Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - UmbraLux

Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 112
1621
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 23, 2011, 11:24:47 PM »
@UmbraLux: Shapeshifters are not covered because the traits that determine cost are subject to change.
Aren't they simply paying for the number of points spent on powers?  Doesn't matter if the given power changes.  (Exception being if you're paying twice for power granted consequences.)

Quote
I ignored defects because they aren't relevant to the current question of "what stats can you get for X complexity?" Discounts can be worked out later.
Hmm, I see the discounts as integral to the system.  Just as the multipliers are in the system you proposed.

Quote
Or we could ditch this whole "taking out" thing and use a static value, making the cost of summoning

static value + refresh cost + consequences

which would be even easier.
Interestingly, this is essentially what I did in the above examples.  Started everything out at 23.

Quote
PS: Zombies aren't slow.
Depends on the zombies!   I always like the Romero version - mindless, shambling, and hungry;D

1622
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 23, 2011, 09:52:40 PM »
Complexities for various summons and constructs, before counting duration, qualities, and behaviour. Complexity with my method is first, complexity with UmbraLux's is second.
It looks like you didn't discount any with defects, that correct?  Some probably should...zombies might be Slow, Follows Orders Literally and Requires Constant Drumbeat to reduce cost by 9 to 27.  Demons would have Dark Powers are Always Willing to Help...for a Price, Interprets Orders to Suit Own Agenda and possibly more (imps may be Stupid or Cruelly Mischievous while Demon Lords might be Difficult to Control). 

Regarding shapeshifters, why do you feel they're not covered?  Isn't it just a matter of paying for the powers?  Same with small creatures - that's just the Diminutive Size power.  Regarding tough creatures, I agree with devonapple - they should cost more than something less durable and less useful.

---
Here's an alternative to copying entities from the book - how would you summon or create these?
Illusory Messenger Powers:  Diminutive Size, Wings.  Stunts:  Urban Tracker.  Skills:  Survival +3, (plus others to have pyramid).  Cannot Affect the Material World (sticky) and Follows Orders Robotically (sticky).
 - Cost:  11 (23+2+1+3-18)

Clockwork Hound Powers:  Claws, Inhuman Strength.  Stunts:  Footwork.  Skills:  Fists +3, (plus others...).
Follows Orders Robotically (sticky).
 - Cost:  21 (23+3+1+3-9)

Agroklargah the Demon  Powers:  Claws, Inhuman Strength, Speed, and Toughness* (catch is +1 holy items & faith).  Stunts:  Caveat Emptor and Terrifying Demon.  Skills:  Deceit +5 (plus others...).
The Dark Powers are Always Willing to Help...for a Price (sticky), Interprets Orders to Suit a Hellish Agenda (sticky), and Hates Being Bound (not sticky - but the summoner may be in trouble if the demon gets enough fate points).
 - Cost:  15 (23+6+2+5-21)

*Didn't charge for the added consequence as you suggested.  If you do charge for it, add 2 to the cost.

1623
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 23, 2011, 08:31:52 PM »
Well, UmbraLux, I have to admit that you have a point. But I can't get behind a system where skill points are free, or one where complexity starts at 23.
Regarding skills, I agree to a point.  That's why I added the skill cap cost.  Regarding complexity / number of shifts, I don't see much difference between starting low and adding multipliers or starting high and reducing cost - either way we appear to be ending up with similar numbers of shifts for similar entities.

Quote
The system I suggest is indeed more complex, but that isn't necessarily a problem. The complexity is simply a result of taking more into account, and I for one don't mind it.
I prefer keeping things simple but, you're correct, not everyone will.

Quote
Then again, these rules are intended primarily as guidelines to help GMs ajudicate summoning. So as long as the two methods return similar results it isn't all that big a deal. So I guess I'll just make a list of summonable/constructable creatures with associated complexities (from both methods) so that we can compare.
Sounds cool.

Quote
PS: I think that qualities and defects should be worth two complexity instead of three. After all, a fate point gives two complexity.
I went with paying three shifts per aspect because that appears to be the base cost of creating a maneuver aspect via spell.  (It is for evocation at least - YS:252.  Thaumaturgy isn't as clear - it sends you on a page turning chase through simple actions to setting difficulty levels.)  Also, I don't necessarily think you should get the same amount out of the spell as you put in.  Entropy affects spells as well as thermodynamics.  :)

1624
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 23, 2011, 03:37:57 PM »
I suppose that charging a little extra for reliability isn't so terrible. Anyway, I've got two more behaviour levels to add and then I think we'll be set.
Does this still meet your initial expectations?  It seems to be getting close to the same cost (or more in your 'Battle Butler' case) as the system Fred suggested while being more complex.

Resetting a bit, how does this look:
  • + max shifts to take out entity
  • + one shift per power / stunt point
  • + shifts equal to entity's skill cap
  • + shifts for duration
  • +/- three shifts per quality or defect (one free tag)
  • +/- nine shifts per sticky quality or defect (always in effect)
Some things, such as demons, should probably automatically get a Dark Powers are Always Willing to 'Help'...for a Price or an Interprets Everything to fit it's Own Agenda sticky defect...or even both.

That keeps it simple and allows for cheap summoning - at a price.

1625
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 22, 2011, 01:47:02 AM »
Spending 23 shifts on a Construct is a different story than spending the same on a Demon or a Troll.
Yes, there are profound differences in the resulting story.  However I'm not convinced the mechanics need to differ.  Compare a Clockwork Mage to a Demon Binder as each sets about putting together or acquiring a new servant...

Our Clockwork Mage is going to spend time inscribing Symbols of Animation on the Individually Crafted Brass Gears he had special ordered.  He's going to build his Molten Brass Circle and surround it with Symbols of Unity and Coal Gathered from a Foundry.  He'll hire some thieves to steal some Wire from a Robot Factory.  Then he gathers all his ingredients in the circle and takes the time to Place Each Gear Perfectly

Meanwhile, the Demon Binder is building a Circle of Blood and gathering Candles Discarded by a Church upon which he scribes Runes of Binding and Obedience.  He'll steal a Corrupted Symbol of Life from a doctor working for the mob and research the Demon's Name.  Finally he'll place a Token of Pain in the circle as an offering and take care to Pronounce the Name Exactly.

The difference in stories is profound.  Yet mechanically, both have simply maneuvered to set up seven aspects for their given rituals.  That's where the story is!

1626
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 21, 2011, 11:55:58 PM »
Are we still talking about Constructs (Conjured or otherwise), or are we edging into Summoning? I feel like there are still a few variables which got released and I want to make sure we are on the same page.
From a system mechanics point of view, is there a difference?  Should there be a difference?

In the interests of simplicity I'd recommend keeping the same system mechanics for any entity gained via thaumaturgy - whether crafted from physical parts, created from ectoplasm, called as an ally, or summoned and bound.  The differences are profound as far as the story goes but not mechanically. 

1627
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 21, 2011, 02:44:04 AM »
Anyway, how do those complexities in my last post look? I honestly have no idea if my system works.
Overall I like it - for things with little or no initiative or intelligence.  I think I'd be willing to use both - summon an animal intelligence imp with a few shifts or a human intelligence demon with a lot more.

Quote
PS: You can't have a Good skill with 5 skill points. Summons still need to follow the skill pyramid.
Three skills, one each at Average, Fair, and Good.  Though that does require 6 points...you're correct.

1628
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 20, 2011, 11:24:15 PM »
I think that the system proposed by Hicks is too expensive because it is impossible for a creature to cost less than 23 complexity under it.
Well, if I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly, a 10 shift ritual would get you an entity with 5 skill points, a cap of +3, and 3 points of powers.  That close to correct?

If so, a decent summoner should be able to call two or three each morning.  Let's say he calls up a 'Dazzler', a 'Baffler', and a 'Screamer' imp / construct.  Each has diminutive size, wings, and a different +3 skill targeting various maneuver types.  They also have one other power or stunt and a couple lesser skills.  The summoner now has three maneuver creating bots for a fairly trivial investment.  

That's why I prefer the more expensive method.  Independent allies / minions essentially give the player that most valuable of all game statistics - extra actions.  All that said, if a summoned entity is angry or stupid enough to only act when and as the summoner directs it (using up the summoner's turn) I withdraw my objection.

1629
DFRPG / Re: Can There Be a Unified Magical Creation Theory?
« on: January 20, 2011, 12:02:22 AM »
How does that look? It's still expensive, but a bit less so.
Why do you think the system suggested by Hicks is too expensive? 

Regarding the system you propose - looks like a summoned / created being with fifteen skill points, and three points in powers or stunts would cost six shifts plus duration - that correct?  It seems too easy to me.

1630
DFRPG / Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« on: January 19, 2011, 11:40:07 PM »
Was going to edit the post but saw you'd posted.  :) 

I posted that simply to put things in perspective.  I think they are roughly equivalent.  As such, hexing guns should be rare (as it is in the books) but not impossible.  Similarly, I don't think hexing a lock is entirely out of the question...but should also be rare.

In the interests of full disclosure, I think the Glock is one of (if not the) simplest of modern pistols.  Similarly, the 5 pin tumbler lock is about the simplest lock you'd consider using on a door you actually want to lock. 

1631
DFRPG / Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« on: January 19, 2011, 11:25:01 PM »
Ok, this bothers me. At it's simplest a doorknob is a single gear with it's teeth meshed into the bolt. Modern doorknobs can be slightly more complex but not much. Depending on the gun there could be several mechanisms and a chemical reaction to boot. Here's a good comparison. With no maintenance and regular use how long before a gun fails in one way or another (jams, misfires, etc)? A week? A month? Same thing with a doorknob and it'll last years, maybe even a decade or two.
A Glock has 34 parts.  A basic pin tumbler lock has 15+ in the core alone, not including the bolt and handle assembly.  That's a fairly simple lock - I have a more complex version on the house. 

1632
DFRPG / Re: Alternate idea about hexing
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:41:10 AM »
It's also worth pointing out that Faraday cages aren't cheap.  It takes more than just a layer of tinfoil to get the dB drop needed for RF testing.  It's also not portable.  A magical equivalent might be possible, but it would be like Little Chicago...time consuming, expensive, breakable, and not at all portable.

1633
DFRPG / Re: Backstabbing/silent take down
« on: January 19, 2011, 03:36:20 AM »
It is possible, get surprise and the victim rolls at +0 to defend.  Add a couple of aspects (you should have time to set several up if you have time to set an ambush up), add weapon skill and weapon rating.  You're probably at +13 or better for combat oriented characters.  If the victim isn't conceding prior to taking all three levels of consequences, he probably has taken at least two you can tag when following up.  With the right rolls or an NPC who concedes prior to consequences, your victim is taken out in one hit.  But, if you want to be certain, set it up so two of you take one down...or set up more aspects to tag.

1634
DFRPG / Re: Duel Focus Items
« on: January 17, 2011, 10:11:36 PM »
The rules don't really say one way or the other, as far as I can find, whether you can cast a single spell with multiple focus items.
YS:250 uses "focus items" (plural) under 'How to Do it'.  That said, I don't believe bonuses of the same type stack (couldn't find the reference) so most casters are limited to two focus items for a single spell - one for power and one for control.  This is also one aspect making Sponsored magic so powerful.  A wizard could presumably stack a Hellfire focus on top of a Fire focus because they are different types.

1635
DFRPG / Re: How do i build constructs?
« on: January 17, 2011, 07:48:12 PM »
I don't mind a little handwaving, but this subject has way too many unanswered questions I'm my mind.
DFRPG, and FATE in general, utilize GM & player input a lot.  Many things are left open ended, presumably on purpose.  This encourages creativity and ensures there is no "one true way".  Personally, I like that.

Pages: 1 ... 107 108 [109] 110 111 112