I'm also a little confused about one point. Kemmler bought it for the last time in 1961, and while I get that your character is younger in relation to Kemmler's other apprentices (Cowl, Corpsetaker, et al.) assuming the game takes place in the modern day that would still put your character in her mid seventies. Perfectly normal for a Wizard of course, but it also means that she's been a part of the Council for over fifty years now. Has she continued shady?My idea was that a one of Kemmler's apprentices had a stronghold somewhere and was recruiting wizards to train in the ways of Kemmler, to be cannon-fodder/scapegoats against the white council or whoever. So my character isn't a direct apprentice of Kemmler, but of one of his apprentices. This also all took place in Europe, and she later came to America. I may be wrong, but so far this seems to work out well enough. My GM hasn't pointed out a problem with it, but while we're both big time Dresden readers I wouldn't say we're infallible experts.
Also, do you have someone who took responsibility for your character like Eb took Harry in? If she defected it might not be necessary, but maybe have a previous mentor on the Council who took a risk on you. That could get you an aspect related to your mentor.
Plus, necromancy is a gross violation of one of the Laws of Magic. Unless she only practiced animal necromancy, and even then, it's a major gray area.
The big issue with this character mechanically is the Lawbreaker Stunt and her lack of both it and the Refresh to buy it. By background, she should have Lawbreaker - 5th [-2], unless she has only ever used Necromancy on animals (enormously unlikely, I'd personally say impossible, for a Kemmlerite) and possibly other Lawbreaker stunts as well (if she's ever killed for instance). So, that's a definite problem.I thought the sponsored magic rules keep lawbreaker stunt from being involved as long as you're using the sponsored magic itself to break the laws. The trade on this being the sponsor agenda, otherwise a necromancer would go insane in ten minutes of being one.
Thematically, having an ex-Necromancer seems possible, but a Kemmlerite? Much less so...though I suppose if Kumori came off as sympathetic it's possible.It's of course not the most likely of stories, but it's one I find fun and my GM's on board with it. They seem pretty interested the story of the Warden out to get her.
Nope. Check Our World. Both Grevane and Capriocorpus have Lawbreaker 5th.
Not by any of the rules they don't. Some people would argue that they don't...but I've never agreed with them, and think that's thematic hogwash.
There's also the fact that I'm pretty sure you need to be a Necromancer (ie: have Lawbreaker - 5th) before you can even become a Kemmlerite...just logically.
You could be a necromancer who hasn't gone all the way corrupt yet. Say that you worked mainly with an animals or find the points to pick up a level or two law breaker.
In the books, Kumori is a non-Kemmlerite necromancer who isn't evil. Crazy and in denial about it, sure, but not evil.
Richard
Necromancy doesn't necessarily have to be about killing and reanimating. It can also be about controlling ghosts and the likes. Maybe not even ghosts, just death energy of some kind or another.
You could look at it like this: every action has an equal but opposite reaction. So every spell you do is not one action, but a pair of action-reaction. Now most wizards learn to use magic a certain way, what I would call the action in the simile. Necromantic magic seems to work the other way around, creating what would usually be the reaction, so the action occurs. Granted, this will only translate very roughly to magic, but I hope you get my point. Necromancy, without killing or raising anyone or anything. Harry says so himself, Magic springs from life, Necromancy from death. Kumori says something along those lines as well, and she says that Necromancy can be turned to do good.
In some applications, the necromantic method might even be better than the magic everyone else is using. We don't have much to go on there, but I think that could be something that would let you walk the straight and narrow, while still having necromancy.
Spinning off this idea, every warden of the white council will probably feel the necromantic energies around you, that doesn't seem to be something that can easily be hidden. However. once they soulgaze you they will find out, that you never killed anyone, never intend to, that there is something about the necromantic energy around you, that might not be inherently bad, and they will definitely see, that you never broke a law. Add to that a sponsor, and you are good to go.
I would keep Kemmlerian Necromancy from your sheet, though, because that definitely is the darkest dark of necromancy and will, like Deadmanwalking said almost certainly come with a lawbreaker. attached. If you do put it on your sheet and use it, you will end up on the dark side, and if you don't use it, you have two points of dead weight in your refresh pool. Refinement would be the better way to go there, I think. If you want to have a Kemmlerian background, put it in one of your aspects, so if you really want to go there, you can draw upon it that way.
Speaking of aspects: I think "walking the line" and "if the ref doesn't see it, it's legal" are basically saying the same thing, and I feel that the second one is way more fuego than the first, and might make for a better trouble aspect, while conveying the same message.
Personally, I think the Lawbreaker Power shouldn't be mandatory for people who break the Laws. Because having a Wizard PC break a Law and suffer the consequences for that is fun, and the mandatory-ness of the Lawbreaker Power interferes with that story.
So I recommend you just ignore the thing that says you need to take Lawbreaker. Don't let the oddities of the rules get in the way of your game.
Requiring that breaking a Law affect your Aspects is pretty cool, though. Aspect changes are a great way to represent corruption.
Kumori doesn't have lawbreaker and she's clearly a necromancer and has used the abilities. In any case, I wasn't looking to butt heads on it. I understand some people might be against the idea but my GM and group think it to be a fun concept and no one sees any mechanical issues with it in the rule book. I was hoping more in input from more experienced players about the selection of skills/items and such for a wizard in their position for someone new to the game
Personally, I think the Lawbreaker Power shouldn't be mandatory for people who break the Laws. Because having a Wizard PC break a Law and suffer the consequences for that is fun, and the mandatory-ness of the Lawbreaker Power interferes with that story.
So I recommend you just ignore the thing that says you need to take Lawbreaker. Don't let the oddities of the rules get in the way of your game.
Requiring that breaking a Law affect your Aspects is pretty cool, though. Aspect changes are a great way to represent corruption.
In game terms, whenever your character crosses the line for the first time-breaking a law that he has not broken before-he must immediately take a new Lawbreaker ability. A Lawbreaker ability is a supernatural power (page 158) that reduces your Refresh by one-you should sit up and take notice here.
I disagree, I think the loss of free will involved in Lawbreaker very neatly models the reality of the books (which is what the game's trying for, obviously), and is quite fun in its own way.
This is almost certainly an error (or a result of the difference between PCs and NPCs), not an intentional statement on how the Laws work. Adding Lawbreaker was one of the last things that got done in OW (and considered more important on PCs than NPCs anyway), and nobody noticed its' absence on Kumori. No, really, I know, I was the one who pointed out it's absence on Grevane. They immediately put it in. Nobody did the same for her.
Indeed, I'll link you: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16539.msg784716.html#msg784716 (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16539.msg784716.html#msg784716)
That said, if you want to and it's fun for your group, go for it. That's by far the most important thing. Way more than any pedantic rules argument.
I disagree, I think the loss of free will involved in Lawbreaker very neatly models the reality of the books (which is what the game's trying for, obviously), and is quite fun in its own way.
But running a game without it is certainly viable. I would advise consistency, though. Either have it or don't or put a number of times you need to do X to get it, no applying it sporadically...that'd get weird.
Actually it’s a pretty excellent question and one that is NOT explicitly stated to my knowledge. It is generally assumed when it comes to the Faerie Knights but there are exceptions. Linked below is a thread on the DFRPG site that debates the various approaches. The book does reference it and I’m pasting that here for clarification:
This quote is from the post-its on p.236
Technically, the Laws of Magic only apply to mortal spellcasters. I haven’t seen either of the Sidhe Knights at the meetings or ice cream socials.
But I think this could be a fertile ground for stories in someone’s game. Like one of the Knights whacks a Council-allied mortal, and there’s a movement inside the Council to apply the Laws to the situation, but the Accords get in the way…Sort of the reverse of what happened in the Death Masks case.
Stars and stones, Billy, my life is complicated enough here without pulling more politics into it!
And this quote is from p.241
As enforced, the Laws of Magic are applied where human victims are involved, but similarly, they’re primarily applied where human spellcasters are the ones doing the deeds.
FORUM THREAD
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/i...c,18574.0.html
Myself, I agree with a number of the positions.
1) If it is only Sponsored Magic (not a mortal wizard tapping Sponsored for more Oomph) then it really doesn’t come from them and the soul/moral consequences of the Lawbreaker talent doesn’t seem appropriate.
2) It’s going to depend on who the Sponsor is! No Warden is going to claim jurisdiction over a Knight. (And that is explicitly stated in several offers of knighthood to Dresden that they would love to have a Wizard that was not bound by the White Council’s rules. It is also stated that the Wardens would be off his back… it was a conversation with the Faerie Ladies in McAnally’s I think). But the power of the Sponsor and the origin of the Sponsor are going to be very important in the decision-making of the Warden.
3) Is the Sponsor a member of the Accords? If so, then they and their minions do not have to answer to another member except under those terms. What do the Accords say about it? No fricking idea, they’re a plot device.
4) What kind of Sponsored Magic? After all, Kemmlerian is simply magic that delves deeper than others into darkness. Kind of necro-methampheta-magic. Anyone who has dug this deep is no longer worried about the Laws.
5) This is a decision for the group and the GM. Remembering that the use of Magic to break the Laws is something internal as well as external in the game. It implies a blot on your soul, a change in your perception, a step down the path to NPC/madness. Do not use Sponsored Magic as a way to get around the personal effects of the Laws. In fact, if you have someone who is doing so and it's considered "legal" due to the Accords, I don't think it's too far of a stretch to apply the actual character effects to the character. After all, in the end, they simply represent the character becoming less human... And, in the end, isn't that what many of the Sponsors want? Downbelow would love for the person to become less and less human. Same with the Fae. What better temptation from DownBelow than "Burn everyone you want, the Wardens can't touch you."
I understand some people might be against the idea but my GM and group think it to be a fun concept and no one sees any mechanical issues with it in the rule book.
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/i...c,18574.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/i...c,18574.0.html)
Then the ultimate DFRPG authority has already ruled that your character is legal - that being the table you're playing at. That philosophy is why there's a thread with official "suggestions" on the first law as opposed to one with a ruling.
That said, if you're replacing your trouble you might think about getting one of those "you've broken the law so often it changes one of your aspects" style thing from the Lawbreaker rules.
Something like:
I Have Power Over Death
I Can Bring Them Back
I Command The Spirits
I Raise The Dead
- to reflect how tempting it is to use forbidden power. Your PC can do those things and the only reason she doesn't is because the White Council says she shouldn't.
And you might want to reflavour Kemmlerian Necromancy. Call it "True Death Necromancy" or something like that, because the Kemmlerian Necromancy leads to really batshit crazy stuff. Every single one of Kemmler's former apprentices came off looking more insane than Cowl and Kumori - and that's saying something.
Why reflavour it? Because when you use the term on this board people will think about the default "become completely insane" power rather than the variation that your group is using.
Richard
I honestly just do not see a necromancer having to worry about going insane easily from using the type of magic they specialize in. Cowl, Grevane, and company would have been braindead if it were the case.
Cowl never really came off as mad to me he seemed more like a game theorist to me, his actions all seemed measured and planned.
It does model the reality in the books fairly well, but it doesn't lead to fun play. Lots of spellcasters have 1 Refresh, so if they break a Law they're instantly turned into NPCs. Which means that (unless you do some rules fiddling of the sort I recommend) you can't have the story where they break a Law and face the consequences.
It's not quite as bad if the spellcaster has spare Refresh, but even then it's not great. It screws around with the balance of the game to reduce one character's Refresh total for no real benefit.
Aspects model the loss of free will just as well (if not better), since Compels compel behaviour. And they don't have the problems that the Power does.
Well here's what I've also read on it.
I honestly just do not see a necromancer having to worry about going insane easily from using the type of magic they specialize in. Cowl, Grevane, and company would have been braindead if it were the case. And also for my group it is not a case of "x times before you break the law" it's just a case of "You can do this without breaking the law, but not this."
Only if you aren't willing to be flexible. I'd very much let them get by with Refresh 0 for long enough to have a Milestone if they've got good reason to keep going (probably treating it as a temporary power and charging them FP every so often till then). Heck, by any reasonable definition, Harry did something very like this in Changes (though not with Lawbreaker).
...
This is a legitimate issue, and one I myself have a House Rule about: You can use your Lawbreaker bonus whenever doing something that would break the law but doesn't due to a technicality. For example, I'd let Harry get it when killing anything, not just humans, or a Necromancer get it when raising an animal. It never made sense to me that it would behave otherwise. I also allow the bonus to apply to predicting or noticing the behavior of those who also have that particular Lawbreaker (Molly does this in Turn Coat, IMO).
The issue there is that while they change the nature of compels you receive, they don't make you need to accept more of them...which is really what less free will is all about.
That could work.
My houserules aren't the only houserules that could fix the issue.
Well, sort of.
Compels affect players, not characters. So "mobsters kidnapped your boyfriend, go rescue him" is just as viable a Compel as "your corrupt nature makes you want to murder people". But the latter affects the free will of your character while the former doesn't. So if your IN DEBT TO THE MOB Aspect changes to I KILL MY PROBLEMS when you fireball the Don, you lose some free will.
Your link is broken.
Here's one that works:
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18574.0.html (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18574.0.html)
PS: The Sponsored Magic thing has been argued a million times and is not going to be resolved here. I suggest not arguing it again.
Then the ultimate DFRPG authority has already ruled that your character is legal - that being the table you're playing at. That philosophy is why there's a thread with official "suggestions" on the first law as opposed to one with a ruling.
That said, if you're replacing your trouble you might think about getting one of those "you've broken the law so often it changes one of your aspects" style thing from the Lawbreaker rules.
Something like:
I Have Power Over Death
I Can Bring Them Back
I Command The Spirits
I Raise The Dead
- to reflect how tempting it is to use forbidden power. Your PC can do those things and the only reason she doesn't is because the White Council says she shouldn't.
And you might want to reflavour Kemmlerian Necromancy. Call it "True Death Necromancy" or something like that, because the Kemmlerian Necromancy leads to really batshit crazy stuff. Every single one of Kemmler's former apprentices came off looking more insane than Cowl and Kumori - and that's saying something.
Why reflavour it? Because when you use the term on this board people will think about the default "become completely insane" power rather than the variation that your group is using.
Richard
Personally I consider all of those characters to be insane.
The Kemmlerite were insane. As in "Why negotiate when I can kill him then break into the morgue (killing a bunch of people) and get what I want" insane. I see all of them as having all of their aspects twisted by the Lawbreaker power.
In White Knight it strongly hints that Cowl deals with the Outsiders. That's only one more "I am above the concept of sanity" act that this loony does.
Even Kumori "I go around helping people" is crazy. Read that conversation she has about how she will banish death from the world. When Dresden points out the tiny little flaws in her plans (Hitler living forever, vast over population, etc) she completely tunes reality out - because she lives in a world where delusions can come true.
None of those were slobbing at the mouth insane, but they were all insane.
Richard
PS: Edited to address:
Cowl believes himself above good and evil, above sanity and insanity. He cooperates with raising the Dark Hallow because he knows he will make a Just God. He works with capital E evil types. The Proto-ghouls, the murdering women who have a touch of talent, the... well, almost everything he does portrays someone who considers himself amoral and asane - which shows how insane he is.
Looking at it another way - if he really has left all mortal moral judgements behind, then he's operating at a level that can't be considered sane.
Richard
Huh? Lawbreaker doesn't make you insane, it makes you the kind of person who does that. It makes you arrogant enough to believe you have the right to do that kind of thing, and gradually subsumes everything else in your life into your use of that kind of Magic (as it changes your Aspects). All of those sound like perfect descriptions of the people in question.Well my character would go 'insane' or however you'd like to put it, losing control of themselves for simply doing the type of magic they've been trained to do for years due to only having one refresh. It doesn't seem right that they'd drop down every time for simply using their main magic.
Wow, thread kind of exploded while I was gone. Thanks for the working link, and I agree with you. I am not a fan of flaming old arguments that can't be resolved. I was merely pointing out my group's current view on the subject. I'm definitely much too tired these days to engage in long internet arguments. I'm perfectly happy to agree to disagree here.
Those are good points, it might be a good idea to reflavour it but my GM might want to leave it as is, I'll bring it up to them. And I will take you up on the aspect change, it's a good idea.
I don't see that as insane at all, corrupted yes but insane to me is an entirely different bag of stuff. Well, I'm not saying they're perfectly sane. But I'm also not saying they're any more insane than an average healthy individual can be. I think whenever you give someone powers like that, you're opening them up to all kinds of ideas that to us seem insane because we live in a non magical world. Where as for them, they can accomplish the impossible. That's one of the definitions of thaumaturgy in the rule book.
I'm not saying they're right either. I'm just saying most of them don't seem to have lost control of themselves by any means. Of course the corruption in the RPG isn't just about sanity, it's about how much freedom over your core nature you have. Which means you can be perfectly sane but just not in control of your fate anymore.
Well my character would go 'insane' or however you'd like to put it, losing control of themselves for simply doing the type of magic they've been trained to do for years due to only having one refresh. It doesn't seem right that they'd drop down every time for simply using their main magic.
Though I am refreshing myself on Lawbreaking power and it may not be as bad as I previously thought, I was under the impression that it would have crazy refresh cost repeatedly instead of a limit cap on each law. It might actually be good to include it at the start, I'll bring it up to my GM, they'll probably agree after we discuss it. Am I correct on this? The refresh cost caps at -2 for each law then it merely changes your aspects? If so that would be a good way to start off, one violation wouldn't instantly make me turn into an NPC and it'd symbolize my character being young and fighting the corruption, but becoming more in control after a milestone passed. They'd still corrupted from then on out (aspect changes) but not in fear of losing control of themselves, only changing into something else.
Yep. There's a solid cap there. Also, if you're actually gonna use it, Lawbreaker is actually pretty nice mechanically. +2 Control to every single roll you make using Necromancy either Evocation or Thaumaturgy? That's not bad at all.
And front-loading it is definitely the way I'd do that, yeah. Indeed, my first post pointing out your lack of it was intended to suggest something like this...apparently very poorly. Sorry about that.
I disagree, actually. Being in debt to the mob (or otherwise chained by your obligations to others) is, both mechanically and thematically, at least as much of a way to represent a lack of free will as being a more dangerous/worse person. Indeed, I'd argue it's more of an imposition on your free will, since it actually keeps you from doing as you'd like, while the 'Killing Your Problems' one just defines what you like/want.
The Lawbreaker stunt is supposed to be mandatory for a reason. I represents the slippery slope of dark magic and the whole theme of choice vs. nature which is a HUGE theme in both the books and a game. Break too many laws and you stop being a person and become a monster, loosing your free will and becoming a slave to your nature. I personally believe it should not be ignored, it cheapens the game and whats at stake.
But, you know what? In the end its your game. Do what you (and your group) want.
But if you're going to go by that definition of free will, then Lawbreaker doesn't actually necessarily involve a loss of free will.
Sure, you're down 1 Refresh...but the mob is dead! They won't mess with you now! +1.3 virtual Refresh worth of free will!
I dunno, I feel like that definition denies the entire point of the Lawbreaker concept.
I'm not gonna argue specific decimal values, but let it be noted that I was going to until I realized how painful that would be for everyone involved.
I disagree with your conception of Refresh, because characters don't actually get to spend their own Fate Points. Take my mob kidnapping example: refusing the Compel could prevent the kidnapping. And spending a Fate Point can Declare things that your character doesn't interact with.
So while Refresh does correspond generally to free will, it's not terribly exact.
Even with 12 Refresh, you might still be a slave to corruption if your Aspects have been reshaped the right (wrong) way.
Those Aspects reflect what you are and what your nature makes you do much more than your Refresh does.
Well, item-wise, to some degree it depends on whether you have Kemmlerian Necromancy or Lawbreaker or both...so that's an issue, especially with your Specialty and Focus Item.
Aside from that, well, your defensive item isn't noted right, it needs a number of uses per session noted, and equally importantly, can be used for either Block or Armor on each individual use, for example:
Robes (8 shift Block or Armor 4, 3 times per session) (6 item slots)
This is also a hell of a protective item, and debatably overpowered in some games, so check with your GM if it's cool. If it is, then it's a solid choice.
I see, well currently it's an "on all the time" item. I dropped a load of enchanted item slots into it, I think I did the math correctly but not positive on that. To get this I set one enchanted item slot aside for the item itself, then with Lore 5, I dropped 3 enchanted item slots into that to bring it up to strength 8 from 5. Then halving that gets you an item that is on all the time right?
As for my speciality and focus item, those were just what I threw down at the moment. I am not dead set on them, but I figured kemmler works better with spirit. And yes, my character has both Kemmler and lawbreaker(fifth) now, we did end up moving up to 11 refresh to make it fit better.
I'll definitely bring it up with my GM, I'm glad to hear I did okay with it. The other thing is our party isn't very big, so I'm definitely trying to keep my eye out for things to get the group by in it. I don't really know how these games work yet, so maybe I am being overly cautious.
Uh...the current rules have no proviso for always on items (which strikes me as a good thing, IMO). If you're using a version that does (likely the Early Bird PDF, which has such rules, but is very very obsolete)...then that doesn't quite work. See, Armor is always half the shifts of the effect, so you're halving 8 twice to get an armor rating. Or to put it another way, it'd be a permanent 4 shift block or permanent Armor 2.I'm a little confused then, my book says this.
The uses-per-session limitation may beI'm curious if we're using an outdated rule book now. I brought this up to my GM and we're looking into it. Mine says "OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a"
removed by halving the base strength, rounded
down; so if you have Good (+3) Lore, you could
create a one-use-per-session item with an effect
strength of Good (+3), or an always-on item
with an effect strength of Average (+1).
If you've only spent 4 items, you've got an open Slot, though.
Oh, Spirit's definitely your go-to element here. And, if you have Kermmlerian Necromancy, Power's the specialty you want, since your Necromancy control bonus can be used on appropriately death-y Evocations. So, that being the case, you've got a good setup. Though bear in mind that free slot.
Well, as a permanent item isn't going to be nearly as potentially powerful. Or cool. Indeed, you'd be better off just getting some kevlar and using the slots elsewhere. One reason the permanent item rules were removed from the current version of the game.
You may increase the number of uses per
session by one by reducing the base strength
of the item by one. So if you have Good (+3)
Lore, you could create an enchanted item with
an effect strength of Good (+3) that you can
use once per session, or an item with an effect
strength of Average (+1) that you can use three
times per session. When doing this, the base
strength of the item may not go below 1.
Okay, I found a newer version. The one I had was indeed outdated, the new book says this.
Yup, that's the current version. With that and your 6 slots you can make the item I suggested above (which I'll repeat here):
Robes (8 shift Block or Armor 4, 5 times per session) (6 item slots)
Which is both more powerful, and, IMO, more fun. Less boring anyway.
Every time a player spends a Fate Point to resist a Compel to do something specific that's both the player doing something and the character exercising his free will to resist his impulses.
Okay, I found a newer version. The one I had was indeed outdated, the new book says this.
Oh sorry, I saw that though my GM said they want me to reduce the armor down to 2. So right now I have it set up like this.
Robes/Coat
(4 shift Block or Armor 2, 5 times per session) (2 item slots)
Is that correct?
Edit: The GM said under these rules the armor 4 is okay since it's limited use.
No, it can be just the player.
Really, there's no reason to require the character be involved. Maybe refusing the Compel prevents the issue from arising in the first place. Maybe your character gives into the impulse, but because you refused the Compel none of the consequences occur.
Whatever.
That was one of the major changes between the pre-release and the final draft. It can be fun going through the two versions and seeing what else changed.
Then guessing at why it changed.
Richard
In addition, if you already practice evocation, you may use a sponsored power source to “supercharge” an element you’ve already specialized in. So Summer magic might combine with the air element to give a “breath of life” effect; hellfire might combine with fire to produce, well, hell-fire; and Kemmlerian necromancy might combine with the spirit element to inflict potent visions of death upon a victim. This sort of combination allows the spellcaster to use his existing evocation specialization bonuses with the new power source.
Not quite, your basic 1 slot Item would be 5 shifts, 1 use, or 4 shifts, 2 uses. So the 2 slot version is only 4 uses, not 5.
But since the better one's allowed, I'd go with that.
Yep. That's all correct (though powering some stuff with raw death energy might be hard to justify). Sponsored Magic's pretty cool, but then it oughtta be for 2 Refresh.
High: Your Friendly Neighborhood Necromancer
Trouble: If the Ref doesn't see it. It's legal.
Any means Necessary
Death Serves Me (lawbreaker)
Politics is my favorite Game
I'm not always such a smart ass, sometimes I'm asleep.
I'm Everybody's Friend ... Until I'm Not
Technically? Yeah, that works fine.
But there's a catch: 20 Shifts is if they still have all their Consequences. It's based on inflicting said consequences. Mostly, enemies get taken out or even more often concede instead of taking Consequences...but if you're planning on capturing them, they may concede (with death their concession) or (potentially much worse) fight through all their Consequences. So doing it reliably is pretty much not gonna happen. They start fighting to the death real quick.
As a one-off? Yeah, it'll work fine and technically breaks no Laws.
I wouldn't call it clear.I'm kinda with you on this part. I think if you're the one who inflicted the consequences on him then you definitely would get full shifts. I think it's a lot more gray after that and I wouldn't know.
When I first read that, I thought it was a special exception to the normal consequence-inflicting rules. 20 shifts for killing, no questions asked, to provide some extra incentive to kill instead of filling consequence slots with various permutations of TIRED and BLOOD LOSS. (And maybe a SEVERED LIMB for the extreme slot.)
And if I drag my enemy in to my sacrificing room after a massive brawl where I inflict every possible consequence to him, I want some shifts.
Leaving them open is the reason they're crazy good, IMO. Lets you do almost any effect you want more or less on the fly. Very handy.
No, I think you're right. From description you have to be in Phase 2 on p. 262, not Phase 3. You could get interrupted during that phase and still maybe be okay, depending on the nature of the spell, and could take multiple sessions. You should be able to Invoke any Aspects you have at any point during that phase (though you could invoke each one only once during one spell...no using 3 FP to use your High concept three times).
So assuming you're still in that phase, you're good to spend FP when you like...though to be honest I'm finding it difficult to figure out why it matters that much. You get 1 Fate Point per session regardless of when you spend them so...little unclear why this matters.
Edit: Also the reason is, while my character is trying to prepare for the spell. A bunch of thugs have been attacking them, so the spell's been put on hold during the complexity stage. The new few hours she won't have time for it and she'll have to consider dealing with a red court face.
No, I get why you need to do the spell, and why being interrupted is important. But why is precisely when you spend the Fate Points important? Your FP total winds up the same either way...so why is the timing of that particular expenditure relevant?
True enough, I suppose, but with Refresh 1 that's a pretty small number of FP all told. Still, I guess if you're hurting for them already...
My GM tried to say I'd have 4 if I hadn't taken sponsor debt, but I had to make a roll of 7 to hex the machine guns of two guys, which I of course failed.Sponsor debt doesn't affect your refresh or even directly* affect your current fate total. So not sure how you'd have more fate. ??? Also, I agree with Deadmanwalking - unless those were old school hand cranked gatling guns or protected by a circle/ward, it shouldn't require anything close to an Epic success to hex.
7?! That...seems excessive for, well, hexing guns, never mind automatic weapons (which are 4 or 5 per p.258). A 7 will hex things that operate by steam power, after all. I guess some guns are simpler/older than that...but not any that are in common use.
EDIT: Thinking about it, I guess if you're applying the Zone Wide extra shift-cost to that it'd make sense. I wouldn't usually do that on hexing, but I can see the logic to doing so, I suppose.
Sponsor debt doesn't affect your refresh or even directly* affect your current fate total. So not sure how you'd have more fate. ??? Also, I agree with Deadmanwalking - unless those were old school hand cranked gatling guns or protected by a circle/ward, it shouldn't require anything close to an Epic success to hex.The idea was, I spent the points on the sponsor debt instead of receiving the compels afterwards and getting fate points for it. And yeah I was trying to zone hex them.
*It may indirectly affect fate if you spend them to resist compels.
Yeah it was a zone deal, sorry. I had already been shot once and I was kind of in a hurry to finish it. I'm still new so I'm learning how combat goes, this was my first fight with humans.Unless I've been horribly mistaken for some time now, you don't get fate points if you buy out of a compel. Buying out of a compel doesn't change that. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you.
The idea was, I spent the points on the sponsor debt instead of receiving the compels afterwards and getting fate points for it. And yeah I was trying to zone hex them.
Unless I've been horribly mistaken for some time now, you don't get fate points if you buy out of a compel. Buying out of a compel doesn't change that. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding you.That wasn't the idea. I called on my sponsor for extra power. Gave me 3 points of debt. My GM used 2 of the free compels on stuff they were going to compel anyway, so I didn't get the fate points for the compels.
This is described on p. 271 if you need a textual source.
Thanks a bunch.
"Your Friendly Neighborhood Death" would be the obvious one...
And personally, I'd go with the classic black hooded cloak for the Item of Power, the 'mantle of Death' as it were...this obviously wouldn't be a useful weapon, but you could walk around in it, and it seems thematically better suited to the power-set. Thematically speaking, weapons give offensive powers, mostly, movement and defense are better provided by something like this.
All those are good, shiny Aspects...but none of them actually define you as a servitor/emissary of Death. That requires something more title-y. High concepts really need a title, and thus are often a bit less cool-sounding than other Aspects...but they usually need to be to fulfill their function of actually defining who and what the character is.
They really need to be something that you could put "He's the..." or "She's a..." in front of and have it make sense. He's the Fallen Prince of the Wraith Family. He's a Knight of the Cross. She's Daddy's Little Denarian. He's the Combat Leader of the Alphas. Etc.
Because I see it so often in someones signature here on the forum:
"What can the harvest hope for, if not the care of the reaper man." (Terry Pratchett)
Not as a high concept, but one of the other 6 you have available. Maybe even the trouble aspect, meaning he is not just death incarnate, but he cares about the people he has to take over to the other side.
As a high concept, maybe something akin to "Death's errand boy"?
Pretty much anything with Pratchett's Death in it is pure gold.
As it turns out he's only the Death of the Discworld and thus an emissary of the Death of Everything. So you could run with an idea like that too for your high concept. He also could "split" off smaller and smaller emissaries like the Death of Rats.
Does he even want the job? If not, a good High Aspect may be, "God help me, I'm the new Servitor of Death" or "Servitor of Death in Spite of himself"Hah! That's a neat thought, I'm not sure yet really. I probably still have a few weeks before it starts to come up in game, I'll have to see what kind of dark situation my GM throws me into and how they depict the job offering. Really the position doesn't seem all that bad to me the player but who knows. I'll just have to wait and see how it turns out.
Works for Senior Council member McCoy, works for me.
As far as the IoP, if you really want a scythe you could pull an "incredible vanishing weapon" ability into it.
One of my players has a custom IoP called a Hellfire Sword. Narrativly these swords were made by the fallen during the rebellion against The White God. It has a stunt folded into it that allows the sword to materalize in the players hand, but not "call" it to her if she's disarmed.
You could also play with the physical nature of the item. Say two small hand scythes, similar to kamas, that link together as sort of a double bladed staff if you really wanna play it up haha. If you have ever played Darksiders 2 you'll know where I'm getting this from. xD
So your character is/was a mortal who becomes the personification of Death for the Dresdenverse. Reminds me of Mort from Pratchett. Basically Death wanted a vacation so he hired Mort to be his replacement. Even if that isn't how your character became the new Death there isn't anything to say the old Death isn't still around somewhere. Which could be good for plot hooks as he mentors or makes troubles for your character.Yeah, that's near exactly along the lines of what I was thinking. Of course they aren't going to be getting super powerful from it or anything, and it's only for the one specific version of Death I figure. I'm still not 100% how my GM is going to run it but I had figured along the lines of what you said, that either the old Death is, dead, retiring, on vacation and it's my char's job now. They'll have to answer to Death's old Boss along with maybe the Old Death themselves, being mentored by them. Or if they're dead, maybe first order of business is investigating who killed them. In which case, Azrael would be a great choice for Death's Boss I think, since we've personally seen Angels in Dresden files. Though, maybe they don't go around showing themselves off to be an angel and just keep it to themselves.
So your character is/was a mortal who becomes the personification of Death for the Dresdenverse. Reminds me of Mort from Pratchett. Basically Death wanted a vacation so he hired Mort to be his replacement. Even if that isn't how your character became the new Death there isn't anything to say the old Death isn't still around somewhere. Which could be good for plot hooks as he mentors or makes troubles for your character.Actually, the story from the book would make for a great introduction to death for your character.
Actually, the story from the book would make for a great introduction to death for your character.(click to show/hide)
Oh, and the name is a variation on the German word "Mord", I think, meaning "murder". I'm not sure Pratchett intended that, but it's still a cool fact, I think.
Oh, there is also "Reaper Man" from Pratchett, where Death is sent into retirement. There are quite a few cool things there, that might give you some ideas as well.
That would still seem to allow you to pull ideas from Mort and Susan.
A grey knight exists in all kinds of literature, you just have to slap the title onto the myths, legends or literature that you're drawing from. Lancelot was a grey knight, King Arthur's strongest, most loyal and also incredibly flawed for example. I might be misunderstanding what you mean when you say grey though, elaborate please?No I believe you understood perfectly, and that's a great idea. I didn't think about just giving titles to existing lore. Your example actually fits in really well with my plan for this title's position. Arthurian legend is one of my favorites, and was the one I had in mind. I was sort of thinking of The Grey Knight being Camelot's version of their "Winter Knight". Of course they have a number of knights just hanging on every corner. There would be the knights of the round table who answer only to Arthur, and are considered the most noble of his knights. And then his Grey Knight is more of his personal enforcer, and considered the least noble, though still is forced to follow Arthur's code of valor unless specifically ordered otherwise.