Is my summoner Balanced?

[Aminar]

Sorry Polk.  I was using my tablet and in a hurry.

[polkaneverdies]

It's no problem at all. I appreciate you trying to quickly respond to the question I posed.

[Sanctaphrax]

This attitude that says that 20+ shifts of thaumaturgy is easy is terrible. Every piece of fluff that we have indicates that it isn't supposed to be that way. Victor Sells' heart-explodey spell is supposed to be extremely powerful and impressive. And the vast majority of our canonical example rituals are weaker than 10 shifts.

And not only does the fluff say that, it's also much more sensible balance-wise if Thaumaturgy isn't easy. Because Thaumaturgy duplicates skill rolls. Skills rolls generally cap out at 8ish. Thaumaturgy shouldn't smash that barrier so trivially.

An ally with high skills isn't quite as good as having high skills yourself, but it's still damn good. Unless I really don't understand your control mechanics.

By these rules, you do not need a high refresh level to justify high skills. If you want that to be the case, you need to make it the case.

My belief that maneuvers can only be used in conflicts was arrived at thusly:

-I was talking to someone (I think it was Belial666) about a skill roll, and he said that it would be easy because he could just maneuver+tag to hit the difficulty. Which seemed wrong to me, given that we have those spiffy time charts that you're supposed to use for skill rolls. If a ten-second maneuver could do the same thing as spending two more time increments, then something seemed very wrong.

-So I went to the rulebook and looked up the rules for maneuvers. They were in the conflict and spellcasting sections, as a possible use of magic and as one of the basic actions in a conflict. Outside of those sections, they simply were not mentioned. Which led me to the conclusion that you cannot maneuver outside of a conflict, except with the abstracted maneuver-analogues provided by magic. Which means that aspects created outside of conflict are made through Declarations, not maneuvers.

[UmbraLux]

This attitude that says that 20+ shifts of thaumaturgy is easy is terrible. Every piece of fluff that we have indicates that it isn't supposed to be that way.

It's got nothing to do with "attitude".  The game mechanics are easy.  If you want them to be difficult, house rule them!  But don't call easy mechanics difficult 'because they should be'...not when logical analysis says differently.

Victor Sells' heart-explodey spell is supposed to be extremely powerful and impressive. And the vast majority of our canonical example rituals are weaker than 10 shifts.

The heart exploding spell, and any take-out spell, starts in the mid twenties or thirties.  It's not close to a sure thing until forty or so.  Victor's spell was something Harry expected would blast through threshold, wards, and a circle while still killing him.  The book puts it at 36 shifts, I'd say it needed to be higher to ensure penetration of any wards & circles.

Perhaps more to the point, Victor didn't exactly make intelligent use of his power.  In the OW comments, Harry states this is why he was able to take him.

And not only does the fluff say that, it's also much more sensible balance-wise if Thaumaturgy isn't easy. Because Thaumaturgy duplicates skill rolls. Skills rolls generally cap out at 8ish. Thaumaturgy shouldn't smash that barrier so trivially.

I agree...which doesn't change how it's actually written.

An ally with high skills isn't quite as good as having high skills yourself, but it's still damn good. Unless I really don't understand your control mechanics.

By these rules, you do not need a high refresh level to justify high skills. If you want that to be the case, you need to make it the case.

I still think an extra action is worth a lot...otherwise I agree.

My belief that maneuvers can only be used in conflicts was arrived at thusly:

-I was talking to someone (I think it was Belial666) about a skill roll, and he said that it would be easy because he could just maneuver+tag to hit the difficulty. Which seemed wrong to me, given that we have those spiffy time charts that you're supposed to use for skill rolls. If a ten-second maneuver could do the same thing as spending two more time increments, then something seemed very wrong.

This is a feeling, not a reason.

-So I went to the rulebook and looked up the rules for maneuvers. They were in the conflict and spellcasting sections, as a possible use of magic and as one of the basic actions in a conflict. Outside of those sections, they simply were not mentioned. Which led me to the conclusion that you cannot maneuver outside of a conflict, except with the abstracted maneuver-analogues provided by magic. Which means that aspects created outside of conflict are made through Declarations, not maneuvers.

Maneuvers are mentioned on a variety of pages.  A few worth mentioning in relation to non-combat maneuvers:  the Command trapping of Presence allows coordination of tasks; Craftsmanship allows maneuvers against structures via Demolitions; Contests (YS193) may be used as an "isolated maneuver action"; the section on maneuvers in the Conflict chapter also mentions Navel Gazing Maneuvers and uses lock picking as one example; YS208 explicitly states maneuvers can be used to coordinate actions outside of combat; not sure if you consider soulgazes a conflict but you can use maneuvers there; minor effects (YS259) are "usually assumed to be within the scope of evocation maneuvers"; thaumaturgy appears capable of maneuvers outside of combat; YS299 suggests using maneuver spells for researching a scene; and Bob's love potion is a maneuver, does it count as a conflict?  There are more but I'm tired of cataloging them.  Outside of the book, one author states assessment, declaration, and maneuvering are all the same action - aspect creation / discovery.

But toss all those out for a minute and consider the effects of only allowing declarations in thaumaturgy spells.  Doing so presumably excludes everyone but the caster from the scene (which I find boring) but otherwise doesn't make the spell much more difficult.  Declarations and maneuvers are just aspect creation.

[Aminar]

An extra action is very powerful.  That's why I have 5 refresh worth of prereqs, and a variety of important skills/ needing to issue commands via a spell.  I don't want this to be overpowered, I really want it underpowered.

[Sanctaphrax]

Prereqs aren't really the best way to make something weaker. After all, Evocation and Thaumaturgy are well worth their costs even when they aren't being used as prerequisites. All prereqs do is restrict the type of character that can access your power.

Given that the existing rules for Thaumaturgy are like 60% handwavium, I don't feel as though I contradict anything when I say that 12 shifts is quite a lot.

Having everyone take a consequence, even a mild, isn't insignificant.

I fear I may have given a false impression about my opinion on maneuvers, UmbraLux. You can use a maneuver to help yourself pick a lock. But only in a conflict or, maybe, in another situation where time is measured in rounds. That time investment is crucial to the concept of a maneuver, in my view.

Some powers and stunts and things (notably magic) might let you perform maneuvers in other situations, but that is an exception. (I kinda pointed this out in my previous post).

If you look up "maneuvers" in YS's excellent index, you'll notice that the only reference is to the section on conflicts.

Declarations are harder than maneuvers because Declarations have to be interesting and maneuvers don't. You can maneuver to get CAREFUL AIM. But that's a weak-ass Declaration.

And yes, most of my story was just a story. I wasn't really trying to convince so much as explain.

[Aminar]

But a wizard or sorcerer using this has a point less refresh and far less enchanted items/foci which seems to even them out fairly well.

And a minor consequence at the end of a session means absolutely nothing.  Basic declaratoions may take creativity, but most RPers have enough of that to use just about every skill once.  Thaumaturgy is silly easy, up to a fairly high point, and boring for most of the party to boot.  Hence the work to avoid it as a character concept.

Now, how should I go about leaving more than one summon as an option while allowing for swarms?  Current plan is lore in individual types and the above limit is what you can have on the field.  I'm also instituting that their skills are capped at the players is highest because it doesn't limit how I want to use the thing.

[UmbraLux]

I fear I may have given a false impression about my opinion on maneuvers, UmbraLux. You can use a maneuver to help yourself pick a lock. But only in a conflict or, maybe, in another situation where time is measured in rounds. That time investment is crucial to the concept of a maneuver, in my view.

The problem with using time limits as a requirement for maneuvers is two-fold - you can add time limits to any arbitrary set of actions and second, time may well not matter for some conflicts (a long running forum debate comes to mind ).

Some powers and stunts and things (notably magic) might let you perform maneuvers in other situations, but that is an exception. (I kinda pointed this out in my previous post).

If you look up "maneuvers" in YS's excellent index, you'll notice that the only reference is to the section on conflicts.

There are a lot of exceptions then...the list I started in my previous post isn't complete. 

Declarations are harder than maneuvers because Declarations have to be interesting and maneuvers don't. You can maneuver to get CAREFUL AIM. But that's a weak-ass Declaration.

This is an arbitrary difficulty at best.  That said, I tend to apply a slightly stricter requirement to all temporary aspects, however they're created - I want them to be both interesting and relevant to the situation / scene.  But, unless I start saying "Declaration X will require <an arbitrarily high number of> shifts for success this time." nothing is actually more difficult.  I'll tack a 'boring' or 'repetitious' point on to the shifts required if need be but I won't tack on arbitrary 'I want this action to fail (or be really difficult)' points. 

A side note regarding "Careful Aim" - I like any aspect which gives me the potential for compels / NPC invokes and "Careful Aim" does...as long as you had them pick out a specific target to aim at (which I would).  "Carefully Aiming at Joe" is interesting and relevant.  It can also be turned against the PC by Joe's allies. 

And yes, most of my story was just a story. I wasn't really trying to convince so much as explain.

Ah, I misunderstood.   
---
Perhaps the most telling part of the text is on YS208 under the Teamwork heading.  It explicitly states maneuvers should be used, even outside of combat, to coordinate actions - to work as a team on a single skill / action. 

When it comes to thaumaturgy in particular, I'd rather have the group working on it as a team than exclude most of the group to have a scene with one individual.  Individual scenes pop up enough when people go their own way, no need to add more.  Admittedly, that's a long standing gripe of mine.  I ran NPC deckers in Shadowrun to avoid something similar.

[Sanctaphrax]

A long-running forum debate is totally measured in rounds. See, for each post you make I make one as well. We can maneuver or block or attack. Or we can offer a concession, which is what I'll do here.

I feel like I've stated my case reasonably well. I've given textual evidence and a rationale indicating why this interpretation is desirable. To your credit, you've done the same. Beyond this point I don't think there's much to say.

So, yeah. I'm done with this argument for now.

But there's one thing I need to say on a tangentially related point.

Aminar, if you think Thaumaturgy is broken, you should fix it. Creating subsystems to avoid using one of the game's most important mechanics is a losing game.

[Aminar]

Not to not use it.  To play a character I want to play without forcing the party into long Thaumaturgical castings.  They will not enjoy it.  It isn't a losing game, not if it comes out balanced.  I've been given a little good advice here, and I've taken it.  The rest is more a criticism of the system that isn't directly related.  If anybody finds any other balance problems I would love to hear them, but all in all I'm pretty happy with the system.

[Sanctaphrax]

Thaumaturgy is pretty important. If you think it's broken, than that's going to present a problem, right? No number of subsystems is going to address that problem. It seems only sensible to go to the source.

Anyway, it still makes no sense to me that you need Demesne for this. Demesne is inappropriate for most wizards, but most wizards should be able to summon.

And trust me, skill caps matter. A guy with Epic Weapons and a +2 stress with a sword stunt costs 8 stunts with Great Lore and he could probably take on three Red Court vamps at once without taking a consequence.

And he wouldn't have to have any Conviction skill at all according to your rules.

You really should make Conviction scale with both skills and powers. Either that or require a certain balance between skills and powers. Otherwise your intended balance measure simply does not work.

[Aminar]

Again Demense is flavor and balance.  It may not make logical sense to you, but it's important in concept.

I added a skill cap.  They top out at the summoner's highest skill. 

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't understand. What flavour does it add? And how does it provide balance?

Demesne is not a waste of Refresh. Taking it does not render you less powerful.

[Aminar]

Because it's a refresh that could be much better spent elsewhere.  I could spend that on enhancement for more summons.  I could spend it to upgrade to full evocation or Thaumaturgy.  It could be a fate point.  Much like Wizards adding The Sight/Soulgaze is what differentiates them from Sorcerer's, adding a Demense differentiates a Focused Summoning Mage from a standard mage.  And it explains why most Wizards don't use it frequently.  A demense has always struck me as purely flavor until the fight is brought into The Demense, which for a PC isn't likely.  Nobody villain is just going to follow the player through the Portal to the never-never unless their victory is certain.  That's what the Hero does to catch the Villain, not the other way around.

[polkaneverdies]

Do you plan to be able to access you demense regardless of your physical location? If the answer to that is yes, then it doesn't do anything for balance. It is an immediate retreat in the face of any danger that, as you pointed out, no enemy would follow you to. That is nothing to casually dismiss.

I am curious how are you planning on running things with your creatures. Are you going to be making arrangements with them and then having them camp out in your demense? Alternately are you just summoning them and imprisoning them there until you want one?