Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Custom Wonders

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Lord Revan
    You missed the point. Str 2 let you lift max 50kg. Would you tell that your lazy ass str2 mage can only lift 40kg because he is skinny or lazy? Or do you take all what you paid for?
    I have no problem nerfing myself if there's a roleplaying based reason, but it's hard to imagine a reason to do what you say because of the way Attributes are built.

    a) if you want to be too skinny to lift 40kg, you buy Strength 1. Why leave being skinny to pure interpretation if you have perfectly good rules to model that?

    b) Laziness it's not about being unable to do something, it's about refusing to do it because it requires effort (Carrying a bag?, please, that's what Custos are for...) I wouldn't say 40th is his limit, but I might complain, in character, if he's forced to carry anywhere near that limit, yes.

    A better example, perhaps, would be to buy "free" Defects. It just happens that sometimes the character you want to build would require Defects for a value greater than the maximum of -7. M20 has an allowance to do this and get extra freebies, but the way we did it for Vampire and older Mage (who had no such allowances) was to allow the Defect, but you wouldn't get any more freebies for it. And, personally, I still think that's the best way and the way I would suggest the ST if I needed more Defects to represent a particular character. If you really want that Defect it shouldn't be a problem to get nothing out of it.

    The Spheres exist in-game as classifications, created by the hermetics. I know they are not used as paradigms, but there are paradigms that can use this classification. The purple paradigm also is a thing in-game, but few believe in it (mostly the ones that dropped instruments). Paradox and Quintessence are a thing in-game and, while it is not stated that it can be precisely measured (maybe the Etherites did it), it sure can be compared. Mages knows that a sleeper have X ammount of Q and werewolves have 2X.
    The Purple Pradigm isn't a thing in game. The only reason for anyone to ever mention the PP it's to explain why you can't have it. Even Mages who've dropped their Instruments don't frame their magick in an Arete/Spheres parlance. After all, mages can drop an Instrument from Arete 3 and all mystics can use magick w/o Instruments for a penalty, it would be stupid to say that all mystic mages believe in the System from the get go, and yet discourage players from ever using such terminology when describing how they make an Effect, don't you think?.

    Also note that in M20 mages never surpass their Focus, only their Instruments which it's a part of the Focus. This is intentional - there aren't rules to replace your current Paradigm (that's on your character sheet) with the Purple Paradigm. Hence, no, there's no player character mages with the PP, I would need a very explicit quote from the book saying otherwise to believe the contrary.

    Spheres exist in-game as a 4th wall break, but you still should be able to diferentiate OOC and IOC, ones are a common parlance that doesn't hold enough water to be used as Focus but it's useful to understand other mages, the other are a system to help the players to represent what mages do.

    Also, spells and rore are a thing in-game, and they happen to follow the same intention aspect of out-game rules, because they were based of real world "magick"

    ...

    Because that's how they cast spells. A Chorister that prays for his god to burn someone and after the target is burned to wind push knows he had 2 separate outcomes. While if he prays for his target to be burned and pushed (1 pray) he can count it as one outcome.

    Dude, it's quite simple, I don't know how you didn't get it with my A and B scenarios.
    Because your scenarios don't reflect reality.

    Think about it in D&D 5e terms: Normaly you can only cast one spell per round, but there are some ways to cast two spells on a round (like having a few levels of Figther to use Action Surge). If a wizard (not having read the D&D manual himself) used Action Surge to cast two fireballs on a round you have no problem believing he casted two spells on a round somehow nor you need to compartimentalize this as "one intention" or "two intentions" in order to understand what he's doing. He has a spell called Fireball, and he's casting it twice - NOBODY would ask him how many intentions he had in order to discover if this isn't a new, custom, spell that casts many fireballs instead of one - if anything, a D&D character would pay attention to the material components, the words and the movements used (and the speed of the movements) to determine if the mage used a different spell

    Now my Hermetic can make fireballs, he can cast two fireballs in different turns or in a single turn. If I chose to do so within a 3 seconds interval (but no need of perfect simultaneity, albeit it is happening in a very short amount of time) I need to cast them both as one Effect, while otherwise I could cast them as sepparate Effects, RAW. However, IOC if a D&D wizard saw these fireballs being casted with the same movements, material components, and words being uttered very fast, he would think the mage just casted two spells - two fireballs - on the time frame of a single round.

    Why mages of D&D can frame casting two fireballs on a turn as "casting two spells" but Ascencion mages *need* to frame it as "one spell"? . The only reason to frame Ascencion mage casting two fireballs in one round as "one spell" it's rules based and, as we agreed before, mages haven't read the book.

    It's never stated that in order to cast two fireballs as a single Effect I necessarily have to frame it as a "one intention" while casting them sligthly slower takes two - it is never mentioned in the rules that my intention to cast two fireballs in a short amount of time has to be realized with with one spell (on the contrary, it's explicitly stated that I can cast two effects in a turn - just not in the sense that the RAW uses when talking about Effects). For my mage these are two Spells! , he casts first spell A and then spell A again - that these are one single Effect it's a requisite of the rules because of how multiple action work in Ascencion, not a requisite of roleplaying

    Sorry, I'm not very familiar with that, but Mage spells don't work as genies wishes, you have to be quite direct in what you want. And surely "want to get rich" doesn't work this way. You'd have to be specific of how you want it, so it would be a sequence of spells.
    Surely the Syndicate thinks it's super complicated and requires a lot of people to do a lot of tasks and a lot of knowledge and Influence, but the fact of the matter it's that getting rich can be acomplished, RAW, as one Effect. See, the system doesn't always reflect the in-game world perfectly

    Where did you got that wonder cost in Q from? The wonder only cost deppending on its effects and they can hold as much as 5 times its lvl, so a lvl 5 can hold 25 Q.
    A mage can count effects, as I explained. But even if they didn't, a Prime 1 scan can detect how powerful a spell is, doesn't it? This way the mage can have a notion of how much he can put inside.
    I was looking at the Wonder creation rules of BoS - And to be frank I think those rules give your point a lot more strenght that what you've just mentioned because they at least allow to diferentiate between lvl 5 Wonders (if not with precision).

    Prime 1 scan can detect the power of a spell, but the power of a spell it's irrelevant to "how much you can put inside" because all the rules say it's that you can place 5 Effects, not how powerful these are (which it's a problem in it's own right, but a different one). Unless mages clearly count their Effects (which isn't the same as counting your spells) knowing how much power a wonder has says nothing to how many more Effects the RAW chosed to allow for OOC balance reasons.

    Also, the mage surely knows that a godlike wonder as this (lvl 5) can hold more than 1 power!!! So,it makes no sense for lvl 5 wonders hold just as much as lvl 1 wonders as we see in books.
    Nonsense. A Wonder with 5 level 1 Effects it's most likely less godlike than one with 1 lvl 5 Effect (and yet they're of roughly similar "power" from the pov of Prime 1 alone). Level 5 Effects are godlike enough to deserve the Quintessence employed to imbue it in my humble opinion. If that rule allowing more Effects for the same price had never existed nobody would complain, and you wouldn't have existential problems about the canon Wonders.

    In truth, a better, more balanced, system would have in count both the number and the potency of effects to determine the price. What IS nonsense it's a Wonder with 5 lvl 5 Effects costing roughly the same as one with 5 lvl 1, or one with one lvl 5. I'm pretty sure that if you had rules representing all these options with different, balanced, costs you would see no problem in epic Wonders having just one or two Effects (after all, D&D items won't always have more "effects" the more potent they are - sometimes they just have more potent effects).
    Last edited by Aleph; 05-30-2019, 01:18 PM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Clarification: the Strength issue is about making a character who can carry somewhere between two door ratings: 40kg is more than what Strength 1 allows, but less than what Strength 2 allows. If, for some reason, you wanted to make a character who could carry more than what one dot allows but less than what two dots allow, the rules don't have the resolution to describe that. So the question is whether you'd take two dots and play the character as only able to lift 40kg (which is more than what one dot allows) or if you'd adjust your concept to let him carry the full 50kg that two dots permit so that you get the full benefit of those two dots. Lord Revan is convinced that you'd do the latter.

      “skinny, but not so skinny as to call for only one dot of Strength”.
      Last edited by Dataweaver; 05-30-2019, 01:36 PM.


      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Dataweaver View Post
        “skinny, but not so skinny as to call for only one dot of Strength”.
        If God opens the sky and tells me "you need to interpret a character that can reliably lift between 30 and 39 kg, but not an ounce more", I WOULD make one character with Str 2 and then say I can't reliably lift more (if only because making a house rule for what God asks sounds more bother than interpreting it) - I just don't get why this would ever be a thing.

        Honestly, between the Str levels and the fuziness of their limits when you apply Feats, I can't see a player that would seriously find this problem in play. “skinny, but not so skinny as to call for only one dot of Strength" it's not a character to roleplay, it's number crunching to see if the system breaks.

        Make a character that has this exact problem for purely roleplaying reasons and I would both answer yes AND believe that this question it's a real question and not just rethoric to make a point. I think I made abundantly clear my position on the REAL issue when I stated that I would totally build a lvl 5 Wonder with less that 5 effects
        Last edited by Aleph; 05-30-2019, 02:11 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          It probably wouldn't be. I brought it up initially to point out the principle, that the roleplay-first mindset doesn't automatically try to maximize every benefit that his point purchases grant him.

          Bringing it back to the subject at hand, it's a direct analogy to taking only one Effect in a Wonder when the pricing structure lets you take five for the same cost. In both cases, the concept-first mindset doesn't have a problem with taking less than what the rules offer, if that's what the concept calls for. By contrast, the rules-first mindset has difficulty accepting that there's ever a valid reason to do it.

          The difference in the two cases is that in the Strength case, it's hard to come up with a concept that calls for an intermediate Strength; with the Wonder case, it's quite easy to do so.
          Last edited by Dataweaver; 05-30-2019, 02:13 PM.


          Comment


          • #50
            Yeah, that. I'm sorry if I'm a bit salty about that example.

            It doesn't sound like a question that makes sense to ask after so many people already told you, and abundantly, that "the roleplay-first mindset doesn't automatically try to maximize every benefit that his point purchases grant him". I can't but ask "why is Revan so insistent with this after the question was clearly answered"?. It rustless my jimmies

            Comment


            • #51
              Firsthand experience from two decades when I personally had the rules-first mentality myself: it's a blindspot. When you're used to thinking in terms of rules first and concept second, it's very common to be unable to wrap your head around the notion that there's any other way to do it. Even when people tell you otherwise, your instinctive reaction is to dismiss their claims out of hand, or to think that they're being stupid.

              And the reason why I said that this issue needs to be addressed first is that Lord Revan is protecting a version of the same mindset onto the mages themselves: just like he can't see why a player wouldn't take advantage of every optimization available, he also can't see why a mage wouldn't do likewise.
              Last edited by Dataweaver; 05-30-2019, 02:38 PM.


              Comment


              • #52
                Ok.

                Then the answer is yes, I would tell the group that my character ain't having the full benefits of Str 2 if it was important to get to that level of detail for some reason, and make a note.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                  The Purple Pradigm isn't a thing in game. The only reason for anyone to ever mention the PP it's to explain why you can't have it. Even Mages who've dropped their Instruments don't frame their magick in an Arete/Spheres parlance. After all, mages can drop an Instrument from Arete 3 and all mystics can use magick w/o Instruments for a penalty, it would be stupid to say that all mystic mages believe in the System from the get go, and yet discourage players from ever using such terminology when describing how they make an Effect, don't you think?.

                  Also note that in M20 mages never surpass their Focus, only their Instruments which it's a part of the Focus. This is intentional - there aren't rules to replace your current Paradigm (that's on your character sheet) with the Purple Paradigm. Hence, no, there's no player character mages with the PP, I would need a very explicit quote from the book saying otherwise to believe the contrary.
                  Just a little observations here. The Purle Paradigm is a thing in-game. I mean, it is in-game the reason why magick works (enlightened Will). You are right about the rest. And this doens't make a difference in our discussion, though.

                  Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                  Because your scenarios don't reflect reality.

                  Think about it in D&D 5e terms: Normaly you can only cast one spell per round, but there are some ways to cast two spells on a round (like having a few levels of Figther to use Action Surge). If a wizard (not having read the D&D manual himself) used Action Surge to cast two fireballs on a round you have no problem believing he casted two spells on a round somehow nor you need to compartimentalize this as "one intention" or "two intentions" in order to understand what he's doing. He has a spell called Fireball, and he's casting it twice - NOBODY would ask him how many intentions he had in order to discover if this isn't a new, custom, spell that casts many fireballs instead of one - if anything, a D&D character would pay attention to the material components, the words and the movements used (and the speed of the movements) to determine if the mage used a different spell

                  Now my Hermetic can make fireballs, he can cast two fireballs in different turns or in a single turn. If I chose to do so within a 3 seconds interval (but no need of perfect simultaneity, albeit it is happening in a very short amount of time) I need to cast them both as one Effect, while otherwise I could cast them as sepparate Effects, RAW. However, IOC if a D&D wizard saw these fireballs being casted with the same movements, material components, and words being uttered very fast, he would think the mage just casted two spells - two fireballs - on the time frame of a single round.

                  Why mages of D&D can frame casting two fireballs on a turn as "casting two spells" but Ascencion mages *need* to frame it as "one spell"? . The only reason to frame Ascencion mage casting two fireballs in one round as "one spell" it's rules based and, as we agreed before, mages haven't read the book.

                  It's never stated that in order to cast two fireballs as a single Effect I necessarily have to frame it as a "one intention" while casting them sligthly slower takes two - it is never mentioned in the rules that my intention to cast two fireballs in a short amount of time has to be realized with with one spell (on the contrary, it's explicitly stated that I can cast two effects in a turn - just not in the sense that the RAW uses when talking about Effects). For my mage these are two Spells! , he casts first spell A and then spell A again - that these are one single Effect it's a requisite of the rules because of how multiple action work in Ascencion, not a requisite of roleplaying
                  Sorry, I stopped at D&D 3.5 (the best version IMHO, but I didn't get to know much about the others XD).
                  Let me simplify even more. Forget about turns. Forget about casting time and 3 seconds. Forget how many fireballs are comming out of his hand.
                  You example mage that casted two fireballs: How many times did he had to use his instruments?

                  If you answers "1", then it is one spell, rote, effect, whatever. If you answers "2", then it is two whatevers being casted. The mage won't count how many balls are exploding or how many time it took. In fact the mage could make an effect à la "Magic Missile" and one simple spell casting 5 (or evendozens) of little missiles.

                  Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                  Nonsense. A Wonder with 5 level 1 Effects it's most likely less godlike than one with 1 lvl 5 Effect (and yet they're of roughly similar "power" from the pov of Prime 1 alone). Level 5 Effects are godlike enough to deserve the Quintessence employed to imbue it in my humble opinion. If that rule allowing more Effects for the same price had never existed nobody would complain, and you wouldn't have existential problems about the canon Wonders.
                  I don't think they would be counted similarly with Prime 1. A lvl 5 effects is waaay more powerfull than 5 lvl 1. This certainly would be felt by the mage.

                  And you missed my point. The wonder creator knows that more potent wonders can hold more spells. If he is creating a very potent one, it certainly can hold more than that single spell, even that he doesn't know how many it can hold (which I believe he should know). So, still there is no explanation for lvl 5 wonders with just one spell in-game.

                  Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                  In truth, a better, more balanced, system would have in count both the number and the potency of effects to determine the price. What IS nonsense it's a Wonder with 5 lvl 5 Effects costing roughly the same as one with 5 lvl 1, or one with one lvl 5. I'm pretty sure that if you had rules representing all these options with different, balanced, costs you would see no problem in epic Wonders having just one or two Effects (after all, D&D items won't always have more "effects" the more potent they are - sometimes they just have more potent effects).
                  Totally agree.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Lord Revan View Post
                    Just a little observations here. The Purle Paradigm is a thing in-game. I mean, it is in-game the reason why magick works (enlightened Will). You are right about the rest. And this doens't make a difference in our discussion, though.
                    The term "Purple Paradigm" was invented by the comunity to call out when your Paradigm it's efectively The Rules with a thin varnish. It was called like that because the Mage Core cover it's purple. It's a terminology that was invented to tell you "no, you can't have that Paradigm"

                    I would need an explicit quote (either IOC or stating that mages know this IOC) to accept it exists in-game now. I made a search on M20 books and found no mention of "purple paradigm". To say something that's not even mentioned in the books it's "the true reality" sounds a bit cheap to me.

                    You would have to elaborate this point. Perhaps you mean that part of what we call the PP it's the true reality. That could be more debatable depending on what is that part you want to defend.

                    You example mage that casted two fireballs: How many times did he had to use his instruments?

                    If you answers "1", then it is one spell, rote, effect, whatever. If you answers "2", then it is two whatevers being casted. The mage won't count how many balls are exploding or how many time it took. In fact the mage could make an effect à la "Magic Missile" and one simple spell casting 5 (or evendozens) of little missiles.
                    I used my Instrument TWO (2) times in a single turn to cast ONE single Effect.

                    Or I'm supposed to believe MtA Mages can't hurl two material components in a 3 seconds lapse?. There's nothing in the rules saying I can't use my Instrument twice in a turn, because Instrument usage it's pure interpretation.

                    Let me give you a clear example: My Etherite has two ray-guns invented as Instruments to cast two different effects (a freezing ray and a heat ray) - this is 100% canon, you may not like it but ray-guns can used as "Device/Machine" instruments.

                    Now, he's in a figth with two oponents

                    OOC: I want to hit both in a turn because I want to end this quick and I have enough Arete to kill two people in a row. But I decided my rayguns can't shoot more than one ray each (that's the way I've been using them from the first time). Hence I ask the ST to cast an improvised Conjunctional Effect: A ray of heat and a ray of ice are going to hit my enemies this turn, and to cast them I declare both weapons as my Instrument (thematically appropriate, and allowed by the rules. You can cast one Effect with multiple Instruments, remember?, and some Instruments are composed by more than one discrete object).

                    IOC He lifts his heat gun and blast opponent A with a heat ray. Not wanting to give his other opponent the chance of retaliate, in a split of a second he lifts the freezing gun and freezes the bastard.

                    OOC it's one Effect using Violence as a Focus, but I need to divide my dicepool between two attacks (I AM shooting two guns)

                    IOC it's two energy blasters firing two energy blasts.

                    If I had done that in two turns instead of one it would be two Effects OOC, and still two energy blasters firing two energy blasts IOC.

                    It's ludicrous to say that shooting two guns in 3 seconds it's clearly one Instrument IOC, but doing exactly the same thing sligthly slower it's clearly two Instruments (or "two uses" vs "one use"). Even if the rules are clear about that

                    I don't think they would be counted similarly with Prime 1. A lvl 5 effects is waaay more powerfull than 5 lvl 1. This certainly would be felt by the mage.
                    That's very relative, a one success lvl 5 Effect may be weaker in many senses than a lvl 1 Effect with 100 successes behind (it surely would be easier to dispell, for instance). A Level 5 Wonder requires roughly the same successes for 5 level 1 effects than it would for

                    Also the Quintessence involved it's the same, and that's what Prime 1 detects first and foremost. I bet it can also detect the amount of successes because Prime it's important to Countermagick and Unweaving...but Sphere level, nope, Prime 1 doesn't detect that, not even roughly

                    And you missed my point. The wonder creator knows that more potent wonders can hold more spells. If he is creating a very potent one, it certainly can hold more than that single spell, even that he doesn't know how many it can hold (which I believe he should know). So, still there is no explanation for lvl 5 wonders with just one spell in-game.
                    A Wonder with one lvl 5 Effect can, potentially, cost the same amount of Quintessence, and successes (IOC: "Magical Power") than one with other 4 Effects - additional features like Merits muddle the waters even more becuase they cost Quint and Successes. My argument didn't miss yours because you would need to be able to determine not how powerful it's a wonder, but how powerful it's a wonder with one effect vs one with five...and that's not really detectable trough Prime 1.

                    Or rather not with presicion. If you were to experiment a long time, and the Rules mirrored the world perfectly, you would eventually notice a trend on Quintessence expenditure and "effort". Statician mages would be able to pinpoint these with accuracy. But you're bound to discover the Spheres and Arete a loot sooner than that if you can do this

                    ...

                    I think we've debated this long enough to admit, at least, a plausible deniability on mages knowing that they're wasting power when they don't make a Wonder with as much effects as the Rules allow as long as the Rules aren't a 1:1 reflection of the world but rather an imprecise generalization. Don't you think?
                    Last edited by Aleph; 06-07-2019, 12:11 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Aleph View Post

                      The term "Purple Paradigm" was invented by the comunity to call out when your Paradigm it's efectively The Rules with a thin varnish. It was called like that because the Mage Core cover it's purple. It's a terminology that was invented to tell you "no, you can't have that Paradigm"

                      I would need an explicit quote (either IOC or stating that mages know this IOC) to accept it exists in-game now. I made a search on M20 books and found no mention of "purple paradigm". To say something that's not even mentioned in the books it's "the true reality" sounds a bit cheap to me.

                      You would have to elaborate this point. Perhaps you mean that part of what we call the PP it's the true reality. That could be more debatable depending on what is that part you want to defend.
                      I will elaborate, since you didn't get what I was saying. My point is that in-game, magick works because mages Will it so. That's it. And that is the purple paradigm. I never said that it is a paradigm that can be taken by a mage (altough if the ST allows I don't see why not) nor that we have examples of it. I'd say that a master that already dropped all his instruments might, I said might, understand that this is the true reality (in-game) and start to change his paradigm to it. We both know that dropping instruments doesn't mean dropping focus, so this is entirelly up to ST.

                      But it is just that. I just said that in-game magick works because of Awakened Will. And that is a fact. Pointed over and over in the books. I don't even remember why we brought this into the discussion, so we might as well stop right here.

                      Having said that, I find intersting that there are some paradigms very similar to the "Purple paradigm", like "Everything is an Illusion" or "Everything is Chaos", where the mage believe that reality is in fact what our mind believe it is. This is very close to magick being a result of Will, so I don't see much problem if a ST allow someone to take the Purple Paradigm.


                      Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                      I used my Instrument TWO (2) times in a single turn to cast ONE single Effect.

                      Or I'm supposed to believe MtA Mages can't hurl two material components in a 3 seconds lapse?. There's nothing in the rules saying I can't use my Instrument twice in a turn, because Instrument usage it's pure interpretation.

                      Let me give you a clear example: My Etherite has two ray-guns invented as Instruments to cast two different effects (a freezing ray and a heat ray) - this is 100% canon, you may not like it but ray-guns can used as "Device/Machine" instruments.

                      Now, he's in a figth with two oponents

                      OOC: I want to hit both in a turn because I want to end this quick and I have enough Arete to kill two people in a row. But I decided my rayguns can't shoot more than one ray each (that's the way I've been using them from the first time). Hence I ask the ST to cast an improvised Conjunctional Effect: A ray of heat and a ray of ice are going to hit my enemies this turn, and to cast them I declare both weapons as my Instrument (thematically appropriate, and allowed by the rules. You can cast one Effect with multiple Instruments, remember?, and some Instruments are composed by more than one discrete object).

                      IOC He lifts his heat gun and blast opponent A with a heat ray. Not wanting to give his other opponent the chance of retaliate, in a split of a second he lifts the freezing gun and freezes the bastard.

                      OOC it's one Effect using Violence as a Focus, but I need to divide my dicepool between two attacks (I AM shooting two guns)

                      IOC it's two energy blasters firing two energy blasts.

                      If I had done that in two turns instead of one it would be two Effects OOC, and still two energy blasters firing two energy blasts IOC.

                      It's ludicrous to say that shooting two guns in 3 seconds it's clearly one Instrument IOC, but doing exactly the same thing sligthly slower it's clearly two Instruments (or "two uses" vs "one use"). Even if the rules are clear about that
                      You are going too far to make you argument right. It's a simple fact that when creating a wonder, the mage will cast a single spell to do a single effect and if he wants more effects, he would just cast more.
                      But it's ok, I'll play along.

                      You use your instrument to cast an effect. We have three possible effects: shooting a heat ray, shooting a freezing ray and shooting a combined heat/freezing ray. If you say that to shoot a freezing/heat ray you somehow combine both guns into one big gun à La Power Rangers and shoot one ray, that's ok. If you want just to shoot heat or freezing ray with your heat/freeze gun respectively, that's ok.
                      Now, I wouldn't allow using two guns that does two different effect in one round. In your case you are trying to mix them into a single effect, and like I said unless you somehow activate them at the same time, I'd say you can't do that.
                      But, as you tried to mix them into one single effect, I see no reason to house rule and allow such thing, since it is not something that is going to ruin the fun of the game.

                      As default, each gun cast one effect, and only one effect can be cast in a turn no matter what, so I'd say your example is at least very, very strange and I never seen such thing anywhere as using two rolls to hit in a single effect. What if the first one hits and the second doesn't? You get half the damage? There are no rules for this, so it's a house-rule.

                      Also, your example is an exception. All the examples we see in the books are straightforward and simple as "mage wants to cast a spell, uses his instruments, spell is cast". Doing just that, you indeed can count how many spells you are casting on a wonder.


                      Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                      That's very relative, a one success lvl 5 Effect may be weaker in many senses than a lvl 1 Effect with 100 successes behind (it surely would be easier to dispell, for instance). A Level 5 Wonder requires roughly the same successes for 5 level 1 effects than it would for

                      Also the Quintessence involved it's the same, and that's what Prime 1 detects first and foremost. I bet it can also detect the amount of successes because Prime it's important to Countermagick and Unweaving...but Sphere level, nope, Prime 1 doesn't detect that, not even roughly



                      A Wonder with one lvl 5 Effect can, potentially, cost the same amount of Quintessence, and successes (IOC: "Magical Power") than one with other 4 Effects - additional features like Merits muddle the waters even more becuase they cost Quint and Successes. My argument didn't miss yours because you would need to be able to determine not how powerful it's a wonder, but how powerful it's a wonder with one effect vs one with five...and that's not really detectable trough Prime 1.

                      Or rather not with presicion. If you were to experiment a long time, and the Rules mirrored the world perfectly, you would eventually notice a trend on Quintessence expenditure and "effort". Statician mages would be able to pinpoint these with accuracy. But you're bound to discover the Spheres and Arete a loot sooner than that if you can do this
                      Successe has nothing to do with the power behind an effect. It just means how well done it is made. Otherwise you wouldn't require Forces 5 to cast a blizzard, only Forces 1 and 100 successes. Your logic is flawed. If the wonder is capable of casting a tornado, the mage knows that it is made with a high powered spell. If the wonder hasa simple, but well made effect, it means that it's a low level power with a lot of successes. Also, there is a number of successes that begins to not make any difference. If to create a sunglass that allows you to see other color spectrum it doens't matter if you got 5 or 100 successes, the result is the same.

                      So, with Prime 1 the mage indeed is able to feel the powerlevel of an effect or a wonder's effect. He might not be able to differentiate with precision, but he certainly can feel the difference between a lvl 1 and a lvl 5 power.

                      Hell, even if you doesn't have Prime or isn't a mage at all!! Using logic you can see the power level of a wonder. A wonder that steps you out of time is certainly waaay more powerfull than a wonder that creates a little light. Anyone is capable to use logic and know at least how to differentiate a lame ass lvl 1 wonder from an all-powerfull master wonder. And if the mage is creating a all-powerfull master wonder, he knows that he can make it able to do more than one thing (not even considering effects, anymore, but output of the wonder).

                      Let me give you this example: A wonder costs 5 Quintessence per dot. So, a 5 dot wonder costs 25 Q. So, a Master crafts two 5 dot wonders. The first uses 25 Q (let's say a whole werewolf body blood) and has one power like stepping out of time. The second, also costs 25Q (also a werewolf full body blood) and steps you out of time, freezes time and spees you up (giving extra actions).

                      In this case, anyone, I mean anyone: even a sleeper friend of the mage with no knowledge of Arete, spheres, effect, spells, anything, could just ask the creator: "Dude, with the same ammount of material you created the second wonder waaay more powerfull than the first one.Why is that?". And then the mage will think, that all he had to do was put two more spells inside the first wonder during creation, just like he did in the second one. Doesn't matter how his focus works, if he can count spells or intentions. All that matters is that he knows that he can choose the output of the wonder powers.

                      Of course, if the mage is inexperient, or if it's the first wonder that he's creating, you could argue that he didn't know that a wonder would support more than 1 power output. But we are talking about Masters here, that created dozens of wonders, some with more than 1 power, others with just 1. If you already created mid level wonders with more than one power, what would make you believe that you cannot create a master piece wonder with more than 1??

                      Again, forget the counting effects or intents thing. Just counting the output powers is enough.

                      Originally posted by Aleph View Post
                      I think we've debated this long enough to admit, at least, a plausible deniability on mages knowing that they're wasting power when they don't make a Wonder with as much effects as the Rules allow as long as the Rules aren't a 1:1 reflection of the world but rather an imprecise generalization. Don't you think?
                      As just said above, even that there is no 1:1 reflection, any mage that is just a little experienced in creating wonders, as a Master of Prime probably is, should be able to know that he indeed can put more than 1 power in a wonder. He might not know that he can put 5 effects in a lvl 5 and 3 in a lvl 3, but at least more than 1 in a lvl 5 wonder..

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X