the power of the spell and b) is up to the GM to narrate. Whatever the narration, it shouldn't be beneficial to the caster's intentions. If I thought abuse was intentional, I'd probably have the fallout disrupting the controlled portion of the spell as an unintentional block.
Not at all! Let's say I decide to cast that 5000 shift spell. I have Conviction 4, so I'm going to take a 4997 mental stress for casting it. I can reduce that by as much as 2+4+6+8=20 by taking consequences .. but why bother? I'll just take myself out and leave the consequences for later. Now, in my opinion the spellcasting sequence stops right there; the power-gathering step failed. (If it was important, only 8 shifts were gathered, because the 8th shift was what edged the stress into the non-existent 5th box.)
But under discussion is the case in which we decide the spell goes off regardless. So I've been taken out, but there's still a 5000 shift spell in the air, with the universe somehow conspiring to gather the remaining 4992 shifts for me. (Thanks, universe!) Ok, now I have to control it. I'm unconcious, so I shouldn't be able to control anything, but we're saying that I can. So I roll my Discipline 5 and get extraordinarily lucky! ++++! That means I control 9 shifts, leaving 4991 uncontrolled.
Now I need to split that between backlash and fallout. But if I put it into fallout, that would (a) nuke my friends, most likely, and (b) reduce the strength of the spell. So, what the heck, I'll take it all as backlash. That's 4991 stress worth of backlash, and I decide again not to take consequences, since I can choose that. Whoops, looks like I'm taken out. Again. Still? Whatever; my target gets hit by my 5000 shift spell, perfectly focused on him and with no side effects.
How does this sort of silliness make for a good story? I just don't see it. My read would be that the hypothetical character tried to cast the 5000 shift spell, passed out (very quickly) from the attempt to gather so much power, with the end result that the power that *was* gathered (ie, the amount that would have created an overflow into a nonexistent stress box) would have then been released as if it was entirely uncontrolled. Which *could* actually play a role in a story, as the character basically converts some or all of his remaining consequences into an uncontrolled "fallout" spell (in the above example, it would be from 8 to 28 shifts of fallout, depending on the number of consequences taken). I could see this as a great last-ditch way of escaping from a mook-powered ambush.
Looks like Becq has summed up how I am seeing the issue. Better than I had put it, too. But the bottom line of it is that allowing uncontrolled limitless power shift collection beyond S&C (Stress & Consequences) to create perfect working spells moves the game from the Dresden Files and into the realm of Dragonball Z.
How does this sort of silliness make for a good story?
Not at all! Let's say I decide to cast that 5000 shift spell. <snip> My read would be that the hypothetical character tried to cast the 5000 shift spell, passed out (very quickly) from the attempt to gather so much power, with the end result that the power that *was* gathered (ie, the amount that would have created an overflow into a nonexistent stress box) would have then been released as if it was entirely uncontrolled.I don't think our thought processes are that far off. My position is simply that the caster would never get to 5000 shifts of power. He passes out (and ceases to draw power) on the first shift he can't "pay for".
...[example snipped]...
It's simply a thaumaturgy spell with all of the prep taken care of, and the time constraints removed because the wizard doesn't need to worry about backlash.
So, weaker than allowing them to cast spells they can't pay for then. Yeah, bang up idea.
Weaker than? The death curse literally has no shift limit.
The Wizard’s Death CurseThe wizard’s death curse is actually very
easy to model. It’s a ritual, but with all of the
preparation ready to go. The components
of preparation are the circumstances of the
wizard’s death—all of the consequences he
has can be tagged, and he can inflict more
upon himself if he’s got the space, since he’s
not going to be around afterward.
Weaker than? The death curse literally has no shift limit.Yes it does, shifts still have to be paid for. A death curse simply gives you a free tag on all of your consequences and allows you to inflict multiple (instead of the one you normally get) consequences on yourself at once if you have the space. "...all of the consequences he has can be tagged, and he can inflict more on himself..."
So there really is no difference between letting a player take all of his consequences and stresses to make a large attack...they just don't die. (They also don't get free tags).I think the difference goes to Flexibility when it comes to Death Curses: Being Thaumaturgy, you can do anything with it. With Evocation you can do some things, but nowhere near Thaum's laundry list. You can curse them and their future family line with boils, for example (2-3 complexity for a minor affliction, the rest to the time chart), or turn them into a eunuch, for something dramatic. But with Evocation you can only do some variation of "I Blow You up". Enemy Dead, you dead, ho-hum. Thaumaturgy lets you make them suffer.
I suppose the one difference is that the curse can be thaumaturgy rather than evocation. (unless the caster has sponsored magic, in which case it virtually is no different.
So either death curses are only a little better than blowing it all on one spell or blowing it all on one spell should be discouraged. It makes death curses look less impressive to me.
So there really is no difference between letting a player take all of his consequences and stresses to make a large attack...they just don't die. (They also don't get free tags).In addition to thaumaturgy's flexibility, death curses also appear to allow you to take all open stress / consequences at once rather than one at a time. Perhaps more important when considering spell power, you don't need to roll to control a death curse. That alone raises their potential significantly.
I suppose the one difference is that the curse can be thaumaturgy rather than evocation. (unless the caster has sponsored magic, in which case it virtually is no different.
So either death curses are only a little better than blowing it all on one spell or blowing it all on one spell should be discouraged. It makes death curses look less impressive to me.
Perhaps more important when considering spell power, you don't need to roll to control a death curse. That alone raises their potential significantly.
Yes it does, shifts still have to be paid for. A death curse simply gives you a free tag on all of your consequences and allows you to inflict multiple (instead of the one you normally get) consequences on yourself at once if you have the space. "...all of the consequences he has can be tagged, and he can inflict more on himself..."This. Death Curses are not unlimited. You must still summon power, but you get some free tags from your consequences. You don't need to control it, because you're assumed to take the entire amount as backlash. To get an idea of scale for a Death Curse, an example:
Only because it doesn't really matter if you take fifty-bajillion stress in backlash, since it's a DEATH-curse.Remember, there are two points where stress / consequences are potentially used: first in setting the spell's power level and second in controlling the power. Only the second is removed by a death curse. So you're not going to get the "fifty-bajillion" shifts to start with. ;)
But then, if you allows casters to take themselves out via power-calling-stress without the spell then automatically failing, they can do the same thing there, too.
The Wizard in question dies to an enemy who walks up to him and swings a (non-Warden) blade through his neck. No time to cast defensive spells, but time for a Curse.
Kind of iffy there. I don't think I'd allow a death curse if his head came off. I was going to say it might not be possible if he couldn't speak it too but all that did to Harry in FM was cause him to take a couple shifts of backlash, so I'd just treat it as an aspect tagged against him and give him -2 shifts if I did anything at all.I modified the scenario (see previous post) in an attempt to remove the iffiness. The details of the death were not meant to be relevant, what was meant to be important was that (1) the Wizard saw the attack coming, but (2) he didn't have time to bring up defenses, and to a lesser extent that (3) he was unwounded before the attack that took him out.
PS: How the heck is a character with an empty consequence track and 3 FP getting stabbed to death? That strikes me as implausible.Uncommon certainly. It'd take 12+ shifts of damage to take out an unwounded victim. Not impossible...just takes setting up.
PPS: Would you allow someone to make Declarations as part of a death curse? Because I totally would.Absolutely! Subject to the same limitations as any declarations of course.
It'd take 20 stress to bypass all consequences, 2-4 stress to bypass the stress track, at least 3 stress to bypass the effects of the FP, and 1 point to actually take the wizard out. That is at minimum a 26 stress hit.Can you take more than one consequence to mitigate a single attack? If so, you're correct (assuming he chooses to take more than one - I tend to limit NPC consequences). But assassination is still possible...just takes more set up.
How the heck do you do that with a knife?About ten maneuvers and declarations. :) Doable for an assassin planning a hit.
I guess maybe a death curse would be a better idea than taking consequences and spending FP and trying to fight if the opponent outmatched you and you knew you couldn't get a concession. I guess that could be the case here.The major limitation to me is "must fit the situation". Time alone will limit declarations between the instant of injury and blacking out. I'd probably disallow any declarations based on preparation simply because of the short time casting is accomplished in.
PS: Would you use the limits on declarations for thaumaturgy or for combat for a death curse? Do you even distinguish between the two?
Becq covered it better than I did...afraid I made an assumption that the wizard was wounded when estimating 20-30 shifts. :-[
Remember, there are two points where stress / consequences are potentially used: first in setting the spell's power level and second in controlling the power. Only the second is removed by a death curse. So you're not going to get the "fifty-bajillion" shifts to start with. ;)
Can you take more than one consequence to mitigate a single attack?I am under the impression that you indeed can.
I was using 'fifty-bajillion' as a a stand-in for 'a large number' in true Dresden style, considering that it's not even a real number.Blasphemy! (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Bajillion)
OK, so that means while your control roll may not be relevant, your targetting roll most certainly is.
Isn't there some sort of resistance roll for death curses though?
I don't think you need to roll against shifts devoted to duration or increased targets. That still could mean a ton of shifts, but perhaps slightly less so.Right, you need to defend against the shifts devoted to the primary effect(s). You won't need to defend against shifts devoted to duration or other non-effect shifts (possibly triggers, zones, or a variety of other ways to split thaumaturgy).
Um, a number of my PCs beat 13 shifts on a regular basis for defense rolls.It's certainly possible - though if they're doing it on a regular basis they must have a fair amount of fate saved up. Fate tends to get spent during combat in my games. ;) You'll simply need to account for any fate they have when assigning shifts to the effect.
It's certainly possible - though if they're doing it on a regular basis they must have a fair amount of fate saved up. Fate tends to get spent during combat in my games. ;) You'll simply need to account for any fate they have when assigning shifts to the effect.
The question is what is permanent by nature to almost anything that isn't pure mortal? Recovery or even wizard's constitution (or a similar long lifespan sort of thing) ensures that nothing physical is permanent, and any other type of harm is too nebulous to really call permanent unless you assign a duration.
Can you take more than one consequence to mitigate a single attack? If so, you're correct (assuming he chooses to take more than one - I tend to limit NPC consequences). But assassination is still possible...just takes more set up.Yes, you can:
About ten maneuvers and declarations. :) Doable for an assassin planning a hit.Just one possible scenario (just counting up shifts, assuming the attack had no trouble hitting to begin with):
The major limitation to me is "must fit the situation". Time alone will limit declarations between the instant of injury and blacking out. I'd probably disallow any declarations based on preparation simply because of the short time casting is accomplished in.