My Wards

[ways and means]

If that same wizard uses Lore to realize you have multiple low-power spells defending your place, he goes ahead and casts a disjunction (big area dispel) and takes them all out at once. I.e. five 15-shift spells on the same zone need a 17-shift counterspell to remove.  One 25-shift spell needs a 25-shift counterspell to remove.

I didn't know you could do that, i thought you could only use counter spell to remove spells.

[Belial666]

Wards and Landmines are spells - they can be countered like anything else. Also, wards and landmines are Wards. An area attack that is launched at them and with the caster electing to damage the wards specifically (see in the book about attacking wards) is going to do the same thing as a counterspell.

[Michael Sandy]

There is a trick for someone who uses big disjunctions:

It dispells a stasis spell holding a nasty down.  This might not even be a TRAP, just a consequence of the wizard having nasty prisoners.

[MegaPuff75]

@Sanctaphrax the Hicks method seems to be the most logical, as long as you don't minmax the conjured creature (which would be easily prevented by a GM veto) also I think you are misunderstanding what I am talking about. I am not summoning these creatures (calling up existing entities from the Nevernever) but conjuring them (creating a construct from ectoplasm and in this case providing them some degree of intelligence). In the case of conjuration the method for determining complexity of the spell, because the complexity comes from determining the shape and behavior of the construct/s and then simply handling the volume of ectoplasm, since every copy of the construct will look and act exactly the same the complexity is only added once so it is only more difficult because you are using more volume.

[devonapple]

@Sanctaphrax the Hicks method seems to be the most logical, as long as you don't minmax the conjured creature (which would be easily prevented by a GM veto) also I think you are misunderstanding what I am talking about. I am not summoning these creatures (calling up existing entities from the Nevernever) but conjuring them (creating a construct from ectoplasm and in this case providing them some degree of intelligence). In the case of conjuration the method for determining complexity of the spell, because the complexity comes from determining the shape and behavior of the construct/s and then simply handling the volume of ectoplasm, since every copy of the construct will look and act exactly the same the complexity is only added once so it is only more difficult because you are using more volume.

At the end of the day, the difference between a Conjured and a Summoned creature is largely story-based, and not mechanical. You are affecting the plot in similar ways whether your army of summoned thugs are Demons in ectoplasm suits, brand-new intellects in ectoplasm suits, Troll bruisers, or golems. We want to handle summoning them different ways because it makes sense to differentiate their origins, but deep down, at a basic level, it comes down to how much you pay for what you get. Making a brand new "intellectus" is basically intended to dodge accusations of demon-summoning, or to avoid having to deal with a demonic agenda.

Which is to say that a demon, fairy or construct with exactly the same game abilities and stats (including agendas or complications) should cost roughly the same, for purposes of game balance.

[sinker]

^^Agreed. Fate is primarily a story based game. Whether you are summoning demons or creating golems, as long as the story purpose is the same and you're creating the same effect, it should be the same mechanics.

[Sanctaphrax]

What they said.

Also, I think that the physical mass of the construct shouldn't matter. Making it matter makes the guy animating origami soldiers feels like a munchkin, and it makes the guy making stone gargoyles feel like a chump.

And minmaxing should not have to be vetoed. It causes trouble, especially given the thin line between unwanted minmaxing and normal play.

What if I want to create a monster that relies on high skills rather than powers? That's not unreasonable, but that system makes it overpowered.

Also, I don't like the take-out-based system thematically for things other than the summoning of hostiles.

[sinker]

Also, I don't like the take-out-based system thematically for things other than the summoning of hostiles.

I don't mind it for a number of reasons. Firstly because you actually don't have to take it out if you aren't controlling it for all time. All you have to do is inflict a consequence, but it's much less reliable and much shorter term (all they have to do is heal the consequence). Secondly you don't have to make the consequences/take out a part of the spell. Technically you could just summon something friendly and take it out in social conflict (I.E. negotiating services). Or beat it into submission. That fits what harry did with Toot (not the beating, but the social conflict). The using a spell to bind something is just one of the ways to do it.

[Sanctaphrax]

Yeah, but if I'm building a golem, why does how tough it is matter so much?

[sinker]

More toughness = greater energy expenditure. At least beyond a certain point.

[UmbraLux]

Yeah, but if I'm building a golem, why does how tough it is matter so much?

If it doesn't matter, you can build an arbitrarily tough golem able to take any given hit.  If for no other reason, summon / construct via takeout is good for balance.

[Belial666]

I make my golem out of clay. Then I bind and animate it with an elemental spirit.
I buy tungsten at $30 per kilo, paying $120 thousand for a man-sized statue. I then find a forge that reaches over 5000 degrees to melt and forge the statue. Then I bind and animate it with an identical elemental spirit.

1) Would the two golems differ in ritual complexity to animate?
2) Would the tungsten golem, made with one of the densest, toughest, more heat-resistant materials known to man, have more toughness than the clay golem?

[UmbraLux]

I make my golem out of clay. Then I bind and animate it with an elemental spirit.
I buy tungsten at $30 per kilo, paying $120 thousand for a man-sized statue. I then find a forge that reaches over 5000 degrees to melt and forge the statue. Then I bind and animate it with an identical elemental spirit.

1) Would the two golems differ in ritual complexity to animate?
2) Would the tungsten golem, made with one of the densest, toughest, more heat-resistant materials known to man, have more toughness than the clay golem?

Looks like two extra aspects - so it'd be 4 shifts tougher if all else was equal. 

Perhaps a bit more since the material is a permanent aspect for the golem.  Someone might spray the clay golem with water while invoking it's only clay for a bonus.  If it were the tungsten golem, the player could invoke made of tungsten for a bonus to defense.  But, barring specific declarations which give each construct character, the rituals should be very similar. 

At least that's my two cents worth.

[zenten]

Having an equally powered clay golem and tongston golum should cost the same.  However, spending all that money and careful prep would help meeting the complexity of doing the creation.

[Sanctaphrax]

I just don't think that toughness should be any more important than, say, fighting skill in determining difficulty.

Also, the take-out system feels like a conflict, which isn't always appropriate. Although this is a minor problem at worst, it bugs me.