ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Xelah on July 23, 2015, 06:53:45 AM

Title: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Xelah on July 23, 2015, 06:53:45 AM
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?
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Taran on July 23, 2015, 10:44:39 AM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 23, 2015, 01:12:23 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Lord_of_Stories on July 23, 2015, 01:34:53 PM
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)
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Quantus on July 23, 2015, 02:06:58 PM
Quote from: Lord_of_Stories on July 23, 2015, 01:34:53 PM
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. 
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: wyvern on July 23, 2015, 03:34:50 PM
Quote from: Quantus on July 23, 2015, 02:06:58 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Quantus on July 23, 2015, 03:46:56 PM
Quote from: wyvern on July 23, 2015, 03:34:50 PM
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
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: PirateJack on July 23, 2015, 05:44:05 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Xelah on July 23, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Rossbert on July 23, 2015, 08:16:44 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: wyvern on July 23, 2015, 08:22:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Theogony_IX on July 23, 2015, 08:31:12 PM
Quote from: Xelah on July 23, 2015, 07:59:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Rossbert on July 23, 2015, 08:41:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: PirateJack on July 23, 2015, 09:59:22 PM
Quote from: Rossbert on July 23, 2015, 08:41:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Xelah on July 23, 2015, 10:17:08 PM
Quote from: Rossbert on July 23, 2015, 08:41:24 PM
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.

Quote from: Theogony_IX on July 23, 2015, 08:31:12 PM
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.

Quote from: wyvern on July 23, 2015, 08:22:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Xelah on July 23, 2015, 10:27:41 PM
Quote from: PirateJack on July 23, 2015, 09:59:22 PM
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.

That's pretty good too, love FATE for versatility, but hate it for mechanical disputes.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Haru on July 24, 2015, 02:11:51 AM
I don't think I would measure death curses in shifts. To me, that's something highly significant, it's a plot device more than anything. So I would treat it as such. Killing a player character with a death curse is boring and I would probably just say that the dying character just can't do that. Well, unless it's a player sacrificing themselves to kill the big bad, but not the other way around. Instead, I would go for something more dramatic.
DIE ALONE!
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Xelah on July 24, 2015, 02:50:02 AM
Quote from: Haru on July 24, 2015, 02:11:51 AM
I don't think I would measure death curses in shifts. To me, that's something highly significant, it's a plot device more than anything. So I would treat it as such. Killing a player character with a death curse is boring and I would probably just say that the dying character just can't do that. Well, unless it's a player sacrificing themselves to kill the big bad, but not the other way around. Instead, I would go for something more dramatic.
DIE ALONE!

Except the power you can throw into a death curse is measured in shifts.  Dresden got "die alone" because the caster knew he wasn't powerful enough to do "die"

 I would call shenanigans on any gm that tried making a death curse from anyone that's been pushed into a severe or extreme consequence worse than a moderate inconvenience.  Their life is literally splattered all over the ground back there.  What are they powering the spell with?  Hopes and dreams?  No.  Dresden goes so far as to explain that all power to fuel magic has to come from somewhere.  Their life in game mechanics is 1 extreme, 1 severe, one moderate, and a few minor consequences.  The only "plot device" level stuff should be well beyond the reach of player characters.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: dragoonbuster on July 24, 2015, 04:02:39 AM
Quote from: Haru on July 24, 2015, 02:11:51 AM
I don't think I would measure death curses in shifts. To me, that's something highly significant, it's a plot device more than anything. So I would treat it as such. Killing a player character with a death curse is boring and I would probably just say that the dying character just can't do that. Well, unless it's a player sacrificing themselves to kill the big bad, but not the other way around. Instead, I would go for something more dramatic.
DIE ALONE!

Agreed, Haru:

Quote from: Xelah on July 24, 2015, 02:50:02 AM
Except the power you can throw into a death curse is measured in shifts.

It's far less interesting, to me, to throw a 30-shift attack (or whatever) at players than it is to work with them to come up with what happens to them when they're slammed with a Death Curse. Plus you have to pause play to do the math for the Curse, and then the math to stop it...that's a lot of not playing.

The numbers are there to make some sense of the game, not define it...that's what the narrative is for. If you don't want to do things by the numbers...you don't have to.

I've had...I think 4 different PCs take a Death Curse at one time or another. Only one took a straight blast to the dome in terms of shifts, and it was by far the least interesting and least memorable of all of them. Losing an eye, having an arm burned to a cinder, being cursed to never find satisfaction in life, those are interesting and fun. Other than the one instance of "blasted in the face," I worked with my players to come up with something that made sense given the narrative and their opponent that they thought would be fun, and they took an Extreme Consequence (at least) that was the "effect" of the death curse. And those have resulted in some great character development and RP for it. In Harry's case with DIE ALONE, I wouldn't fill his Extreme Slot for that but I'd have him change an aspect to fit the curse.

Death Curses are a big deal and don't happen every time a practitioner is killed, remember...you have to have a second's time, know you're about to die, and Harry implies you've got to be trained to actually pull one off, as in Wizard-level training. Those enemies don't show up all the time to start with, and when they do, they're often the Megalomaniacal Bad Guy who doesn't believe they could ever lose to some meddling kids, and that darn mutt! So when the time comes for a real Death Curtse, they should be plot devices. Every time one goes off in the books, it's a rather serious event--and a plot device. Even Simon Petrovitch's Death Curse is one....the dead Red Court don't make a practical difference at the PC (Harry) level--but they play a part in spurring on a Compel to throw Harry into another crazy adventure. One of my favorite developments in the entire series was
(click to show/hide)

So my opinion is forget X shifts and just come up with something reasonable that will drive more good story because of it.



Now, to answer the question of how to Block something like that? Well, in practical terms, I'm not sure you really can. A Death Curse isn't something you can do if you're Taken Out--you have to do it, effectively, as a Concession. I guess it's possible to set up a giant block ahead of time in anticipation of the Bad Guy shooting off a Death Curse, but that seems far-fetched and unlikely...if you could do that, why didn't you just shut down his power completely from the get-go and avoid the fight and possibility of a Death Curse?

So if you're the one trying to stop the Death Curse-as-Concession, you have no mechanical way to stop it, practically, in my eyes--but you can bargain with the GM, as always. And that's where, if keeping the guy alive would be a big deal to the story or the PCs, "Cool! Let's figure something out..." And then we come up with a way to allow you to stop or block the Death Curse by invoking your HC and taking a consequence or three in exchange.

Maybe you do a cold-blooded takeout like when
(click to show/hide)
and take a Moderate-Severe Mental [Am I A Murderer?] consequence, for example. For the necromantic "stop him from reaching Death" style prevention you specified, maybe your PC starts thinking he's above the Laws of Nature/Magic and starts skirting the edge of Lawbreaking more, and you take a Mental Consequence or change an aspect to represent that. (I don't know the PC well enough to make a specific call, but I think you get my point?)

Whatever exactly happens...it should (a) be a Big Deal when someone uses or tries to use a Death Curse and (b) create some effect that drives/creates more interesting story.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Rossbert on July 24, 2015, 04:10:57 AM
Quote from: Xelah on July 24, 2015, 02:50:02 AM
I would call shenanigans on any gm that tried making a death curse from anyone that's been pushed into a severe or extreme consequence worse than a moderate inconvenience.  Their life is literally splattered all over the ground back there.  What are they powering the spell with?  Hopes and dreams?  No.  Dresden goes so far as to explain that all power to fuel magic has to come from somewhere.  Their life in game mechanics is 1 extreme, 1 severe, one moderate, and a few minor consequences.

As a reminder, the book specifically says a death curse lets you skip the prep and the tag all your consequences and inflict more (with immediate tags) if you have open slots, so a death curse will always be 20+ shifts if the caster so desires, since it doesn't matter if you have already taken consequences or not. Alternately just go with the plot level power idea.

In cases where they are tagging existing things they are throwing their fear, pain, helplessness or other emotional baggage into the spell. Like whenever Harry would tag his rage or fear for extra juice.
Title: Re: Kemmlerian necromancy and death curses...
Post by: Haru on July 24, 2015, 10:15:11 AM
Quote from: Xelah on July 24, 2015, 02:50:02 AM
Except the power you can throw into a death curse is measured in shifts.  Dresden got "die alone" because the caster knew he wasn't powerful enough to do "die"
Or Dresden got "die alone", because he's a player character that the player didn't want to lose yet, so the group came up with an alternative solution that would allow the player to keep their character.

Quote from: Xelah on July 24, 2015, 02:50:02 AM
I would call shenanigans on any gm that tried making a death curse from anyone that's been pushed into a severe or extreme consequence worse than a moderate inconvenience.  Their life is literally splattered all over the ground back there.  What are they powering the spell with?  Hopes and dreams?  No.  Dresden goes so far as to explain that all power to fuel magic has to come from somewhere.  Their life in game mechanics is 1 extreme, 1 severe, one moderate, and a few minor consequences.  The only "plot device" level stuff should be well beyond the reach of player characters.
Plot device power level doesn't mean so powerful it obliterates everything, it means to do what's most interesting and satisfying for the story right now. I've had a player of mine kill the red king and his brother with a death curse where he exploded in a nova of pure sunshine. Had I counted the shifts, the scene would have been rather anticlimactic. This way, I still sometimes reread it because it is full of awesome.

The thing is, you can measure things in shifts, but you don't have to. When it comes to fighting, shifts make sense, so you have something to compare the opposing parties. But when it comes to a death curse, to me the fight is over and we enter cut-scene territory. You can do anything you like there. I'd be weary of GM fiat as well, but that's why I always try to do something like this with the players, not against them.

And if you come to the conclusion that the death curse isn't enough to take out everyone, the conflict will continue after that cut-scene with whoever is left standing.