Author Topic: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?  (Read 9069 times)

Offline ironpoet

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #15 on: October 28, 2010, 08:43:26 PM »
The more changes you're making, the greater the complexity to the final result.  So, turning a large number of lead bullets into a lead Nativity Scene would only need to factor in Craftsmanship (and whatever skill would involve Sculpting/Molding); turning those bullets into a ham sandwich would require Craftsmanship, Survival (for finding a pig), Weapons (for killing said pig), Survival again (making a fire), Craftmanship (again) (for growing the wheat)... suddenly, your Ham Sandwich takes days of time.  Or you could, you know, just go to a corner deli and buy one.

Just to clarify, the amount of time a Thaumatrugical spell takes to cast is based on (a) the amount of time it takes the wizard to prepare, and (b) the amount of time it takes the wizard to power the spell.  So transforming bullets into ham sandwiches via Thaumaturgy doesn't necessarily take days, but the complexity of the spell should be based on how long it would normally take.  Is that right?

Offline Bruce Coulson

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #16 on: October 28, 2010, 08:56:35 PM »
I was basing that on the suggestion that you can substitute time for additional shifts to your prep  (I think being absent for a scene is a +2?).  If you're going to do a high-complexity spell, you can take a huge amount of time building the power necessary.  Sometimes, there's no other way to get something done.  Other times, you're better off using mundane methods.
You're the spirit of a nation, all right.  But it's NOT America.

Offline ironpoet

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #17 on: October 28, 2010, 09:39:09 PM »
Let me see if I can give a first draft of the guidelines we're talking about:

Transformative Thaumaturgy:

1a) If you want to permanently transform something, the baseline complexity is equal to the number of shifts required to "take it out"
  • For PCs and NPCs, this is equal to their physical stress boxes, plus available consequences, plus 1.
  • For objects, this is equal to their physical stress boxes.  Particularly complex objects might require extra shifts (essentially, "armor" against Transformation).  Magical objects might be able to take consequences as well.
1b) If you only want to temporarily transform something, the baseline complexity is equal to the length of time the object will remain transformed.  Zero shifts is equal to 1 exchange.

2) In addition to the baseline complexity, add the difficulty required to manually transform the initial object into the desired object, assuming such a thing were possible.  This is considered the combination of multiple skill rolls, determined by the GM.
  • Changing stone into a specific shape could be a Fair (+2) Craftsmanship task.
  • Changing a human into a (same-size) animal could be a Great (+4) Scholarship task, plus a Good (+3) Craftsmanship task.

3) If the initial object requires different material, more mass, or less mass than the desired object, add +6 (maybe?) shifts for every kilogram of difference.  This represents the difficulty to create or destroy the desired material.
3b) For temporary transformation, add 3 shifts for every kilogram of difference.  This represents the difficulty to conjure or "hide" the desired material.

Some examples:
  • Temporarily creating an opening in a wall = 3 complexity: 0 (1 exchange) + 3 (Craftsmanship)
  • Permanently repairing a hole in the roof (with lumber available) = 7 complexity: 4 (physical stress + 1) + 3 (Craftsmanship)
  • Tranforming a bar of Lead into Gold = 54 complexity: 3 (physical stress +1) + 1 (Craftsmanship) + 50 (converting 10 kg of Lead into 10 kg of Gold)

How does that sound?

Offline Bruce Coulson

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 621
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #18 on: October 28, 2010, 10:06:17 PM »
Not sure where you're getting the 50 complexity number, but this looks about right.  It certainly prevents wizards from swamping the gold market...
You're the spirit of a nation, all right.  But it's NOT America.

Offline Kaldra

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 227
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #19 on: October 28, 2010, 10:40:17 PM »
why 50?

Offline ironpoet

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #20 on: October 29, 2010, 02:17:28 PM »
why 50?

My proposed Rule #3 states that if you're missing a particular type of material, you need to add 5 shifts per Kg (to convert nearby air or some of the existing material into the new type of material).  So if you want to convert a 10 kg bar of lead into a 10 kg bar of gold, you have to spend 5 shifts per kilogram.

Now, I'm not sure if that's a *good* rule, but that's where the 50 came from.  The idea is that fundamental alchemy (changing the atomic and/or molecular structure of something) is much more difficult than simply rearranging its contents.

Offline Drashna

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #21 on: October 29, 2010, 02:32:21 PM »
True enough, but is not Dresden doing that every time he calls Fire? or Air? or Earth?  50 seems absurd to me.

That being said, permanent transformation requires enough shifts to use up all consequence slots and *then* to take out the object.  Assuming something simple with a minor consequence and a moderate, and 3 stress, that's 9 shifts required to transform it period. More depending on it's defense if it gets any.  Now take into account that you may not actually get proper "gold" for the lead to gold example, you'd require at the minimum of 4-5 shifts just to add to complexity, maybe more depending (this is taken from the conjuration section, but should apply here as well).  At this point, that's approx 15 shifts you'll need.  Lets just say that you add 4-5 more to chalk up to added complexity, and vastly different material.  That's approx 20 shifts. Oh, and don't forget, you'd probably actually have to have some real gold for the ritual to even work, so that's some resources you'll be tapping into. At this point, wouldn't you be better off just summoning some gold or stealing it from a bank/jewelry store?

Also, I wouldn't say that craftsmanship is required here, as it really isn't for conjuration either. However, I'd be inclined to say that the complexity is limited by your craftsmanship/scholarship, depending on the object. Meaning that if you don't understand the fundamentals of the desired object, you're not going to be able to transform it properly.
[qoute='piotr1600']Sure true love will conquer all... You sponsored an instant vision of a tentacled Cthuluoid monstrosity following Elaine around, meeping piteously and making puppy dog eyes at her while she sighs loudly and gently kisses those tentacles...[/qoute]

Offline ironpoet

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #22 on: October 29, 2010, 03:33:27 PM »
True enough, but is not Dresden doing that every time he calls Fire? or Air? or Earth?  50 seems absurd to me.

What?  No, I don't believe Harry is changing atomic structures when he casts spells.  Fire isn't an element, for one.  And Earth, Air, and Water are basically everywhere, so they're not being created out of nothing.  But I would allow evocation to turn oxygen into helium (although maybe it could collect and filter out the small amounts of helium in the air...) or copper into cold iron.

50 shifts is still a pretty huge amount.  It's based on the idea proposed earlier that "you can't use magic to get rich", so I wanted to suggest a game mechanic to explain that.  But "add 5 shifts per kg" was an arbitrary choice.  Maybe it should be something like "add 2 shifts per kg", and therefore only add 20 shifts, or "add 5 shifts per 10 kg", and therefore only add 5 shifts.  Or maybe the proposed rule #3 needs to be scrapped entirely.  I'm definitely open to suggestions!

That being said, permanent transformation requires enough shifts to use up all consequence slots and *then* to take out the object.  Assuming something simple with a minor consequence and a moderate, and 3 stress, that's 9 shifts required to transform it period. More depending on it's defense if it gets any.  Now take into account that you may not actually get proper "gold" for the lead to gold example, you'd require at the minimum of 4-5 shifts just to add to complexity, maybe more depending (this is taken from the conjuration section, but should apply here as well).  At this point, that's approx 15 shifts you'll need.  Lets just say that you add 4-5 more to chalk up to added complexity, and vastly different material.  That's approx 20 shifts. Oh, and don't forget, you'd probably actually have to have some real gold for the ritual to even work, so that's some resources you'll be tapping into. At this point, wouldn't you be better off just summoning some gold or stealing it from a bank/jewelry store?

Also, I wouldn't say that craftsmanship is required here, as it really isn't for conjuration either. However, I'd be inclined to say that the complexity is limited by your craftsmanship/scholarship, depending on the object. Meaning that if you don't understand the fundamentals of the desired object, you're not going to be able to transform it properly.

Well, the guidelines I proposed are based on the idea that normal objects, in general, can't take consequences, since they can't heal themselves.  What would be a mild, moderate, or severe consequence for a bar of lead?  It was also based on the idea that simple transformations should be possible (i.e. transforming a rock into a stone chair, transforming a knife into a lock pick, etc.)  If every transformation spell starts at a baseline of 9 shifts of complexity, plus several more shifts depending on complexity, then transformation is almost never going to be a useful theme in the game.

Don't misunderstand - I think the argument you gave for this specific spell is completely reasonable.  The result certainly "feels" about right.  But I'm interested in a simple set of guidelines to follow for any Transformation ritual, and I'm not sure I could apply your reasoning to other spells and come up with a satisfying result.

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #23 on: October 29, 2010, 03:44:13 PM »
Guys, reality check. You are talking too many shifts here for some transformations. Compare with Conjuration;

Shifts to make a coin:  1
Shifts to make a coin impossible to make out as fake by any mortal: 10  (for a believability of legendary+2)
Shifts to make enough coins to fill an entire park: 6
Shifts to make coins last several human lifetimes: 13
Total shifts to conjure a John-Wayne-level fortune that nobody can tell is fake without magic: 30

So, our wizard has a Lore of 5, is a conjurer so +1 from his base specialization, and has a +4 bracelet focus. He can make any conjuration of 10 shifts in a minute or so without preparation. Assuming he started at submerged and has 5 conviction, he has 3 fate points and 2 mild mental conseqeunces so he can spend those for another 10 shifts. He makes a Lore declaration and a Conviction declaration for another +4, takes a moderate consequence and spends an afternoon (2 scenes) to gather the remaining materials for another 6 shifts.
So, a basic conjurer - a submerged wizard without any refinement - can create a massive fortune once per minor milestone - let's say that's once per week. And said fortune would be impossible for mortals to find out it's fake, last a millennium and require an equally powerful effect to dispel, even if someone finds it is fake.




Wizards have no problem getting rich via magic - or doing just about anything if they can similarly prepare and is in their specialty. The same amount of shifts could rip someone's heart out of their chests from the other side of the country regardless of how tough they are or what non-magical defenses/bodyguards they have, make a magical barrier that stops entire armies, turn an entire graveyard (10 zones) worth of corpses into the walking dead, flatten the UN building from a couple of blocks away or conjure enough blood to visit the First Plague upon the Mississipi.


The reasons wizards don't do that is that it is wrong. If they want to do it, are strong enough to do it and are allowed to prepare, they can do funny stuff like rites of ascencion or starting world wars.

Offline ironpoet

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #24 on: October 29, 2010, 04:44:06 PM »
Guys, reality check. You are talking too many shifts here for some transformations. Compare with Conjuration;
...
Shifts to make enough coins to fill an entire park: 6

Where are you getting this number from?  That seems way too low for the amount of stuff you're conjuring.  If that were true, couldn't I create an enchanted item that summoned a (highly unbelieveable but still very heavy) football stadium ten feet above my enemies (3 times per session)?

Total shifts to conjure a John-Wayne-level fortune that nobody can tell is fake without magic: 30

Hmm... well, personally, I would rule that your entire fortune is trivial to dispel, can't cross thresholds, and may get shorted out the first time it rains on your money bin.  I don't have my books, so I don't know the rules regarding ectoplasm conjurings.  But in a previous post on conjurations (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21807.0.html) the consensus seemed to be that they couldn't cross thresholds unless you spent extra shifts.

Wizards have no problem getting rich via magic - or doing just about anything if they can similarly prepare and is in their specialty. The same amount of shifts could rip someone's heart out of their chests from the other side of the country regardless of how tough they are or what non-magical defenses/bodyguards they have, make a magical barrier that stops entire armies, turn an entire graveyard (10 zones) worth of corpses into the walking dead, flatten the UN building from a couple of blocks away or conjure enough blood to visit the First Plague upon the Mississipi.

Honestly, I'm not sure why wizards don't use magic to get rich - it was mentioned as part of the Dresden universe, and I'm not far enough into the books to question it!  At the very least, I'm sure Harry would be motivated to have some money, even if he wasn't independently wealthy.  Storywise, I admit I like the idea of a character powerful enough to level mountains, but still unable to pay their own utility bill.  (So it's possible I'm biasing my suggested mechanics in that direction.)

That being said, if I were running the game, I would definitely make most of the spells you suggested significantly more expensive than 30 shifts.

Offline Papa Gruff

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 536
  • in omnia paratus!
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #25 on: October 29, 2010, 05:51:03 PM »
Where are you getting this number from?  That seems way too low for the amount of stuff you're conjuring.  If that were true, couldn't I create an enchanted item that summoned a (highly unbelieveable but still very heavy) football stadium ten feet above my enemies (3 times per session)?

quite right. six shifts is a rather arbitrary number here. something the size of a nunfunctioning car would be +7. A horde of frogs with the same volume of or coins should be at least in that region. Enough coins to fill an entire park. well a LOT more shifts i dare say.

Hmm... well, personally, I would rule that your entire fortune is trivial to dispel, can't cross thresholds, and may get shorted out the first time it rains on your money bin.  I don't have my books, so I don't know the rules regarding ectoplasm conjurings.  But in a previous post on conjurations (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,21807.0.html) the consensus seemed to be that they couldn't cross thresholds unless you spent extra shifts.

The number 30 for the multiple lifetimes of duration is also simply wrong, at least concerning my book. The base unaltered duration of the conjured fortune would be a scene a.k.a. 15 minutes (and that would be a quite generous calling from the GM). To let the fortune go up to multiple lifetimes it would take 18 steps on the time table. That would be +36 shifts right there. Not counting crossing thresholds and the other stuff ironpoet pointed out.

Honestly, I'm not sure why wizards don't use magic to get rich - it was mentioned as part of the Dresden universe, and I'm not far enough into the books to question it!  At the very least, I'm sure Harry would be motivated to have some money, even if he wasn't independently wealthy.  Storywise, I admit I like the idea of a character powerful enough to level mountains, but still unable to pay their own utility bill.  (So it's possible I'm biasing my suggested mechanics in that direction.)

I'm quite sure Harry explicitly mentions some wizards getting incredibly wealthy using their powers. I thing he does so fairly at the end of Proven Guilty when talking to Molly about her future (can be wrong though). That said, I don't see where this no riches through magic thing is coming from.

That being said, if I were running the game, I would definitely make most of the spells you suggested significantly more expensive than 30 shifts.

I think that too.

Nobody does it because it is just a ridiculous amount of work. The creation is far to brittle for obvious reasons. Hence ... why bother.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 05:53:49 PM by Papa Gruff »
in omnia peratus! ... wait a minute! ... to give anybody a rucksack? ... DAMN CORRESPONDENCE COURSE!

Offline ironpoet

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 121
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #26 on: October 29, 2010, 06:35:37 PM »
I'm quite sure Harry explicitly mentions some wizards getting incredibly wealthy using their powers. I thing he does so fairly at the end of Proven Guilty when talking to Molly about her future (can be wrong though). That said, I don't see where this no riches through magic thing is coming from.

I'm only going by Ryan_Singer's response early in this thread, and Becq's agreement with him.  But, like I said, thematically I like the idea that wealth is hard to come by, even for a wizard.

To be clear, though, I'm not as interested in the rules for getting rich via Transformation (although it is a cool discussion).  I'm mainly interested in setting guidelines for "everyday" Transformation.  i.e. "What could you use it for during a game?" or "What could you do for six-ten shifts of complexity?"

  • Want to sneak some secret documents out of a building, but they'll search your bag when you leave?  Transform them into a Pulp Mystery novel.
  • Need an antidote to Black Widow venom, but you don't have a lab nearby?  Transform some nearby flowers (assuming you know what the antidote is).
  • Need to make a good impression?  Temporarily transform your "Cheap Clothes" into a "Stlylish Suit".
  • Being chased by a werewolf?  Transform your silver earrings and your knife into a Silver-coated Dagger.
  • Timmy trapped down a well?  Transform the smooth walls into a ladder.

I feel like there are lots of good uses for Transformation magic (that isn't Law-breaking) but not enough guidelines for its complexity.  So I'm hoping to develop a simple set of rules.  If those rules can cover basic transformation and alchemy, awesome.  If it also covers transforming living creatures (willing or unwilling), then that's even better!

Offline Belial666

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2389
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #27 on: October 29, 2010, 09:54:57 PM »
Quote
A simple, one-part object such as a small coin or a piece of paper is complexity 1, with things going up from there. Typical handheld weapons and things with one or two moving parts can be conjured around a complexity of 3. Larger, more complicated things and minor animate things—such as a frog that hops around and ribbits—are a 5. (These items still look “a little off ” or “unreal.”) Quantity and size add +2 for each identifiable factor. Creating a (nonfunctioning) car would be about a 7, starting at 5 and getting a
+2 due to its size; creating enough faux frogs to overrun a city park could be 11 or more—5 for the basic frog, +2 several times over for quantity.
So, a car-sized object (complexity not included) is +2. Enough objects to fill a city park is +6. I used the exact shifts from the examples.


Quote
Sure! You can conjure a sword, using thaumaturgy. But…why? It’ll take you at least a few minutes to conjure the thing, since this is thaumaturgy in action, and unless you toss some extra power into it to outlast the sunrise, it’ll dissolve in less than a day
So, conjurations last till sunrise, not 1 scene. Generally, most thaumaturgies have that duration, unless a shorter duration is mentioned. So, several human lifetimes IS +13 shifts of power.

Quote
I would rule that your entire fortune is trivial to dispel, can't cross thresholds, and may get shorted out the first time it rains on your money bin.
There are rules for thresholds and dispelling.
1) To dispel a spell, you need to summon as many shifts of power as were used to cast it. It is as big a ritual to dispel the fortune as it is to make it. Besides, once you put the money in a bank or exchange them for foreign currency or buy something, them being dispelled won't hurt you.
2) Thresholds -and water is a threshold too- don't automatically stop magic; they diminish the effect of the spell by a number of shifts. Even a legendary threshold such as a major holy Cathedral or bathing in an ocean will only dimisish the spell's power by 8 shifts. So, say the spell's duration and believability are reduced by 4 shifts each; the money will still last a month inside the threshold and still be hard enough to recognize as unreal that only experts would manage it.




Besides, a wizard can become very, very wealthy without the need to conjure money;
1) Thaumaturgy divination, to predict the moves of the stock market in the day. That would be solving a problem with the contacts or resources or scholarship skill. Even the most skilled mortals in financial science in the world would get a base of superb +5 plus +2 from a stunt in this. A wizard using divination could easily get a complexity of 10 with a two-minute ritual. Fancy getting the maximum benefit of the stock market every day? 20% rate of interest per day would be about the best possible. In ten days you'd have 6 TIMES the money you started with. In one month you could start with $4.000 and end up with $ 1 million.

2) Thaumaturgy divination, to search for minerals - gold, oil, gems. Similarly to the above use, even the weakest wizard could get better results in minutes than world-class prospectors could get in days or months of searching.

3) How about buying and selling land? A wizard could influence the weather or conjure attacks by vermin with only minor complexity or even do power outages and the like to really drop property values. Then he'd buy the land for a ridiculous price and sell some months later at a much higher price.

4) Invest in a company then destroy the company's competitors. You don't really need black magic or any direct spells; any modern company can be destroyed by simply hexing it. Even better, manipulate the stock market like that.

5) Steal a bank. Hex the bank at night, sneak in under a thaumaturgy veil, put the guards to sleep, melt the vault door and grab the money. Even better, use summoned creatures to steal the money for you. No Laws broken whatsoever and the police will have no evidence at all; no modern security can resist hexing and any trace evidence left by summoned creatures melts away in minutes (and isn't human to begin with.
Or, you can do it faster by opening a Gate from the Nevernever directly into the bank vault.

6) Insurance fraud. Lots of insurance fraud. Fires, power failure, equipment failure, wizards can do it untraceably and seemingly naturally.

7) Arms Dealing. How much would an assassin or a terrorist pay for an invisibility potion? How about a mercenary for an invulnerability potion or a healing potion? Any kind of armed forces for a grenade-like potion that does 8 shifts of hexing in one zone, destroying every kind of technological item from alarms to firearms and mines to armored vehicles? How about lasting thaumaturgy veils for secret facilities and bunkers? And NONE of the above violate the Laws of Magic.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12404
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #28 on: October 29, 2010, 10:07:49 PM »
I like all of those examples except the first. I'm pretty sure that someone would notice that. Money laundering is not easy.

Actually, that's another money making oppurtunity for just about any supernatural. It goes without saying that the financial transactions of the White Council are at least in part invisible to the government. The magical community is hidden from the authorities in a way that criminals can only dream of.

Offline Drashna

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 245
    • View Profile
Re: What is the complexity to Transform Objects?
« Reply #29 on: October 29, 2010, 10:37:31 PM »
#1 is a blantant violation of the laws of magic. Do at your own risk.
#2 ... do you have connection to those gems? If not, no-go. Won't work.
#3 sounds like it may have been done repeatedly, if not necessarily by mortal wizards... :)
#4 would work, however it kinda violates the "guideline" of the council to stay out of mortal politics. And you run the risk of more powerful wizards ... doing the same and ruining you.
#5 Summoning a creature to do it for you requires binding and/or bargaining.  If your willing to take those sorts of risk, long term isn't for you. :)  And using the NeverNever to drop into a bank? I'd be afraid of what lies on the other side at any bank. Arctus Tor, maybe? But by all means, go for it. The veil part on the other hand isn't a bad idea.
#6 Indeed. But like entropamancy, where do you draw the line? And more importantly, how long till you "accidently" kill somebody?
Though, #7 sounds like a fun idea, and a great plot hook.

But then again, there is a point here, magic doesn't really make anything easier.
[qoute='piotr1600']Sure true love will conquer all... You sponsored an instant vision of a tentacled Cthuluoid monstrosity following Elaine around, meeping piteously and making puppy dog eyes at her while she sighs loudly and gently kisses those tentacles...[/qoute]