ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Radijs on May 21, 2013, 12:29:59 PM

Title: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Radijs on May 21, 2013, 12:29:59 PM
I couldn't find an awnser by searching. So I ask.
When a character is going to use thaumathurgy, assuming time isn't an issue. How much power/complexity could a wizard put in a spell? I figured that there should be a limit but I couldn't really find one in the rules.

Is there a limit to a wizard's ability to do magic?

And a bonus question: Assuming time is a factor, how much time usually passes before you can roll to gather your power?
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: GryMor on May 21, 2013, 01:58:24 PM
There isn't a limit on complexity. The only effective limit on power is modified conviction + highest open mental stress box-1 + consequences you are willing to spent + invokes/tags you are willing and able to spend. The all in power throw (all consequences and tagging them) tends to be called a death curse, and if by some absurdity, you don't take yourself out with backlash, expect that extreme consequence to burn out your magic.

P.S. You can draw power once per exchange
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Radijs on May 21, 2013, 02:18:41 PM
Yeah that's the death curse. But that is something you shoot off once and quickly.

As I understand thaum you can just spend time, and draw power up to your conviction every time and just slowly build up to a bajillion shifts of power without taking any stress or consequences.
So a thaumaturge who's just finished reading his necronomicon could, given time gather enough power to explode Mab's head for example*.
At least, that's how I understand it. And that's not how I want it to be.

*: Yes I know you'd need an arcane link for that the point isn't specifically Mab but just that even a rank amateur can pull together shitloads of power and complexity while the spell should really be beyond him.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Mr. Death on May 21, 2013, 02:26:16 PM
The main limit is logistics--if you want to build up a 40 shift spell, that means there's 20 scenes/declarations to take care of, which means that if anyone's looking in your direction, they're going to catch on.

The other limiting factor is time. The higher the spell complexity, the longer it's going to take to safely cast--and that means the longer your target has to respond, and things like endurance rolls and compels. It's a lot harder to concentrate on a spell when you've gotta piss like a race horse, and you can't stop a spell once you've started casting--if you're 30 shifts into a 50-shift spell when the vampires bust down the door, you're probably screwed.

A spell of any real size needs a substantial source of power, too, so you need one of those available if you're going to be casting something huge.

So in short, there's no single hard limit to how big a spell's going to be, but there are a lot of smaller factors that will pare it down.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: vonpenguin on May 21, 2013, 02:31:55 PM
Keep in mind that in order to construct such a spell the wizard involved would need either an extremely high lore, or spend lots of time making aspects and sitting out scenes to make the difference. That's how it's meant to be. If you take the time to manufacture the spell you can do whatever you want. But your lore hinders you, your conviction slows you, and you discipline is the only thing between you and a messy end.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Radijs on May 21, 2013, 04:04:00 PM
So, the limit is how much lore the caster can put together? That's not something you can just keep pumping in to the spell at intervals?
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Mr. Death on May 21, 2013, 04:53:59 PM
So, the limit is how much lore the caster can put together? That's not something you can just keep pumping in to the spell at intervals?
The way Thaumaturgy works is:

The most complexity you can put into a spell without further preparation is your Lore (plus whatever specializations or focus items for that type of spell you have). If this number is lower than the target complexity of the spell, you have to take actions to build it up, at a rate of +2 for each declaration or maneuver done. So someone with a Lore of 4 who wants to cast a 10-shift spell needs to take three such actions.

There's really no hard limit here to how much complexity you can build up--but unless your GM is seriously lowballing your competition, you're going to run into difficulty here because eventually someone should catch on to what you're doing and try to stop you. There's also availability of proper spell components to consider against your available resources.

Once you've met the complexity and you've got the power and the sympathetic focus, you can start casting. Once you start casting, the spell's "locked" in--you can't add more complexity, and you can't pause to do something else. Each round, you can channel power up to your conviction rating without stress (or with one point of stress for each shift above it), and control that bit of power with Discipline. If you blow the discipline roll, either you let all the spell energy go as fallout and the spell fails, or you take all of the shifts put into the spell by that point as backlash and keep going. This means that anything above 10 shifts or so is very dangerous to the caster and everyone around him if there's any chance of a screw-up, especially if they're normally a low-powered character.

Again, there's no hard limit, but obviously the higher complexity spells are going to take longer to cast safely, and the more often you're rolling, the more likely that you're going to roll a big -4 and blow the whole thing. Plus, this is another portion where your enemies can interrupt--while a caster is busy rolling out discipline, they're a sitting duck.

So in summary, grossly huge thaumaturgy is only possible when you either don't have serious opposition looking to stop you and you have a huge span of uninterrupted time to yourself, or you've got a legion of people to protect you while you cast.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 21, 2013, 08:17:32 PM
Mr. Death is correct, but I think he's leaving out something important.

And that's the fact that the time Thaumaturgy takes and the difficulty of creating complexity isn't actually defined anywhere in the rules. It is entirely up to the GM's discretion.

So there's a lot of GM fiat involved in exploring the potential of Thaumaturgy. A lot.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: vultur on May 22, 2013, 12:46:14 AM
I honestly do think there should be some sort of limit on the number of declarations involved.

But I'm not sure what's fair... equal to Lore seems too low, 2 x Lore possibly too high.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: UmbraLux on May 22, 2013, 01:02:53 AM
There is a limit if you enforce durations by exchange.  Even assuming all aspects are Declarations and take no time in themselves, they'll still need to last long enough to cover the exchanges spent drawing power.  So not really a hard limit so much as a skill related limit.

While this can be an annoying amount of bookkeeping; it's one of few limits on thaumaturgy, it provides a reason for mages to draw power at unsafe levels, and it provides impetus to group rituals. 
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: GryMor on May 22, 2013, 02:21:45 AM
Aspects from declarations don't have a duration, once established as true, they stay around until they aren't true.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: UmbraLux on May 22, 2013, 03:25:48 AM
Not arguing that - perhaps I should have emphasized the "if" in my previous statement. 

That said, declarations are a large part of DFRPG's rule problems.  I was happy to see FATE Core drop them.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 22, 2013, 08:57:28 AM
I prefer to increase the difficulties of Declarations as players make more of them. That way they can't make them endlessly.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 11:01:32 AM
Yes, aspects created through declarations remain so until something acts to remove them. But I'd rule that the GM is within his right to say that time, the environment, or random acts by unaware people can remove aspects, depending on how they're defined.

If you set up the aspect "Complex Ritual Circle," then you need to know how it's marked out. Is it chalk? What if it gets scuffed? If it's outside, animals or weather might render it useless. There may not be hard and fast rules to govern this, but a savvy player should be aware that there's a practical limit to how resistant any aspects can be to outside interference.

And of course, the longer you spend on a ritual, the greater the chance of someone noticing. This is why mega-powerful rituals like the Darkhallow are so difficult to pull off successfully, and spoiling them can undo years of planning and preparation.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Taran on May 22, 2013, 02:06:45 PM
I prefer to increase the difficulties of Declarations as players make more of them. That way they can't make them endlessly.

Do you have a formula?
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 22, 2013, 02:16:20 PM
I've come to realize, that the number of shifts that are reasonable for a spell can be limited by the narration of the spell better than an arbitrary mechanical number.

For example, one of my players wanted to do a ritual to put up a block in a staircase, having plants grow wild and hinder anyone who wants to cross. He started out with seeds, earth and water, the typical things you'd need to have plants grow. We argued that it would be reasonable to add fire and air to fill the circle of elements (the seed was to be spirit), and when that was done, there was nothing that could reasonably be added to the spell. We could have gone back and changed everything to make it more complex, but this was fine for what we wanted to do.

What I want to say is, while it is technically possible to stack aspects to infinity, every aspect should have a place in the narrative of the spell. At some point, adding more aspects just won't make much sense, and that is where I would stop.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 22, 2013, 02:17:23 PM
Bingo.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 22, 2013, 08:38:11 PM
Do you have a formula?

Nothing solid. The guideline is that for every Declaration you previously made with that skill during a ritual's prep I'll add 2 to the difficulty.

I've come to realize, that the number of shifts that are reasonable for a spell can be limited by the narration of the spell better than an arbitrary mechanical number.

True enough.

Sadly, doing Thaumaturgy often involves computing a lot of numbers that don't actually matter because it all comes down to a  narrative judgement.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 22, 2013, 09:15:14 PM
True enough.

Sadly, doing Thaumaturgy often involves computing a lot of numbers that don't actually matter because it all comes down to a  narrative judgement.
Honestly, by now if I have to start crunching so many numbers, I feel like I'm doing something wrong and look for a more elegant way to solve things.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 22, 2013, 09:18:13 PM
Do you use the Thaumaturgy rules at all, these days?
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 22, 2013, 09:33:01 PM
To the OP, no not really. If a character is willing to invest the time in it then there is no real limit on the amount of power that he can pour into a ritual; and if he is willing to only invest Discipline-4 points shifts of power into the spell each exchange of casting then he has no chance of failure. This being said, if you are casting an 8 hour long ritual then you better be sure you have your Endurance high enough to cover things like "has to shit" "has to eat" "falling asleep" etc.

In game terms a ritual has one real limit; it's complexity. Pushing complexity up isn't particularly difficult but it takes time, potentially a whole lot of time. The other way to push up complexity (and the fastest method) is to break the Fifth law and use sacrifices.

In terms of the narrative rituals have two inversely proportional parts; the complexity, specificity, and control of the ritual and the power of the ritual.

Take Storm Front, Dresden says that performing the heart ripping curse is at the very limits of his power and skill but when he finds out what Sells is doing he changes to "oh, that is really simple". The difference here is the available power. If you have tons of it then you can cast a ritual that doesn't involve any of the tricks that make it far more efficient or require less raw power.

So for high complexity rituals you either need tons of power from an external power source or tons of little details that reduce the power required significantly.

---
Remember, as we are shown in Changes, the only actual requirements for any magic are 1) a symbolic link, 2) power, 3) the ability to control that power. All of those physical items in a ritual and other external factors are a stand in for one of those three things.

----
The other big constraint, in terms of the narrative, on high complexity rituals is the various powers of the world. When you are talking a 200 complexity ritual that is an amount of magic that any supernatural within a hundred miles will notice pretty much instantly. At a minimum you will have Wardens dropping in on your head in minutes to figure out just what you are doing casting a ritual more than powerful enough to obliterate an entire city. Every other super natural power in the world will also suddenly become interested in you and what you are up to.

If you want to get around this then you either need to go the route of mass necromancy and sacrifice a few dozen people (enough to cover the complexity, enough to power the ritual, and enough to eat the backlash from casting the spell in one exchange) or go the route of lots of time and preparation work.

Instead of necromancy you could put up a ten shift ward around the ritual site which will then conceal the casting of a fifteen shift ward behind it (only 5 shifts leak through the first ward) which will then conceal the twenty shift ward which will then conceal the twenty five shift ward which will then conceal the thirty shifty ward, etc. until you have enough wards up that the inner one is strong enough to conceal the power of the ritual and enough to step the wards power down so that people don't say "why do you have a two hundred shift ward here".

---
As for how you go about doing this, you stack rituals. A lower complexity ritual is used to provide aspects that can be tagged for a later ritual which in turn can provide either still more aspects to tags or increase the duration for which those taggable aspects will hang around. Eventually you can built up enough of a pool of tags to cover the complexity of the ritual that you wanted to cast and potentially even the power and control of the actual ritual. It's just taken you six months to a year of constant work instead of a few dozen bodies and a few minutes of work.

If you put in the prepwork though, you can far exceed the power of necromancy without breaking any of the laws. It just takes a very long time and a lot of prep work.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 22, 2013, 09:36:54 PM
Do you use the Thaumaturgy rules at all, these days?
I do, though I am always on the lookout for alternative approaches.

Especially if a spell (or any action, for that matter) starts to become too big, I am inclined to go fractal on it, split it into multiple parts and take it from there.
Or go at it from a narrative angle entirely. Like the often discussed summoning of Chauncy. I would not focus on the spell much more than I would make someone roll for using the phone. Once the demon is there, we are in a social conflict, which is the interesting part we actually wanted to get to, anyway.

Or look at some of the spells in the novels that backfire horribly. When you start calculating the power needed to bind the Erlking, and you decide that it would be more fun to have him run free, you don't have to count all the shifts, you just describe how Harry is summoning the Erlking and have Cowl enter and steal the show. Or the "Fire the Phages back at their summoner" spell. Oh yes, it works, all right, but...
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Xen10k on May 22, 2013, 11:03:47 PM
Or, just have a phone ring to break their concentration.  ;)

Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 22, 2013, 11:17:43 PM
Or, just have a phone ring to break their concentration.  ;)
If you are casting a major ritual (or really most any ritual for that matter) in an area where something like a ringing phone can be heard then you deserve to get screwed over.

One of the final steps before casting that I recommend is to throw up a short duration low shift ward specifically stated to block noise, animals, bugs, etc. that will last the duration of your casting.

My wizards ritual rooms tend to actually have very strong wards around them that can only be bypassed by my wizard or with tokens kept inside the ward (except for the few minutes needed to bring another ritual participant into the area). Interruptions are bad when doing ritual work.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Phantomdoodler on May 23, 2013, 08:10:52 AM
Cracking discussion guys! I find that when there is no real risk, players can potentially create stupendously powerful spells and they have begun to get wise to this. Some good solutions to this. I may start all attempts to create an aspect at Mediocre, and increase the difficulty by 1 for each additional one created representing the casters fatigue.  Or use Sanctaphrax's +2 Difficulty per repeated use to encourage originality. Also how do you judge how long all this takes to prepare? The rules are a little wooly on this.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 23, 2013, 08:48:09 AM
Cracking discussion guys! I find that when there is no real risk, players can potentially create stupendously powerful spells and they have begun to get wise to this. Some good solutions to this. I may start all attempts to create an aspect at Mediocre, and increase the difficulty by 1 for each additional one created representing the casters fatigue.  Or use Sanctaphrax's +2 Difficulty per repeated use to encourage originality. Also how do you judge how long all this takes to prepare? The rules are a little wooly on this.

You really only need four or so aspects initially to start things off. That tends to be enough to meet the complexity of a ritual to place an temporary aspect on yourself, the environment, or an item for a day or so. A few of those and you can be hitting a year or so.

Now start stacking those up. Given a week or two of downtime you can stack up taggable aspects worth +50 or so without too much difficulty or issue. Now when you want to do your big ritual you just tag them all.

Note, however, that if you do this then your GM is liable to have NPC's do it as well. A wizard who has been around for hundreds of years? Well expect thousands of "temporary" aspects that he can tag at any time. Thousand shift evocations are perfectly possible.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Phantomdoodler on May 23, 2013, 08:52:34 AM
Those values sound ridiculously high to me. If that were the case, no one would be able to get through Harry's wards, or anyone attempting to would be instantly killed.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 23, 2013, 09:34:10 AM
Those values sound ridiculously high to me. If that were the case, no one would be able to get through Harry's wards, or anyone attempting to would be instantly killed.
Unless they did the exact same thing.

Besides, Harry really doesn't have the right temperament to make a good wizard. He's too straightforward and direct and it shows in pretty much everything he does.

Just look at the difference between how he shields and how McCoy shields. Dresden fights force with force, although now he tends to say deflect bullets instead of stopping them cold. McCoy has enchanted his robes to absorb the kinetic energy of any bullets that hit them (see Changes). What is the end result of these two approaches? It costs Dresden energy to stop bullets from hitting him, it gives McCoy energy when bullets strike him.

Dresden rarely "cheats", and it hurts him significantly as a wizard. It's honestly perhaps his biggest weakness. He's been getting better at it and he is young but he is still too direct.

The idea of using dozens (or hundreds) of prefatory rituals just to be able to use a greater ritual in the end? Does that sound like something Dresden would really do to you? Not that he can't do it, just that it would never occur to him to do it.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 23, 2013, 12:38:24 PM
If you are casting a major ritual (or really most any ritual for that matter) in an area where something like a ringing phone can be heard then you deserve to get screwed over.
Screwing a player over is nothing I would want to do. But the things described are excellent points for a compel, which should make the game more interesting and more fun in the long run.

Quote
One of the final steps before casting that I recommend is to throw up a short duration low shift ward specifically stated to block noise, animals, bugs, etc. that will last the duration of your casting.
If you have the time to throw up a ward like that, then you have the time to cast that spell without any hindrance at all, and if that is the case: why roll? Just have the spell be a success, and you just have to worry about if the effect you want to accomplish should be within the abilities of your character or not.

A major action from your character that isn't opposed by anyone or anything just doesn't make for a good story, so I would always just handwave it and move on to the next interesting part.

Now start stacking those up. Given a week or two of downtime you can stack up taggable aspects worth +50 or so without too much difficulty or issue. Now when you want to do your big ritual you just tag them all.
The question remains: Is this really interesting? It's kind of like the "skip a scene" suggestion to add more shifts to a spell. Yes, you can do that, but if you want to fuel a big spell like that, you might as well not play at all.

Despite that, what are those 50+ aspects going to be? And how will ALL of them make sense in the narrative of the spell?
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Phantomdoodler on May 23, 2013, 01:40:55 PM
Unless they did the exact same thing.

Besides, Harry really doesn't have the right temperament to make a good wizard. He's too straightforward and direct and it shows in pretty much everything he does.

Just look at the difference between how he shields and how McCoy shields. Dresden fights force with force, although now he tends to say deflect bullets instead of stopping them cold. McCoy has enchanted his robes to absorb the kinetic energy of any bullets that hit them (see Changes). What is the end result of these two approaches? It costs Dresden energy to stop bullets from hitting him, it gives McCoy energy when bullets strike him.

Dresden rarely "cheats", and it hurts him significantly as a wizard. It's honestly perhaps his biggest weakness. He's been getting better at it and he is young but he is still too direct.

The idea of using dozens (or hundreds) of prefatory rituals just to be able to use a greater ritual in the end? Does that sound like something Dresden would really do to you? Not that he can't do it, just that it would never occur to him to do it.

Yes, but players certainly will try this stuff.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 23, 2013, 08:45:13 PM
Given a week or two of downtime you can stack up taggable aspects worth +50 or so without too much difficulty or issue. Now when you want to do your big ritual you just tag them all.

Note, however, that if you do this then your GM is liable to have NPC's do it as well. A wizard who has been around for hundreds of years? Well expect thousands of "temporary" aspects that he can tag at any time. Thousand shift evocations are perfectly possible.

Tags don't work that way. You have to use them quickly.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 23, 2013, 09:02:20 PM
Yes, but players certainly will try this stuff.
Which is fine and dandy. Do it when they aren't behind wards pretty much at least as strong as what they are casting and other entities *notice*.

It's tons of power being thrown around, the kind that even the likes of Mab, Odin, the Senior Council, etc. sit up and take notice of before investigating. And the kind of power that gives you a rep.

The problem is do the White Council's enemies want to see another wizard like that in the White Council? No. That makes you an enemy and high priority for anyone who wants a weaker WC.

If you are a lawbreaker then that is reversed, lots of powers might want to corrupt such a powerful Warlock but the White Council doesn't want to risk another Kemmler and the Blackstaff is dispatched to deal with you, where upon you find that your power is nothing next to the guy who is far better than you, has far fewer restrictions, and has had centuries to prepare.

Hiding major power is difficult and tends not to be doable on the fly, and major power brings major enemies. Hopefully your players are ready to deal with the consequences of their actions.

Tags don't work that way. You have to use them quickly.
Then the whole maneuvers part of thaumaturgy is utterly worthless and doesn't work at all. It's flat out called out at the end of the section that one of the primary uses for it is to avoid fate point expenditures and that the effects can be held for later use (either time delayed or set to trigger in specific situations).

Under your ruling you could not, say, perform a ritual to give an enemy bad luck and then go across town, enter battle with them, and tag that aspect.

For thaumaturgy to work at all and make any sense you have to be able to tag aspects that it has applied after an indefinite period of time (i.e. the duration of the ritual).
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: GryMor on May 23, 2013, 09:05:56 PM
Now start stacking those up. Given a week or two of downtime you can stack up taggable aspects worth +50 or so without too much difficulty or issue. Now when you want to do your big ritual you just tag them all.

Maneuvers certainly don't work that way and tags in general don't. Declarations for Thaumaturgy Complexity may work  like that (though they usually aren't interchangeably), but at that point it's no longer downtime and you are burning your retroactive deceleration window; it's also really good justifications for your potion slots and enchanted items not refreshing.

That said, if you don't go into too much detail, these sorts of rituals can make good background for the main story, and can usually be hand-waved as aspect shifts or as a reason for having a particular location with better wards than the default.

As an example I caused in a game, a Biomancer augmented the local Seagull population with divination networked biological spy ware over the course of a year's downtime. Done in play with immense detail, the ritual to augment one flock could have easily required complexity 20+. Done as a background ritual, it resulted in the City acquiring the sticky aspect of "Avery's Seagull Panopticon", justified a much lower complexity divination ritual for unreliable short term post-cognition scrying of places where seagulls were in the city, and a separate ritual for similar real time over-watch. Oh, and many many compels.

Under your ruling you could not, say, perform a ritual to give an enemy bad luck and then go across town, enter battle with them, and tag that aspect.

For thaumaturgy to work at all and make any sense you have to be able to tag aspects that it has applied after an indefinite period of time (i.e. the duration of the ritual).

Ok, so, rituals consume their preparation as it's made or at the start of the ritual but only produce a result at the end, so the duration of the ritual itself is a non issue (you can freely chain rituals, subject to the vagaries of biology and ritual design). Normally, the tags generated by a ritual have their timer start when a scene they could be used in comes into play. That said, a subject of a bad luck curse, done as a long duration Thaumaturgical maneuver, could start eating compels from their new aspect almost immediately, so even if the ritualist who put the aspect there in the first place NEVER gets the opportunity to make use of the tag on account of the tag expiring before a good use for it comes up, the ritual will still have had an effect, it just will not be in the fate point free narrative control of the ritualist's player.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 23, 2013, 09:26:10 PM
Maneuvers certainly don't work that way and tags in general don't. Declarations for Thaumaturgy Complexity may work  like that (though they usually aren't interchangeably), but at that point it's no longer downtime and you are burning your retroactive deceleration window; it's also really good justifications for your potion slots and enchanted items not refreshing.
If thaum applied maneuvers can't do this then they are utterly worthless and don't actually do what the section in YS says that they are supposed to do; save the wizard fate points.

You can't cast a ritual and then go across town and take advantage of it under that ruling.

Quote
That said, if you don't go into too much detail, these sorts of rituals can make good background for the main story, and can usually be hand-waved as aspect shifts or as a reason for having a particular location with better wards than the default.
If you allow it in back story then it should be allowed in the main story. It's the same world. That it is rare that the characters will have the time to really take advantage of this during the main story is irrelevant. Take a look at most of the Dresden books, they take place entirely over a day or two. Cold Days (from the birthday party to the end) took less than 48 hours.

Quote
As an example I caused in a game, a Biomancer augmented the local Seagull population with divination networked biological spy ware over the course of a year's downtime. Done in play with immense detail, the ritual to augment one flock could have easily required complexity 20+. Done as a background ritual, it resulted in the City acquiring the sticky aspect of "Avery's Seagull Panopticon", justified a much lower complexity divination ritual for unreliable short term post-cognition scrying of places where seagulls were in the city, and a separate ritual for similar real time over-watch. Oh, and many many compels.
And I create my divination networks in play and over time. Granted, I also take blood from every enemy that I defeat and have the few minutes required to get it and get tons from blood banks (complete with names, addresses, and telephone numbers).

It might take a bit of time but being able to get full, real time, audio and visual from say the Chief of Police can be so useful.

Then there is the network of magical spy cameras who's take is displayed as a holographic 2d image directly in front of a very good quality camera that is inside a circle and then linked off site to a server farm where all of the best in modern surveillance software and data analysis technology is running. It might take a year or two but you can wire an entire city in a manner that is either virtually impossible to detect and (if detected) virtually impossible to back trace.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 23, 2013, 09:32:00 PM
Then the whole maneuvers part of thaumaturgy is utterly worthless and doesn't work at all. It's flat out called out at the end of the section that one of the primary uses for it is to avoid fate point expenditures and that the effects can be held for later use (either time delayed or set to trigger in specific situations).

Under your ruling you could not, say, perform a ritual to give an enemy bad luck and then go across town, enter battle with them, and tag that aspect.

For thaumaturgy to work at all and make any sense you have to be able to tag aspects that it has applied after an indefinite period of time (i.e. the duration of the ritual).

I quote:

Quote from: Your Story page 265
Because temporary aspects from manuevers are transient, these sorts of spells tend to be very carefully timed or triggered so that the aspect of effect manifests when its needed...For a more lasting effect, it's time to look at contests and conflicts.

You can delay the maneuver, but you can't just have it hanging around until you need it.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: UmbraLux on May 23, 2013, 09:38:52 PM
I think Tippy is talking about aspects created by thaumaturgy.  If so, you simply up the difficulty to move it into the appropriate time scale.  Not free but not all that hard either.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: GryMor on May 23, 2013, 09:41:46 PM
If thaum applied maneuvers can't do this then they are utterly worthless and don't actually do what the section in YS says that they are supposed to do; save the wizard fate points.

Sure they can, it's just they aren't free hanging. If I do a ritual for 4 refresh in temporary powers, I could include 12 complexity worth of maneuvers to immediately pay for the first scene of use of those temporary powers. If I do a preparatory ritual in support of a larger ritual, I can immediately burn the tags from the preparatory ritual into complexity for the larger ritual.

Edit: With regards to preparatory rituals, they are often a really good idea when multiple practitioners are working for a common larger ritual, as each one does simultaneous prep work that all gets fed into the real ritual with a bit of padding to cover for the interference of pesky teenagers and Wizard PI's with less sense than the mosquito looking at a bug zapper.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 23, 2013, 09:52:57 PM
I quote:

You can delay the maneuver, but you can't just have it hanging around until you need it.
"Or triggered".

"I say bippity boppoity boo" is a careful trigger.

I think Tippy is talking about aspects created by thaumaturgy.  If so, you simply up the difficulty to move it into the appropriate time scale.  Not free but not all that hard either.
Pretty much. If you don't up the time then it lasts a scene but if you push the time scale up then it lasts until the time runs out or it is first tagged (at which point it hangs around until the time runs out as something that you can spend a fate point to invoke).

Sure they can, it's just they aren't free hanging. If I do a ritual for 4 refresh in temporary powers, I could include 12 complexity worth of maneuvers to immediately pay for the first scene of use of those temporary powers. If I do a preparatory ritual in support of a larger ritual, I can immediately burn the tags from the preparatory ritual into complexity for the larger ritual.

Except that no you couldn't under the rules interpretation that Sanctaphrax is using. Those 12 complexity worth of maneuvers must be tagged in the scene that they are created. If you rule that you can have them hanging around for later use to power one thing then you can have them hanging around for later use to power another thing.

A thaum maneuver applied aspect is either good for 1 tag within the duration of the ritual, good for 1 tag within the scene after it is triggered (if said triggering occurs within the duration of the ritual), or good for the scene that the ritual takes place in; one of those three has to be true.

My opinion is that the first is true, but if either the first or second is true then you can stack tags virtually indefinitely for later use (subject pretty much just to the amount of time you have to devote to doing so).

If the third is true then the entire "act like maneuvers and apply aspects" part of thaum is utterly worthless. You can't use it and then go across town for a battle and take advantage of the maneuver, for example. This also conflicts with the section specifically calling out that the whole reason for this part of the rules is to "As wizards are usually low on fate points, this option allows you a little more  mileage  without  having  to  worry  about impacting your fate point budget."
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 23, 2013, 10:33:04 PM
Creating thaumaturgy aspects to do more powerful thaumaturgy to do more aspect to do more powerful thaumaturgy...
I don't know, It just seems like a cheap trick. Especially if those aspects are just "stored power" or something similarly bland.

Also, it's like going to the gym for 2 hours before hiking in the Himalayas, it isn't really going to help you, you will just have less energy in you when you do the main ritual. Pretty much the same amount you just spent on the preparatory ritual. Yes, technically, the system allows for such shenanigans, as long as you don't take a consequence to represent the fatigue, but to me it just doesn't make sense, and I would be very careful in allowing it, if at all.

Big rituals, to me, are about getting the right ingredients, the right set of mind, making a personal sacrifice, and so on, not merely the amount of power you draw or how many shifts the ritual is. It's like... if you have a lever and try to lift a car, you can apply as much power as you want, if you lever is made of cheap plywood, it is going to break in two. You are going to need a lever that is sturdy enough to lift the car (which is the ingredients, the circle, the ritual, the symbolic link and so forth), as well as the actual force to lift the car. And it looks like you are only looking to get the power.

Quote
My opinion is that the first is true, but if either the first or second is true then you can stack tags virtually indefinitely for later use (subject pretty much just to the amount of time you have to devote to doing so).
I think it really depends on what exactly you are doing. If you want to curse someone as the result of your spell, the aspect can linger until you trigger it (in which case the trigger is the tag in form of an invoke for effect). If you want to give yourself nightvision to find your way out of a cave, that's better used immediately. Your preparatory aspects could go both ways, I guess.

If you want to give a wizard an edge (not that they really need them), just allow him to go in with a "drawing in my magic" aspect from his discipline, or allow him to have enchanted items with maneuvers in them, that he doesn't have to spend an action to activate. That's pretty much what this "giving a wizard an edge" thing is about, I think. Giving them the opportunity to create their own fate points, if they have the time and know what's to come, so they can link to that.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: UmbraLux on May 23, 2013, 10:58:29 PM
Creating thaumaturgy aspects to do more powerful thaumaturgy to do more aspect to do more powerful thaumaturgy...
I don't know, It just seems like a cheap trick. Especially if those aspects are just "stored power" or something similarly bland.
Actually, it's an overly complex method of getting numbers of aspects.  You could presumably get the same number by being creative with declarations.  As far as your spell is concerned, there's no mechanical difference between the declared non-magical ritual of "Cleansing Yourself in Pure Water" and a previous scene's ritual of creating an "Empowered Ruby".  The story of the spell is different but not the result.

I'm not a big fan of the way declarations were implemented in DFRPG but the only limits on them are those the group implements. 
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 23, 2013, 11:08:20 PM
Creating thaumaturgy aspects to do more powerful thaumaturgy to do more aspect to do more powerful thaumaturgy...
I don't know, It just seems like a cheap trick. Especially if those aspects are just "stored power" or something similarly bland.
And necromancy isn't? That is literally "stored power" except worth +30 or so to a ritual.

If you can do that then why can't you store up power in other ways and then dump it all into some major ritual? It certainly fits with the spirit and fluff of the setting and is rules legal.

It's the same end result of necromancy but you are just trading a greatly increased time requirement for not breaking one of the laws of magic.

Quote
Also, it's like going to the gym for 2 hours before hiking in the Himalayas, it isn't really going to help you, you will just have less energy in you when you do the main ritual. Pretty much the same amount you just spent on the preparatory ritual. Yes, technically, the system allows for such shenanigans, as long as you don't take a consequence to represent the fatigue, but to me it just doesn't make sense, and I would be very careful in allowing it, if at all.
It's more like going to the gym every day for two hours and doing this for months (or years) in preparation for hiking in the Himalayas.

Quote
Big rituals, to me, are about getting the right ingredients, the right set of mind, making a personal sacrifice, and so on, not merely the amount of power you draw or how many shifts the ritual is.
Except that really conflicts with the fluff and crunch of the setting. All you need for a ritual, any ritual, is 1) will, 2) a power source sufficient to do what you want, and 3) enough control to direct that power. Everything else is just a stand in for one of those three things. And generally, the more power you have to throw at a problem the simpler the ritual is (see Sell's heart ripper for an example).

Quote
It's like... if you have a lever and try to lift a car, you can apply as much power as you want, if you lever is made of cheap plywood, it is going to break in two. You are going to need a lever that is sturdy enough to lift the car (which is the ingredients, the circle, the ritual, the symbolic link and so forth), as well as the actual force to lift the car. And it looks like you are only looking to get the power.
And what if you just have the power to cancel out gravity over the area of the car? No lever required, just putting in far more power. Or you can use a ritual to set up a block and tackle and achieve the end result far more efficiently. Or you can connect a chain to a motorized crane and have that do the lifting (all your ritual does is provide the chain).

Each one of those requires progressively less power but requires more preparation or external factors.

Quote
I think it really depends on what exactly you are doing. If you want to curse someone as the result of your spell, the aspect can linger until you trigger it (in which case the trigger is the tag in form of an invoke for effect). If you want to give yourself nightvision to find your way out of a cave, that's better used immediately. Your preparatory aspects could go both ways, I guess.
Curse or blessing shouldn't matter. If one can hang around to be triggered later than so can the other. Maybe I have some downtime so I go and put the aspect "night vision" set to trigger when I say "night vision mode alpha 1 activate" and that will hang around for a year (or longer). Six months down the road I need night vision so I say "night vision mode alpha 1 activate" and tag for effect (or the +2).

Quote
If you want to give a wizard an edge (not that they really need them), just allow him to go in with a "drawing in my magic" aspect from his discipline, or allow him to have enchanted items with maneuvers in them, that he doesn't have to spend an action to activate. That's pretty much what this "giving a wizard an edge" thing is about, I think. Giving them the opportunity to create their own fate points, if they have the time and know what's to come, so they can link to that.
And when instead the wizard goes and prepares a ritual with a hundred tags that are each "pre created form of X evocation" so that he can tag one each time he throws out that evocation for +2 to Control? Perhaps he also has a ritual that does the same thing except with "magical targeting HUD" that can each be tagged for another +2.

Now the next hundred times he casts that spell he can throw it out with +4 to the control roll (or more, depending upon how many such rituals he wants to stack).

Of course it does nothing when he steps into a location and suddenly gets hit with the compel "block external sources of magic".
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: UmbraLux on May 23, 2013, 11:31:41 PM
It is worth noting that I generally asked players to 'tell the story of the spell'* when creating rituals.  Of course I also allowed friendly allies (i.e. other PCs) to help with their own related maneuvers and declarations.  In any case, this takes up real game time and generally means the group agrees on what rituals are being attempted.  If one PC wizard wants to spend years on rituals, that's fine - he's an NPC now, what's your next character? 

*I find telling the story of the spell important.  Enough so that I typically wrote out any major NPC rituals.  If nothing else, the aspects used give you ways to disrupt the resulting spell construct.  "I see this barrier spell was anchored to the door frame, I'll ask Fred to break the frame (insert Might maneuver) and tag that for the dispel."
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: GryMor on May 23, 2013, 11:57:58 PM
Except that no you couldn't under the rules interpretation that Sanctaphrax is using. Those 12 complexity worth of maneuvers must be tagged in the scene that they are created. If you rule that you can have them hanging around for later use to power one thing then you can have them hanging around for later use to power another thing.

I can in fact do this under Sanctaphrax's interpretations (at least as I understand them), I'm immediately burning the tags at the end of the ritual, specifically for the purpose of paying for the 'first scene in which this powers are relevant'. The tags aren't hanging around, though the aspects may be. That is part of why the downtime preparatory thaumaturgy doesn't really work, as you will have had to spend the tags on something specific (or have lost them) by the time downtime ends.

Also, with regards to chaining rituals, the sequence:
Xn+1 = S+floor[(Xn-1)*2/3]
is convergent, limited to Xinf < S*3, and generally rather close to S*2 for the values of S in the range of normal practitioners effective lore (even at effective lore of 8, you hit a cap of 22 complexity after 5 iterations, having has to channel and control 96 power).

It rarely makes sense, effectiveness wise, to do more than a single preparatory ritual per practitioner.

Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 24, 2013, 12:05:54 AM
And necromancy isn't? That is literally "stored power" except worth +30 or so to a ritual.
Nope, it isn't. Killing someone to fuel your magic is a hell of a story to tell. Besides, not all people are created equal in this context, either. Getting any regular Joe from the street will not help the necromancer nearly as much as getting someone close to a named character, or even a friend of the PCs.

Quote
If you can do that then why can't you store up power in other ways and then dump it all into some major ritual? It certainly fits with the spirit and fluff of the setting and is rules legal.
I'm not saying you can't, you misunderstand me. I'm saying it's boring. From a mechanical standpoint, you are absolutely right, you could clearly stack yourself up to the rafters with whatever aspects you like. But Fate isn't all about mechanics, it is about narration as well. That's why I try to look at the aspects not as +2 mechanical things, but as objects I use in the ritual. The whole drawing of power comes entirely during the casting of the spell itself.

Quote
It's the same end result of necromancy but you are just trading a greatly increased time requirement for not breaking one of the laws of magic.
Time should always be an issue. If not, then there isn't really any tension in the story. And Killing someone to fuel a spell should have an even bigger impact on the story. It shouldn't just be a convenient way to get the spell done quicker.

Quote
It's more like going to the gym every day for two hours and doing this for months (or years) in preparation for hiking in the Himalayas.
That would be where specializations come into play. You do something for a long time, you get good at it.

Quote
Except that really conflicts with the fluff and crunch of the setting. All you need for a ritual, any ritual, is 1) will, 2) a power source sufficient to do what you want, and 3) enough control to direct that power. Everything else is just a stand in for one of those three things. And generally, the more power you have to throw at a problem the simpler the ritual is (see Sell's heart ripper for an example).
And what if you just have the power to cancel out gravity over the area of the car? No lever required, just putting in far more power. Or you can use a ritual to set up a block and tackle and achieve the end result far more efficiently. Or you can connect a chain to a motorized crane and have that do the lifting (all your ritual does is provide the chain).
Each one of those requires progressively less power but requires more preparation or external factors.
Not at all. Shoving more power into your spell will require more control of you, or you will go boom. Or maybe look at it this way: You may be able to use your aspects on the casting part of the spell, but you would not be able to use them to increase the complexity of your spell. And if you have enough time to gather that many aspects to cast the spell, I wouldn't make you roll on casting it anyway. The complexity of a thaumaturgy spell is what I called a lever in my simile before. No matter how you do it, you have to have an understanding of what you are doing. A plan, a shape that you can pour your magic into. That's the interesting part of the spell, and to me it is the important one. If you are then casting the spell under pressure of time, because a horde of bad guys is coming your way, then it is getting interesting, and we will start rolling.

Quote
Curse or blessing shouldn't matter. If one can hang around to be triggered later than so can the other. Maybe I have some downtime so I go and put the aspect "night vision" set to trigger when I say "night vision mode alpha 1 activate" and that will hang around for a year (or longer). Six months down the road I need night vision so I say "night vision mode alpha 1 activate" and tag for effect (or the +2).
And that I would simply not allow. Creating aspects or magical equipment in your downtime is covered far and good by enchanted items. If you want more, get more enchanted item slots. If you need something on the fly, leave some potion slots open and declare a night vision potion.

Quote
And when instead the wizard goes and prepares a ritual with a hundred tags that are each "pre created form of X evocation" so that he can tag one each time he throws out that evocation for +2 to Control? Perhaps he also has a ritual that does the same thing except with "magical targeting HUD" that can each be tagged for another +2.

Now the next hundred times he casts that spell he can throw it out with +4 to the control roll (or more, depending upon how many such rituals he wants to stack).

Of course it does nothing when he steps into a location and suddenly gets hit with the compel "block external sources of magic".
Again, this is already covered with focus items. Anything like you described above is downright cheating.

Besides, where do you want to store all that power? Harry got a headache from the power he was able to draw in within one minute. His head would explode from a weeks worth, let alone a year

Items? Let's say every aspect is equal to an enchanted item slot, that means those are 100 item slots. There is box on page 281 that suggests sizes for enchanted items. If we scale this up to 100 item slots (roughly doubling in size every 4 slots), we are at about the size of a mid sized town. Or he could carry 100 rings, which doesn't make it any more plausible.

The story of the spell is different but not the result.
I know what you mean, but to me, that is a big deal.

And like I said above, while I would allow "Empowered Ruby" to power the spell, I would not necessarily allow it to add to the complexity. "Cleansing Yourself in Pure Water" could go the exact opposite, because while it is a good way to sooth your mind and focus on the task, its calming effects might limit your power, so you could increase the complexity, but not use it to aid to the calling of power.

It is worth noting that I generally asked players to 'tell the story of the spell'* when creating rituals.  Of course I also allowed friendly allies (i.e. other PCs) to help with their own related maneuvers and declarations.  In any case, this takes up real game time and generally means the group agrees on what rituals are being attempted.
+1
Quote
If one PC wizard wants to spend years on rituals, that's fine - he's an NPC now, what's your next character? 
And again: +1
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 24, 2013, 12:51:57 AM
I can in fact do this under Sanctaphrax's interpretations (at least as I understand them), I'm immediately burning the tags at the end of the ritual, specifically for the purpose of paying for the 'first scene in which this powers are relevant'. The tags aren't hanging around, though the aspects may be. That is part of why the downtime preparatory thaumaturgy doesn't really work, as you will have had to spend the tags on something specific (or have lost them) by the time downtime ends.
And if you can do "first scene in which these powers are relevant" you can also do "first scene in which ritual XYZ is cast" or the like. Exact same end effect.


Quote
Also, with regards to chaining rituals, the sequence:
Xn+1 = S+floor[(Xn-1)*2/3]
is convergent, limited to Xinf < S*3, and generally rather close to S*2 for the values of S in the range of normal practitioners effective lore (even at effective lore of 8, you hit a cap of 22 complexity after 5 iterations, having has to channel and control 96 power).
Except that you don't. Nothing is stopping you from casting twenty rituals that will each hang around for a month and then using them to cast a 40 complexity ritual at the end of the month.

Yes, you end up casting 20+ complexity rituals to provide +2 complexity to a future ritual. You spend a lot of time and in real terms end up wasting a ton of power but you can do it with no real cap.

Quote
It rarely makes sense, effectiveness wise, to do more than a single preparatory ritual per practitioner.
No, it rarely makes sense to do more than three or four. Because that's about the most that you can get with a duration long enough to cover the final ritual, But that lets you spend a day to cast a ritual that will hang around for a few weeks with an aspect to be tagged. Do that every day for two weeks and you have +28 complexity to use, giving you a ritual that is good enough to provide 2-3 such aspects and will last a mortal lifetime. Make it last a year and it's good for 4-5 such aspects.

Now do that twenty six times and at the end of the year you can tag all of that for +206 complexity. That is 38 or so such aspects hanging around for a decade, or +76 complexity.

Now do that for ten years and at the end you can tag it all for a ritual that will last a mortal lifetime and provide 408 such aspects, or +816 complexity.

The only limit is the time that you have to invest. If you are willing to blow a decades worth of investment on something then that is more than fine. That's how you get things like the Merlin throwing out a ward during battle that can stalemate the entire Red Court, Lords of the Outer Night and the Red King included; he burned a decades (or more) worth or stored power to do it. Now what happens if he has to fight Kemmler Reborn three days later?

Nope, it isn't. Killing someone to fuel your magic is a hell of a story to tell.
Not really, at least not if you are actually playing someone with the mind set to really be a good warlock or necromancer. Do you think that Kemmler angst over the fact that he is sacrificing a few hundred people for whatever ritual he wants to do? For him it's "ok, go on to town, grab the first dozen people I see, sacrifice them to put the whole town to sleep, stack them up like cordwood to power uber ritual number 1. now what should I have for dinner?"

Quote
Besides, not all people are created equal in this context, either. Getting any regular Joe from the street will not help the necromancer nearly as much as getting someone close to a named character, or even a friend of the PCs.
The rules don't say that. It's just as hard to kill a PC (assuming that the PC is outside of wards and lacking relevant powers) as it is to kill any random vanilla mortal. The reason that most rank and file NPC's don't get consequence tracks is that they are rarely willing to fight to the bitter end and concede early.

Quote
I'm not saying you can't, you misunderstand me. I'm saying it's boring. From a mechanical standpoint, you are absolutely right, you could clearly stack yourself up to the rafters with whatever aspects you like. But Fate isn't all about mechanics, it is about narration as well. That's why I try to look at the aspects not as +2 mechanical things, but as objects I use in the ritual. The whole drawing of power comes entirely during the casting of the spell itself.

And from a narrative perspective this works just fine. "I've spent weeks building up this power to cast this major ritual but I really have to get through these wards if I want to prevent the Red Court from doing Y and the only way I can bring those wards down in time is to spend up all my stored up power. But that will delay my ritual and tell everyone within fifty miles that I have this kind of power to throw around. should I do it?" That's just one example. There are tons of ways to have it work in a story.

Quote
Time should always be an issue. If not, then there isn't really any tension in the story.
Dresden averages one to two major cases per year. There is tons of down time in there where he could be stacking up useful things for later cases. It's the same kind of thing.

Quote
And Killing someone to fuel a spell should have an even bigger impact on the story. It shouldn't just be a convenient way to get the spell done quicker.
That should depend entirely on the story.

Quote
That would be where specializations come into play. You do something for a long time, you get good at it.
Your specialization would be "hiking in mountains" the ritual would be "preparing myself to hike at these altitude for a long duration in these temperatures, learning the routes, studying previous peoples hikes, etc."

Quote
Not at all. Shoving more power into your spell will require more control of you, or you will go boom. Or maybe look at it this way: You may be able to use your aspects on the casting part of the spell, but you would not be able to use them to increase the complexity of your spell.
Except all complexity is is short hand for the power, control, etc. of the spell. You can slit a guys throat (which fluff wise does nothing but provide power) to reduce complexity. You can slit another guys throat to power the actual casting the the spell and you can dump the backlash on a third guy to control the casting of that spell.

If you have a sufficient power source that reduces complexity.

We also see Dresden in changes; all that is required for any ritual is will, power, and control and all of the external factors just stand in for one of those three things. Everything from the circle to the symbolic link is technically optional (even if practically required) in the fluff of the setting.

Quote
And if you have enough time to gather that many aspects to cast the spell, I wouldn't make you roll on casting it anyway. The complexity of a thaumaturgy spell is what I called a lever in my simile before. No matter how you do it, you have to have an understanding of what you are doing. A plan, a shape that you can pour your magic into. That's the interesting part of the spell, and to me it is the important one. If you are then casting the spell under pressure of time, because a horde of bad guys is coming your way, then it is getting interesting, and we will start rolling.
And then I tag "ritual X part 1" through "ritual X part 20" aspects that I have precast along with "power storage X part 1" through "power storage X part 20" to provide the power in one round and "power control X part 1" through "power control X part 20" to provide the control.

Entire massive ritual done at the drop of a hat and in one exchange (or one minute). Why was that doable? Because I spent a decent amount of time previously making it possible.

Quote
And that I would simply not allow. Creating aspects or magical equipment in your downtime is covered far and good by enchanted items. If you want more, get more enchanted item slots. If you need something on the fly, leave some potion slots open and declare a night vision potion.
Leaving aside the fact that the enchanted item rules (and potion rules) suck, that makes no sense. If you can put some aspect on one character to trigger later then you can put some aspect on yourself to trigger later. Whether that aspect is good or bad for that character is irrelevant.

Quote
Again, this is already covered with focus items.
Which doesn't really matter.

Quote
Anything like you described above is downright cheating.
Which is what magic is all about. Tracking someone after an hour through an entire major metropolis with nothing more than a single hair is "cheating" as well.

Quote
Besides, where do you want to store all that power? Harry got a headache from the power he was able to draw in within one minute. His head would explode from a weeks worth, let alone a year
Because Harry was storing that power in his head and wasn't drawing it through ritual, making a battery, or anything else. Where you store it and how you store it depends entirely upon the table and the wizard.

Quote
Items? Let's say every aspect is equal to an enchanted item slot, that means those are 100 item slots. There is box on page 281 that suggests sizes for enchanted items. If we scale this up to 100 item slots (roughly doubling in size every 4 slots), we are at about the size of a mid sized town. Or he could carry 100 rings, which doesn't make it any more plausible.
Again, the rules should treat identical situations identically. If you can dump a curse on someone to give them a hundred +2 "Bad Luck" aspects that will last ten years (and you explicitly can do this) then you can do the exact same thing with "good luck" aspects or any other aspect.
I know what you mean, but to me, that is a big deal.

Quote
And like I said above, while I would allow "Empowered Ruby" to power the spell, I would not necessarily allow it to add to the complexity.
And that shows a distinct misunderstanding of what complexity represents. That the rules let you slit a persons throat to reduce complexity; or tap a thunderstorm; or tap a leyline (all of which are called out as examples of ways to reduce complexity) means that "Empowered Ruby" is just as viable a choice.

+2 Complexity comes just as easily from "rare cross that was blessed by a saint and is touched with true faith" as from "unplugged the telephone to remove distractions". Both can be provided by making declarations with skill rolls (say Resources and Discipline) and both reduce complexity by +2 but they they provide totally different things story wise. One is maybe the critical component of the ritual so that you attack ritual can get through the Outsiders toughness while the other is just removing one potential distraction when you get around to casting the ritual.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: UmbraLux on May 24, 2013, 01:17:55 AM
In general, Tippy's method fits in the rules.  I'd probably quibble a bit over the repeatability of aspects but that's solvable by creativity - just come up with a better list of aspects / methods of power storing. 

Fact is, I think this is what had to occur if you convert some of the novels' major bad guy rituals to game terms.  It's also worth noting, it took time to build the power and the power build-up was detectable.  Which is what brought Harry in to shut it down. 

Point is, building power like that will make you a target.   ;D
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 24, 2013, 01:26:35 AM
It's also worth noting, it took time to build the power and the power build-up was detectable.  Which is what brought Harry in to shut it down. 

Point is, building power like that will make you a target.   ;D

Yep. If you want to stop detection you need even longer so that you can throw up wards to conceal the ward to conceal the wards to conceal the wards, etc. to conceal the incredibly powerful ritual.

That hundred complexity ritual might have cost you (if you add up all of the complexity of all of the involved rituals) two or three thousand complexity in the more extreme cases and will take you (at a bare minimum and with a very generous GM) months to more likely decades of dedicated effort and work.

Or you can grab a dozen or so people off the street and then sacrifice them for power, getting the whole thing done in at worst a week or two (and potentially in twenty minutes or so).

There are plenty of ways to make even very complex and powerful rituals relatively easy to perform. It's just generally a trade off between evilness and time.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 24, 2013, 01:33:03 AM
All you are doing with those thousands and thousands of aspects is have an "I Win!" Button ready for everything. Rampant werewolf clan in town? Stomped. Black court scourge? Stomped. All in 2 minutes, game night is over, now what?

I understand where you are coming from, I know that mechanically it is absolutely no problem to do what you are proposing, I am just saying, that it doesn't make sense if you look at it as a whole. I mean, you say so yourself, Harry has enough downtime to do exactly what you propose. Hell, if power was all he needed to free Susan from being a red court, he'd have that ready in the year he's been studying it. No, there is, and there should be, more to it.

If any spell you want to cast can be cast with generic "Ritual preparation aspect #1-#20", then any spell you do is interchangeable, and there is no story to it. That's pretty much what I am trying to get across: Not all aspects are created equal. Yes, mechanically, you could get a +2 from a blessed cross or from an unplugged phone. For that matter, you could pick your nose and declare that an aspect, but that doesn't mean it is a GOOD aspect for the story of the spell.
What's more, if you do it, so can I as the GM, and we are in sort of an irresistible force meets immovable object situation. On the other hand, there is a rule of "if everyone has it, nobody has it". And the differences that are still there are well represented within the scope of Items and Specializations. That's why the Merlin can throw up a ward like he did, he has tons of specializations and focus items for it, because that's what he's been doing for all those years. With your aspect-avalanche, he could have simply obliterated everything in sight.

Even against a vampire army, a block doesn't necessarily have hundreds of shifts. 10-12, maybe 15 should be more than enough to buy enough time to escape, and that's easily done with skill+specialization+focus items. Maybe a consequence to boot.
Or maybe even easier, you can do it as a concession. Instead of fighting it out to the bitter end, you agree to end the fight, maybe the Merlin's player throws in a fate point and declares, that since he is the "Master of Wards", he raises a ward to help his side get away, even if that means leaving behind 3 wardens, because they are too far away. Because that's pretty much what the ward in this moment is, a way to end the fight without too many losses.

And if you really want or need a spell THAT powerful, I think it is better served to be a plot device, rather than something with incredibly high numbers on it.

Where is your problem with enchanted items, potions and focus items? I feel that that is a part of the magic rules that actually works pretty well.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Emperor Tippy on May 24, 2013, 02:22:48 AM
All you are doing with those thousands and thousands of aspects is have an "I Win!" Button ready for everything. Rampant werewolf clan in town? Stomped. Black court scourge? Stomped. All in 2 minutes, game night is over, now what?
Except that you only have that one "I win!" button and once it is used it is gone. So you press the button to deal with the rampaging werewolf clan and then what do you do three days later when the town suddenly has a couple of dozen higher end Red Court vamps, three Wardens investigating, Summer and Winter spies in town, and a White Court delegation show up; all attracted by the giant amount of power that was thrown out a few days ago and trying to learn exactly what happened and who did it. Or just showing up randomly.

Or maybe you are faced with your significant other being kidnapped and being used as a ritual sacrifice but the wards protecting the site are fifty or so shifts strong. If you hadn't blow all your power to stomp those werewolves then you would be able to spend it to bring down this ward but now you are faced with either resorting to necromancy, finding some other way in at possibly equally extreme cost, or letting your SO die and be sacrificed.

Plenty of story potential.

Quote
I understand where you are coming from, I know that mechanically it is absolutely no problem to do what you are proposing, I am just saying, that it doesn't make sense if you look at it as a whole. I mean, you say so yourself, Harry has enough downtime to do exactly what you propose. Hell, if power was all he needed to free Susan from being a red court, he'd have that ready in the year he's been studying it. No, there is, and there should be, more to it.
Except he doesn't have the power. Mother Winter had the power. Want to reverse Red Court infection? Well then you need enough power to overcome the "Red Court" mantle that has been placed on the infected.

(click to show/hide)

Or you can understand the magic well enough to actually disconnect the "Red Court" mantle from the host and maybe be able to do it with far, far, less power.

And Dresden theoretically could have saved Susan at any time. Changes showed that. All he had to do was wipe out the Red Court. A few thousand sacrifices, a couple of ley line taps, and a ritual that he knew how to perform by the end of Storm Front (Sells ritual being incredibly close to the Red Court ritual except in terms of power). But 1) Dresden didn't know this and 2) it involved a cost that he would not be willing to pay.

Quote
If any spell you want to cast can be cast with generic "Ritual preparation aspect #1-#20", then any spell you do is interchangeable, and there is no story to it.
Nah, those weren't generalized aspects. They were for a specific ritual. Such as "Ward Breaker part 1" through "Ward Breaker part 20". Those aspects only being useable for the "Ward Breaker" ritual and not to, say, turn a fly into a pony. You need different aspects if you want ones that can be generalized to any ritual.

Quote
That's pretty much what I am trying to get across: Not all aspects are created equal. Yes, mechanically, you could get a +2 from a blessed cross or from an unplugged phone. For that matter, you could pick your nose and declare that an aspect, but that doesn't mean it is a GOOD aspect for the story of the spell.
I never said otherwise. The point is that you can fluff aspects pretty much however you want and is in large part table dependent. Maybe a lucky aspect is tagged and the story effect is "got really lucky that today happens to be the one day every century with this specific stellar alignment that benefits this ritual" or maybe it is "sees X ingredient sitting by the side of the road".

Quote
What's more, if you do it, so can I as the GM, and we are in sort of an irresistible force meets immovable object situation. On the other hand, there is a rule of "if everyone has it, nobody has it". And the differences that are still there are well represented within the scope of Items and Specializations.
Which is a problem solved by story telling and the narrative. I would say that every major power has done things like this. If you want to fight at the "god" tier then the gloves come off, you only make it to that tier and survive by doing things like this and having your own counters to them. Does this mean every Red Court vamp has something like this? No, but the Lords of the Outer Night sure as hell do; and if you start blasting through rank and file Red Court vamps in job lots then one of the LotON is dispatched to deal with you and you find out just how thoroughly outclassed you are with your twenty years of life against the LotON's two thousand years of life.

Quote
That's why the Merlin can throw up a ward like he did, he has tons of specializations and focus items for it, because that's what he's been doing for all those years.
Then his refresh is in the -100+ range.

Quote
With your aspect-avalanche, he could have simply obliterated everything in sight.
Except that those he was facing have the same things. They could have spent their stored power to bring down his ward but then they are faced with being greatly weakened in the future (or maybe they had already spent a large portion of it), or they can let the White Council escape and save that power for another day.

Quote
Even against a vampire army, a block doesn't necessarily have hundreds of shifts. 10-12, maybe 15 should be more than enough to buy enough time to escape, and that's easily done with skill+specialization+focus items. Maybe a consequence to boot.
Fifteen shifts shouldn't last even a single exchange. Red King + LotON + RC Nobles working together and they can easily throw out enough power to rip down such a ward.

Quote
Or maybe even easier, you can do it as a concession. Instead of fighting it out to the bitter end, you agree to end the fight, maybe the Merlin's player throws in a fate point and declares, that since he is the "Master of Wards", he raises a ward to help his side get away, even if that means leaving behind 3 wardens, because they are too far away. Because that's pretty much what the ward in this moment is, a way to end the fight without too many losses.
And if you can concede in that manner then you should be able to raise the ward in a similar stretch of time without spending a fate point. Conceding by essentially saying "I'm spending a fate point to throw out a 30+ complexity ward in one to two exchanges" really doesn't seem inline with the game.

Quote
And if you really want or need a spell THAT powerful, I think it is better served to be a plot device, rather than something with incredibly high numbers on it.
It is a plot device. Seriously, I would let a player do it a few times and then hit them with a compel in their next fight along the lines of "you triggered a ward upon entering that removed all standing magic effects", no potions, no enchanted items, no ritual boosts, no focus items. Unless they have the four or so fate points to buy off the compel then they are suddenly in deep shit and the character should learn to not always depend on such external aids.

Quote
Where is your problem with enchanted items, potions and focus items? I feel that that is a part of the magic rules that actually works pretty well.
The fact that you can't create enchanted items with standing magical effect is a big one. It's literally impossible under the enchanted item rules to create a magic light bulb that will stay active for weeks straight, despite that requiring far less energy than (say) blowing a car through a skyscraper. One of those can be done under the enchanted item rules, the other can't.

Then there is the fact that in setting you can do something like enchant your duster so that it drains the kinetic energy of anything that hits it and transfers it into rings to be later discharged as force attacks but under the rules you can't. The best you get is lowish level armor for one or two scenes and no ability to use that absorbed energy for anything else.

It's a system that is decent for modeling Dresden, it's not a system decent for modeling the Dresden verse magic system.

You have the inability to stockpile potions, despite the fact that not being able to do so makes absolutely no sense. You literally have to spend more refresh to stuff an extra vial into your backpack. Under the rules stuffing four extra vials into your back pack is worth as much as inhuman toughness irrc. Please tell me how that makes sense?

A potion focused character is better off playing Morrowind alchemy with potions to produce single massively powerful potions than they are producing a couple dozen or hundred potions that they keep sitting in their closet at home (or in their potions belt) to select from for the situation that they expect to be facing.

From a balance perspective they might work alright but from a fluff/in setting perspective they absolutely suck.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 24, 2013, 04:37:42 AM
"Or triggered".

"I say bippity boppoity boo" is a careful trigger.

Actually, the rules are very vague about what's an appropriate trigger. That may or may not work.

The fact that people in the novels don't do that kind of thing combined with the fact that doing that kind of thing would unbalance means that that should not work. And since it shouldn't, it's sensible to rule that it doesn't.

Regardless, your original plan of just having the taggable Aspects hang around is very clearly against the rules.

Nope, it isn't. Killing someone to fuel your magic is a hell of a story to tell. Besides, not all people are created equal in this context, either. Getting any regular Joe from the street will not help the necromancer nearly as much as getting someone close to a named character, or even a friend of the PCs.

Pretty sure everyone is worth 20 shifts regardless of importance, actually. It's lame though, I know.

The fact that you can't create enchanted items with standing magical effect is a big one. It's literally impossible under the enchanted item rules to create a magic light bulb that will stay active for weeks straight, despite that requiring far less energy than (say) blowing a car through a skyscraper. One of those can be done under the enchanted item rules, the other can't.

A lightbulb that stays active for weeks straight is actually quite possible as an enchanted item. Just spend the shifts you need to extend the duration of your light spell to "a few weeks". Items can contain ritual spells, so it's pretty easy to kick the duration up.

Then there is the fact that in setting you can do something like enchant your duster so that it drains the kinetic energy of anything that hits it and transfers it into rings to be later discharged as force attacks but under the rules you can't. The best you get is lowish level armor for one or two scenes and no ability to use that absorbed energy for anything else.

Your hypothetical duster is draining the energy of everything that hits it. But that only matters mechanically a limited number of times per session. (Unless you spend stress.)

You have the inability to stockpile potions, despite the fact that not being able to do so makes absolutely no sense. You literally have to spend more refresh to stuff an extra vial into your backpack. Under the rules stuffing four extra vials into your back pack is worth as much as inhuman toughness irrc. Please tell me how that makes sense?

Actually, Harry mentions that he doesn't stockpile potions because they don't last long enough. The number of potions you can have on hand depends on how many you can make in the time it takes them to expire, so you need extra skill to make extra potions.

Stuffing vials into your backpack is free, but you have to pay for the ability to make those vials.

And it's 8 vials for the cost of Inhuman Toughness, assuming 1 slot per vial.

A potion focused character is better off playing Morrowind alchemy with potions to produce single massively powerful potions than they are producing a couple dozen or hundred potions that they keep sitting in their closet at home (or in their potions belt) to select from for the situation that they expect to be facing.

Single massively powerful potions are usually impossible. Lore x2 is the strength cap barring exceptional situations.

From a balance perspective they might work alright but from a fluff/in setting perspective they absolutely suck.

I don't think your interpretation of the setting is the same as the actual setting. The power-stockpiling you suggest doesn't happen in the novel world. The rules reflect that.

PS: Does your name refer to the D&D thought experiment?
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 24, 2013, 06:14:34 AM
I think part of the problem here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Emperor Tippy is looking at the mechanics as a representation of the game world's reality. A character has high Guns because he's trained with firearms and has combat experience. A wizard has only 2 potion slots because he only carries two potions at any given time. A character has the aspect "Death to Vampires" because he hates vampires.

However I find it's easier to think of the mechanics as a representation of what we see in the novels, essentially a way to depict a certain fiction. The rules don't reflect a character's abilities. They reflect the kind of stories a character is involved in and the kinds of things they do in those stories. A character has high Guns because their stories often involve them shooting things. A wizard has 2 potion slots because the story features his use of potions being spread out over a longer period of time (sessions) instead of using them all at once. A character has the aspect "Death to Vampires" because his stories are about hunting vampires.

It's a subtle difference, but I believe FATE is designed to hold story over simulating a fantasy reality. Once you start to see the system from that perspective, it becomes easier to accept that you can't just have your character spend all their downtime preparing one mighty spell, because stories where a character has such an effect on standby, to be triggered as soon as the Big Bad shows up, are boring, even if they only happen once.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Haru on May 24, 2013, 12:45:21 PM
I think part of the problem here, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is that Emperor Tippy is looking at the mechanics as a representation of the game world's reality.
That's what I've been trying to get at, yes. Thanks for the clarification.

Quote
Which is a problem solved by story telling and the narrative. I would say that every major power has done things like this. If you want to fight at the "god" tier then the gloves come off, you only make it to that tier and survive by doing things like this and having your own counters to them. Does this mean every Red Court vamp has something like this? No, but the Lords of the Outer Night sure as hell do; and if you start blasting through rank and file Red Court vamps in job lots then one of the LotON is dispatched to deal with you and you find out just how thoroughly outclassed you are with your twenty years of life against the LotON's two thousand years of life.
It will play out in the narrative, and it should, but you don't have to have thousands of aspects at the ready to do so.

If, for example, you have 100 aspects and your opponent has 99 aspects, that would be the same as you having 1 aspect and your opponent having 0 aspects. You can still describe it as people throwing around tons of power, but you don't have that ludicrous amount of aspects lying around. Another example would be weapons and armor. If at some point every character has armor:2, then you'll need bigger weapons to get through that. Or you remove the armor rating in the mechanics and keep the weapon rating down the same amount. It's a zero sum game that will add nothing to the story, that's what I am trying to tell you.

Long term investments in power, things that are part of the character are represented by aspects and powers and stunts. If you want to have a long term advantage from something, spend refresh on it. Even if you find a magic sword, you should pay the refresh, if you want it to be a permanent part of your character, that's what that is all about.

Quote
Except that you only have that one "I win!" button and once it is used it is gone. So you press the button to deal with the rampaging werewolf clan and then what do you do three days later when the town suddenly has a couple of dozen higher end Red Court vamps, three Wardens investigating, Summer and Winter spies in town, and a White Court delegation show up; all attracted by the giant amount of power that was thrown out a few days ago and trying to learn exactly what happened and who did it. Or just showing up randomly.

Or maybe you are faced with your significant other being kidnapped and being used as a ritual sacrifice but the wards protecting the site are fifty or so shifts strong. If you hadn't blow all your power to stomp those werewolves then you would be able to spend it to bring down this ward but now you are faced with either resorting to necromancy, finding some other way in at possibly equally extreme cost, or letting your SO die and be sacrificed.
So at the beginning of every game I would have to throw something at you to steal all your prepared aspects, just so we can play a game you don't just stomp? That's kind of silly, don't you think?
More than other RPGs, Fate is about the players and the GM working together, not against one another. If you want to play a game about werewolves, we play a game about werewolves. If you don't and I force it on you, I'm doing a bad job. If you feel the need to stomp it, because you don't want to deal with it, I am doing a bad job. So let's play those adventures you don't just stomp, those that keep us at the edge of our seats while we play them, because we have to fight through things to get to the goods.

Besides, high numbers don't necessarily make powerful beings. I could easily play a game on a god level with 6 refresh, or a game about mice with 20+ refresh. It's all a matter of how you tell the story. What is true is that the more refresh you have, the more power you have to influence the story. But that isn't equal to in story power.

Quote
Fifteen shifts shouldn't last even a single exchange. Red King + LotON + RC Nobles working together and they can easily throw out enough power to rip down such a ward.
That's if you are assuming that the opposition is always fighting perfectly. I as a GM would let the red court vampires run into the ward for an exchange at first, and once they realize what is going on, they can start working together. So that ward will buy you at least one exchange, which can be plenty.

But
Quote
And if you can concede in that manner then you should be able to raise the ward in a similar stretch of time without spending a fate point. Conceding by essentially saying "I'm spending a fate point to throw out a 30+ complexity ward in one to two exchanges" really doesn't seem inline with the game.
This goes back to what Wordmaker said. From the perspective of what the Merlin does, you are right, if I wanted to simulate him throwing up a high power ward out of nowhere, both those accounts would have to be the same. But that's not what I am doing. I am looking at it from a narrative point of view.
If I am able to throw up a high powered ward in the middle of a battle, I can actually turn the tide of that battle. I can catch all the vampires and kill them of one by one, if I make the ward permeable from outside. It's again an "I Win!" button.
As a concession, however, it is the exact opposite. It is a way to deal with the loss of a situation in a way that you don't lose everything. Going into the scene, the intent of the Merlin was to "Get everybody out", while the intent of the vampires was "Kill them all!". Now the Wizards have already had some losses in the fight, and if they don't want to go down in this fight. So they offer a concession, lose only a few more, but in return the rest is safe. When the GM ask the player to describe how this is going to happen, he offers the solution of the big ward, and the GM agrees that is a reasonable solution. Sadly, a good friend of the Merlin is caught outside the ward and he watches in terror, as he is ripped to pieces.

Quote
The fact that you can't create enchanted items with standing magical effect is a big one. It's literally impossible under the enchanted item rules to create a magic light bulb that will stay active for weeks straight, despite that requiring far less energy than (say) blowing a car through a skyscraper. One of those can be done under the enchanted item rules, the other can't.
I would probably not raise an eyebrow at an always on magical light bulb. Not any more than I would charge another player something for a flashlight. It's something so mundane, that it doesn't really need anything in terms of refresh or parts there of. That's for things that really have an impact on the story. And the more impact they are supposed to have on the story, the more of your limited resources you should spend. If you want to play a wizard with tons of magical equipment, you'll have to pay for that in refresh. I know, other games don't do that, but as I (and now Wordmaker) said before, this ain't other games.
There was a great post about this sort of thing in the Google+ Group a while back:
https://plus.google.com/108546067488075210468/posts/EDqaCxsjobL

Quote
You have the inability to stockpile potions, despite the fact that not being able to do so makes absolutely no sense. You literally have to spend more refresh to stuff an extra vial into your backpack. Under the rules stuffing four extra vials into your back pack is worth as much as inhuman toughness irrc. Please tell me how that makes sense?
Potions are, as Sanctaphrax says, rather short lived. You can be making fresh ones every now and again, but that takes time and effort away from other things, so you can only do that with very few. Those you pay with enchanted item slots.
Though I would always allow you to do a special potion for a special situation, if that is how you want to solve the situation. Harry brewing the blending in potion would be an example of that.

If you want something like that to have a more permanent effect on your character, again: buy it with refresh.
An "always on" protection spell on your duster? Mechanically, get an item of power with inhuman toughness.
Potions that can do all kinds of crazy stuff? Modular abilities is your friend. Combine it with human form, to represent the "I need to drink a potion" part to activate the powers.
You could, make a supernatural stunt that grants you a bonus of +1 to the weapon rating of an attack spell, if you cast that spell after you've been hit and you duster caught it. And there you are covered for your storing kinetic energy from attacks power.

Enchanted items are good for easy, quick stuff. For more complex and more powerful stuff, you can take powers and say they are enchanted items your character made. Much more elegant.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 24, 2013, 01:07:01 PM
It will play out in the narrative, and it should, but you don't have to have thousands of aspects at the ready to do so.

If, for example, you have 100 aspects and your opponent has 99 aspects, that would be the same as you having 1 aspect and your opponent having 0 aspects.

Bingo! Something like the sheer force that the Lords of Outer Night could bring to the table in a conflict is much more simply reflect as establishing a scene Aspect "Dominion of Outer Night" and compelling characters to be unable to fight back. Keeps things simple, and the players get Fate Points out of it.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: toturi on May 24, 2013, 01:58:01 PM
The higher the Refresh, the more power (both in terms of mechanics and in-game) the character is able to wield without losing his free will.

As far as the game mechanics are concerned, higher numbers do make for more powerful beings.

With respect to the single scene Aspect versus a whole lot of them to represent the sheer force of higher end entities can bring to the table, I'd rather the whole lot. Each time the character is Compelled he gets a Fate Point, so instead of 1 Fate Point, the player gets very much more.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 24, 2013, 02:36:42 PM
Why would you compel a number of aspects to do the same thing that one can?

If you compel "Dominion of Outer Night" to prevent a character from acting, that has the exact same effect as compelling "Red Court Stronghold", "Mental Warfare", "Untold Horrors", "Will of the Red King", and "Sacrifice of the Innocent" all at the same time to prevent a character from acting, only the character gets 5 Fate Points instead of one.

Go to the extremes being described here, with say 100 Aspects ready to go in the big showdown, and the GM can either give each character 100 Fate Points for an effect that could be achieved with just one, or have the Red King hit them and tag the aspects for up to +200 shifts. Assume an average group of 5 PCs, and he can smack each PC with +40 shifts of stress in short order.

Those kind of extreme numbers reduce the conflict to a single choice: Does the GM want the players to win, or to be utterly destroyed? Because with 100 Fate points each, there is no way the players are losing, but with a pool of 200 extra shifts to draw from, there's no way the villains are losing.

I'd much rather have the the lower amount of aspects and see the ebb and flow of a fight that was undecided.

Of course strictly speaking, there is no way presented in the rules to get more than 2 Fate Points from a single compel, which you could expand to mean that except when the GM is upping the ante like that, there is no way to compel more than one aspect at once, so having multiple aspects on a scene has no added benefit in that regard.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Taran on May 24, 2013, 02:42:52 PM
Except you don't get a FP at all when an aspect is tagged - even if it's tagged to invoke.  Only when a FP is expended on the aspect...or the GM decides to randomly compel.  So if you set up 100+ thaumatugic aspects on a person and tag them to prevent the person from acting, they'd get 0 FP.

Unless I'm reading it wrong...but I don't think I am.

Edit:
YS: 106
Quote
Tags, even if they are to a character’s detriment,
do not award a fate point like a normal
invocation would. If no fate point was spent,
there’s no fate point to pass around.

Example: Harry Dresden has just used
his wizard’s senses to discover that the
Shadowman, a dark sorcerer who sent a toad
demon to eat him and his date, is observing
events from nearby using a sorcerous scrying
spell. This knowledge is the result of a skill roll
that revealed that the aspect Shadowman
Watching was (secretly) on the scene. Harry
decides to send a spell back up the link by way
of saying hello, and since he just discovered
(“assessed,” page 115) the aspect, he is due a tag.
When he casts the spell, he uses the tag to add
2 to his roll. This is clearly to the Shadowman’s
detriment, but since the tag was free for Harry,
the Shadowman doesn’t get a fate point
.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 24, 2013, 02:52:36 PM
You're not reading the rules wrong, just my post  ;)

I'm saying that if you have 100 aspects ready to be tagged, the GM has two choices, either try to compel them all at once (giving the players 100 Fate Points each) or have the villain tag them in turn, hitting the players with massive shift bonuses to the stress they take.

Edit: Also re-reading YS, I was wrong, you can in fact compel as many aspects as your group agrees are appropriate if you wish, so yes, compelling 100 aspects at once nets a character 100 Fate Points. But the key point is that each aspect has to add a complication of its own, so good luck finding 100 different ways to complicate matters for your players.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Taran on May 24, 2013, 03:05:44 PM
Quote
Those kind of extreme numbers reduce the conflict to a single choice: Does the GM want the players to win, or to be utterly destroyed? Because with 100 Fate points each, there is no way the players are losing, but with a pool of 200 extra shifts to draw from, there's no way the villains are losing.

Consider the 100FP's get awarded after the scene.  The PC's can't use them to defend against the massive spell that's about to hit them.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 24, 2013, 03:14:24 PM
Are you sure of that? Looking at YS pg 100:

Quote
Once the terms are set, you have a
choice: spend a fate point and ignore the aspect,
or accept the complications and limitations on
your character’s choices and receive a fate point.
When you accept the fate point, the aspect is
officially compelled.

All of the play examples describe the GM handing the Fate Point to the player at the moment of the compel, often right before they decide how to act on it.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Taran on May 24, 2013, 03:18:02 PM
@Wordmaker.  In that quote you use, they're just talking that you're owed a FP.  The deal has been struck. 

What I'm talking about is mentionned in a few places in the book, but I'll continue the quote I put up before:

Quote
Later, Harry sends another spell up the
link to shut it down. This time, Harry has
to spend a fate point for his +2. Because the
invocation here is to Shadowman’s detriment
and this time Harry has spent a fate point,
Shadowman will receive a fate point at the end
of the scene.
The GM makes a note of that, and
saves that point up for Shadowman to use in
the big confrontation a few scenes later.


@...uh...whoever: I think these numbers are ridiculous, actually.

PC's are never going to hit them.  I'd let a Wizard PC start with Wards, probably double their Lore to start.  If they want to start investing time creating "power circles" and stuff, and more powerful wards,they can do that in-game and it's going to take time...lots and lots of time.

You're right that doing this stuff takes decades.  Most adventures run days and weeks.  I'd allow some upgrades between sessions, but there's no way you'd hit those numbers in the course of a campaign unless that campaign ran the course of decades.  And that assumes that nobody noticed the supreme build up of power and came to wreck it all.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wordmaker on May 24, 2013, 03:26:59 PM
Yeah, the example you're looking at there with Harry using the aspect for a +2 is an invocation, not a compel.

YS pg 106:

Quote
The only thing to keep in mind is that, if you’re
invoking an aspect on another PC or on a NPC
to gain an advantage over them, that character
will receive the fate point you spent, either at the
end of the exchange (in conflict, see page 197) or at
the end of the scene (outside of conflict).

Nowhere does it say that Fate Points from a compel are awarded at the end of a scene.

With the example you've quoted from the invocation of the aspect against the Shadowman, the only reason he gets the Fate Point at the end of the scene is because it's happening outside a conflict. If it were done during a conflict, the Shadowman would have received the Fate Point once the exchange was over and he'd suffered the effects of the spell.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Taran on May 24, 2013, 03:30:28 PM
Ah.  o.k.  Thanks for the clarification!
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Radijs on May 25, 2013, 02:46:25 PM
Wow, I did not expect such a huge discussion to break out over my question.

I've perused the various reactions and I think it's helped me understand some of the limits that exist.
In the end it boils down to common sense and GM fiat. To put it bluntly.


Thanks for the help.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Wolfhound on May 25, 2013, 04:40:05 PM
I've loved this thread actually, it makes me very glad we put in the Thaum Houserules and Rules of Thumb we did for Dallas (basically a thematic nerf). Our house rules design focused on the Powering Phase.... and then retroactively worried about the Declarations Phase afterwards.

I know with Houserules, everyone has their own preferences, but ours have bene worked out / tested over 2+ years of play and we're very happy with them. The only reason I bother to post them is because I think it might be directly relevant to the OP's question and this discussion.

For the curious - a high level summary of our House Rules/Rules of Thumb.
Phase 2 - Spell Preparation/Meeting Complexity
0) The Given - The GM is responsible for making sure any Declaration is Thematically Appropriate
1) Declarations have to be thematically unique as well as capped to one Skill/one character contributing it. (I.e. for the casting of a single spell, only one character gets to claim a Resources Declaration: "High Quality Spell Components" - if an Assistant also wants to lend a Resources Declaration it has to be different, like "Upgraded Your Lab With Better Trappings")
2) All Declarations from a single character are slaved to the Time Increment table on page 315 starting with the "No Prep" Complexity value at "Instant" and the first Declaration at "A Few Moments." Declarations from Assistants happen in parallel and don't add additional increments. Time Increments determined from the Character with the most declarations (usually the caster). If the character needs fewer Time Increments than what this system determines - Fate Points required, 1 per reduction. Any skipped scenes or "extra time" is added after the base Time Increments is determined. Invokes and Sacrificed Consequences usually add no Time Increments.
3) Total number of "Assistants" that can add Declarations/Consequences is limited by the caster's skill level in a handful of skills (i.e. skill cap) - we use Rapport (how charming you are), Lore (you know the magical rules of using more folks effectively) or Discipline (you're just organized enough to run with a group of helpers).
Phase 3 - Casting/Powering the Spell
1) Exchanges slaved to the Time Increments table on pg. 315 starting at Exchange 1 with "A Minute." To take Fewer Time Increments requires Fate Points. Adding Additional Time is not applicable during Powering Phase. This only applies if the Spellcaster claims "Unhurried" / "Doing it in Downtime" - if the Spellcaster is willing to make Control rolls in-scene/during game (subject to GM compels and in-scene complications and interference), then each Exchange is "A Few Moments" but still limited by #2 below.
2) Caster limited to Discipline (how long he/she can focus) in Exchanges. Anything more requires Invoking an Aspect to gain an additional Exchange.
3) Any sacrificed Consequences for power, assistants lending power (Assistants must come from same group and limits determined during the Prep Phase), power boosts for Environment, power taken from objects that store power, or power provided by deals with Outsiders must specify which Exchange the "whatever" bonus is gained (this list of power sources taken from page 248 "Other Power Sources")

We found that by basically "capping" the Powering Phase and slaving it thematically to the Time Increments table... the rest takes care of itself. Yes, absurdly high Complexity spells are still possible (there's an evil fae in our campaign who kills 3 humans during the course of her highest forms of magic, with 2 assistants, that hits 75 Complexity)... but it's very, very easy for us to "Tell The Story of the Spell" now. We know *exactly* what the spell "looks like" due to the uniqueness requirement of the declarations.

(for example, the evil fae above, I can describe exactly how she does her spell, what it looks like - the description of each declaration - and how long it takes - a week for the prep phase - including kidnapping and torturing the victims, half an hour for the actual powering - including the actual slaying - which means I can also as GM exactly describe the effects in the campaign whenever she starts up one of her big spells and give clues to the PCs of what's going on .... kinda like in Storm Front - Harry vs Victor Sells. So long as I gain "Story" ... I'll put up with big numbers.)

Your table's mileage may vary

Money where my mouth is - Recently I took our house rules, worked up a spell, then wrote a piece of fiction based on a single spell so that I could visualize an implementation of "Norse Magic" I wanted to put in the hands of a handful of our NPCs (including some Norse themed bad guy Fae). So, using the declarations and time increments we worked up by the formula of our house rules, I actually set the scene. Basically... my "GM Notebook" exploded into crappy fan-fic.  :o ;D ::)

If you don't speak Irish the story title is simply "The Story of the Spell" (brón orm, ach b'fhearr liom an Ghaeilge :) )
http://www.obsidianportal.com/campaign/dfd/adventure-log/an-sc-al-ar-an-t-ortha
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Mr. Death on May 25, 2013, 05:46:45 PM
I quote:

You can delay the maneuver, but you can't just have it hanging around until you need it.
You can if the maneuver would logically last a long time--granted, even with the power of thaumaturgy, that's typically only going to be til the next sunrise, but it doesn't have to be instant. "The transient nature of maneuvers" doesn't refer to how long you have to tag--it just means that maneuvers are by nature temporary. And temporary could mean a wide range of things.

Also, there are exceptions made for how long you can tag--assessments, for example, are explicitly able to 'delay' the tag until you can actually use it, since it's unlikely you'd be, for example, looking up the weaknesses of a loup-garou in the same scene that you're fighting the loup-garou.

I don't see a reason for thaumaturgy-based maneuvers to follow the same thinking, provided they'd last long enough.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Sanctaphrax on May 26, 2013, 06:07:59 AM
In the end it boils down to common sense and GM fiat. To put it bluntly.

Yep.

You can if the maneuver would logically last a long time--granted, even with the power of thaumaturgy, that's typically only going to be til the next sunrise, but it doesn't have to be instant. "The transient nature of maneuvers" doesn't refer to how long you have to tag--it just means that maneuvers are by nature temporary. And temporary could mean a wide range of things.

Also, there are exceptions made for how long you can tag--assessments, for example, are explicitly able to 'delay' the tag until you can actually use it, since it's unlikely you'd be, for example, looking up the weaknesses of a loup-garou in the same scene that you're fighting the loup-garou.

I don't see a reason for thaumaturgy-based maneuvers to follow the same thinking, provided they'd last long enough.

That last sentence doesn't seem to fit the post. Did you leave out a "not" or something?

Anyway, the rules more-or-less explicitly say that the assessment exception doesn't apply to rituals. It's hard to read the relevant section any other way.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Mr. Ghostbuster on May 26, 2013, 06:28:32 AM
I dunno if this has been mentioned before but any worthwhile GM (or I, at least) would begin compelling your ritual at some point. Eventually the supernatural beings/factions in the area are going to notice somebody moving around ridiculous levels of power and most of them, if not all, are going to have a vested interest, at the very least, find out what you are up to, if not simply take you out. And the more power you throw around, the more people are going to take notice.

In theory you could completely rewrite reality with enough magic (Jim has said this much) but no one is going to let you pull that off.
Title: Re: Is there a limit to the amount of power a character can put in a spell?
Post by: Mr. Death on May 26, 2013, 01:19:32 PM
That last sentence doesn't seem to fit the post. Did you leave out a "not" or something?
Yeah, actually. It was probably a sentence I rewrote once or twice and it got lost in the mix.