Thank you Deadmanwalking. That does help me a bit with getting the ball moving with my thought process, but it does lead me to other questions.
First, is it only a Thaumaturgy effect, or can a Wizard literally go out with a bang, much like Harry was burning to the edge of his life in the Grave Peril case? It seemed to be pretty close to a Death Curse there (especially the condition he was in afterward), and that was Evocation instead of Thaumaturgy. . .unless you count that are just a really, REALLY big spell with lots of Fate Points and Consequences behind it.
Second, I personally can't see tired and broken Wardens capable of killing multiple Red Court Vampires with a single spell, as you would need to cause about 36-stress in one fell swoop in order to do so (see Victor Sells' Heart-Exploding Spell on YS301). As described, I can't see that sort of widespread destruction via one Warden, much less with Thaumaturgy.
And again, I'm back at the thought of leaving that lasting curse. In order to make a curse with a near-permanent change via Thaumaturgy, you would need enough shifts to win a conflict (YS263). Thus why I was concerned with the description of the shifts granted by a Death Curse; as described, you would need to cause the aforementioned 36 Stress to be certain to "take out" a foe to cause that change, which mechanically would be nigh-impossible, as even if you were unharmed, you'd still only have 20 shifts worth of consequences, and unless you can "tag" all of them afterward, I can't see it happening.
Now that I'm thinking about it, are full Wizards the only ones capable of a Death Curse, or can the Focused Practitioners and Sorcerers do the same? Would there be differences to the limits of the curse at that point as well? My mind registers the differences between the curses done by Quintus Cassius and Margaret LeFay. Both left a near-permanent effect of different complexities, but were also drastically different in scales of power.
What about the "power" of the target of the curse? It was noted that Cowl has survived many Death Curses in his time, which goes to show that a strong enough victim can just simply shrug off the effects in some way.
Which is why, the more I look at it, the more I'm tempted to grant it as part of the story and just use the remaining shifts and the overall power of the practitioner as a guideline to what can actually be done. (i.e. LeFay was a full Wizard, Cassius was not; LeFay probably had more levels of Refinement, giving her more overall power; Ergo, LeFay's curse packed a bigger punch even against a stronger target)
Again, just thinking out loud and getting opinions. Last thing I need is a group with a Wizard hoping to simply "kill" a foe with his Death Curse when instead he would only be capable of causing an event that would lead to death. . .or just be a minor annoyance.
Thanks again for the help!
--Crion
Ah, you're forgetting that the vast majority of NPCs cannot and do not use all their Consequences. Nameless minions (including hordes of Red Court) don't use any. A 17 shift effect is easily enough to kill an entire zone full. Hell, a 10 shift effect is easily enough to kill a zone full.
And again, I'm back at the thought of leaving that lasting curse. In order to make a curse with a near-permanent change via Thaumaturgy, you would need enough shifts to win a conflict (YS263). Thus why I was concerned with the description of the shifts granted by a Death Curse; as described, you would need to cause the aforementioned 36 Stress to be certain to "take out" a foe to cause that change, which mechanically would be nigh-impossible, as even if you were unharmed, you'd still only have 20 shifts worth of consequences, and unless you can "tag" all of them afterward, I can't see it happening.
There are actually three ways to do this:
1. Take them out. Like you said, that'd do it, leaving them permanently changed. And the 36 shifts is to make really absolutely sure it will kill ANYONE. Death Curses are more specifically designed. Remember that the reason Cassius didn't go for direct damage was that he wasn't powerful enough to kill Harry with it. You can tailor this sort of thing. A PC who can't take someone out can do the same.
2. Give them an Extreme Consequence. Not much cheaper than the above but worth noting.
3. Do the Curse as a Maneuver + Duration not an attack. Look at the Entropy Curse (Mild) on p. 296. Then think about upping the duration to a decade or so... This version can only give Aspects, but it's still fucking vicious. The only downside is that it's an ongoing spell and thus can be broken...at least in theory.
Bear in mind that Margaret was killed by an effect that did it all at once, but not quickly enough to prevent the Curse happening...and could thus burn all her Consequences on it. And all her Fate Points. That's a minimum of 28+Lore Complexity, 32+Lore if she had Superb Conviction. That's a 36 Complexity or so, plus the effects of any Fate Points she had to spend. Cassius meanwhile was killed in a fight, probably only having his Extreme Consequence, and few if any Fate Points to burn on the effect for a total complexity of merely 20 or so. Those are in fact entirely different orders of magnitude in power.
As for who can do it, I'd say anybody with Thaumaturgy. Plus those with an appropriate Ritual (though it'd need to match their area...no Entropomancy Death Curse for the Biomancer).
Thanks again for the reply! I'm just glad someone is willing to soundboard and offer answers in return.
I completely forgot about that aspect of using NPCs as extras. In this case, you are correct that a 10 shift effect could nuke a zone full of faceless Red Court vampires.
So, with your three points here. . .
1. They did describe death as a permanent change, thus why, in my mind, it would make sense to have an equivalent number of shifts for the effect. It wouldn't deal damage (unless they was the goal, after all), but instead slap on the effect instead. As written, it sounds as though the PC has to lead someone to being "taken out" in order for it to do so, unless I am horribly misreading something.
2. To inflict an extreme consequence, wouldn't that just be the 8 shifts? The notes on causing consequences stated that you had to worry about a number of shifts equal to the consequence, so as is, it sounds really cheap cost wise.
3. That. . .sounds like a really good way to do it. I think that sounds about right for some of the things, and could even note how Cowl "survived" a number of these things. . .
I'm now curious where you are getting the numbers for the consequences. Unless I'm horribly wrong with my math, you have 20 for the consequences (2+4+6+8=20) if you burn them all or even tag them instead. Where did you get the 28+Lore from?
So with this in mind, how is a "healthy" wizard different from an injured wizard if they have the same number of consequences to tag/take in the long run?
And that last note makes sense enough to me, which sets my mind at ease if I throw it around out there. Thank you.
Thanks again for the help. I'm going to stew on these thoughts for a bit, get away from the computer, and see what I can bring back to the table.
--Crion
No, they don't. They're an Aspect and, when tagged, provide the same +2 as any Aspect. You get the full value if you sacrifice the Cosequence to the spell, but not from just tagging an existing Consequence.
That said, your ruling is a perfectly valid, and simple, house rule if you want to make Death Curses even nastier.
Well, the victim always chooses what Consequences to take, so an 8 shift effect beyond their Stress and Defense could just be absorbed by a Severe and Mild Consequence, just for example. You need to fill all those somehow before you can really make sure they take a Severe Cnsequence.
"At its weakest, this is the equivalent of performing a maneuver when determining complexity; inflicting something more like a consequence would require more shifts depending on the severity."As I read it, my mind registered it as inflicting a consequence upon a victim as long as you took the proper shifts to do so, but even then, wouldn't it just be easier to make a sticky aspect instead?
Ah. You're confusing tagging and burning Consequences. Tagging is just getting a free +2 from an Aspect you've made or discovered. You are officially allowed to get a free Tag on all your Consequences for a Death Curse. As a general Thaumaturgy rule you can also always burn Consequences for extra Complexity in Thaumaturgy equal to their value (so 8 for an extreme Consequence), which you can still explicitly do as part of a Death Curse. These two things stack, for a total of the 20 you state, plus another 8 from the tagging.
If they're injured, they can still Tag everything, but can't burn any Consequences they've already taken.
Thanks Deadman. I think ill just stick with my house ruling. Death curses should be nasty lol ;D
As I said, I'm glad to see someone helping me out here. It does suck being the first to look at new games in a group; everyone expects you to learn, teach, and run. Makes things that much more challenging ^_^;
I guess I must have misread the wording on YS263 (involving Thaumaturgy), which is as follows:As I read it, my mind registered it as inflicting a consequence upon a victim as long as you took the proper shifts to do so, but even then, wouldn't it just be easier to make a sticky aspect instead?
You are correct that I was confusing them. I didn't even know you could tag your own Consequences as a bonus to a Death Curse. See, learned something new from knowing the view from someone's eyes. Awesome.
So, just to be certain: without having any Consequences, you can have a total of 28 shifts (20 for taking the consequences, 8 for the tagging) of complexity without invoking Aspects or involving Lore, Discipline, Specialties or Refinement, correct? With only having your extreme consequence left, you can gain a total of 16 (8 for extreme, +8 for tagging all of those consequences) shifts of complexity before involving the above?
Just making sure I'm not forgetting something here,
Even with those numbers, putting a longer duration maneuver on someone can be pretty sick unless they dispel/counter it. I'm still thinking that approach if I ever need to toss something at my players. . .
--Crion
Okay, now that it took me forever to write that last post (work got in the way), and there are other responses, I'd like to say that Cowl's idea sounds REALLY nasty for a Death Curse. Perhaps a bit overkill in some ways, but isn't that the whole point of going over the edge and dictating your own death scene?
And now that I'm thinking of it: has anyone ever had a Death Curse done in the game by any of the players? Anything original or interesting come up?
And another thought: what do you think of other ways to "boost" a Death Curse, such as Soulfire, Hellfire, using a Leyline, or even having power from another "sponsor"?
I guess I must have misread the wording on YS263 (involving Thaumaturgy), which is as follows:As I read it, my mind registered it as inflicting a consequence upon a victim as long as you took the proper shifts to do so, but even then, wouldn't it just be easier to make a sticky aspect instead?
So, just to be certain: without having any Consequences, you can have a total of 28 shifts (20 for taking the consequences, 8 for the tagging) of complexity without invoking Aspects or involving Lore, Discipline, Specialties or Refinement, correct? With only having your extreme consequence left, you can gain a total of 16 (8 for extreme, +8 for tagging all of those consequences) shifts of complexity before involving the above?
Just making sure I'm not forgetting something here,
Even with those numbers, putting a longer duration maneuver on someone can be pretty sick unless they dispel/counter it. I'm still thinking that approach if I ever need to toss something at my players. . .
--Crion[/color]
It's pretty ridiculously effective against mortals, yeah, but against anyone with wizard allies, somewhat less so. The wording of counterspelling is a bit vague, but I personally would rule that only shifts devoted to raw power, not duration, whole-zone targeting, etc. count toward the difficulty of the evocation.
See, I'd have all that sort of thing count. You should need a really big Thaumaturgy ritual to break a death curse, or something equally potent. That said, it's not that hard for most Wizards to get a big ritual together given some time, effort, and motivation, so the principle stands.
I see where uyou're coming from, and your interpretation is clearly as valid as mine, but I still think I'd keep the full difficulty.
On another note, using the Fate Points from Cashing Out on a Death Curse never even occurred to me, but looking at it there's no reason you couldn't. Huh. That's an additional +5 to +12 or so Complexity right there depending on your Aspects and how many Consequences you have. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.
As for the idea of the sponsored magic: I just remember how Harry was thinking of using some of those sponsors to the brink of death, or even using them as part of the curse, which is why I even considered it. I can imagine pouring Hellfire into a curse that causes plenty of destruction or misfortune, our Soulfire to do something "for the greater good." I can also see some other forms of sponsored magic being potential fountains of fuel, so to speak: pulling from a leyline to really hammer out that curse (especially a generational curse), or using your last moments as the Winter Knight to inflict as much harm as possible upon your foe. Again, I can see the possibilities here, especially since a Death Curse is usually used as a last resort. Any thoughts on this? And if you would use that as an option, what sort of impact do you think it would carry (i.e. more shifts, extra shifts on a certain goal, some other effect)?
Oh, and thanks for coming into the conversation, Kordeth. I can respect the idea of putting the raw power as the difficulty to break the spell, but I do have to stick with Deadmanwalking; Death Curses are supposed to be extraordinarily potent as it is taking the life of a spellcaster to do it. These sort of things should be over the top in their own way. If anything, I'd probably end up house-ruling to make it even harder to break a Death Curse, if only because of the cost behind it.
Now I need to ask about the Cashing Out rule. Would you still get those points after tagging your own consequences, as they are considered to be compels of the consequences that took you out of the fight? And would you still be eligible for those Fate Points since your character is now dead?
I don't think they really need to be that much harder to dispel, considering that most death curses are probably either massive damage or effects designed to inflict extreme consequences. Remember that consequences can't start "healing" until the proper conditions for recovery are met--you're free to say the extreme consequence from a Death Curse has no such condition (or that it's a deus ex machina condition like a favor from Mother Winter or the blessing of a god). The extreme consequence slot should reset, but the Death Curse altered Aspect might be stuck that way forever.
My thought is simple, as in my mind it's a story/thematic approach: could the Death Curse that is powerful enough to inflict an Extreme Consequence just change an Aspect instead? I know the only time we've seen a curse in action was in Dead Beat, and Harry did pass out when it was done ("taken out" perhaps, or just on his last legs from nearly be disemboweled?), but I find it to be rather cheesey if a Death Curse knocked a victim out in some way (especially since some curses, like the one in the spoiler, would be hard to describe on any of the standard stress tracks).
Again, just a thought. Feel free to agree or disagree as you see fit.