From white-wolf at stormmage.com Wed Apr 2 11:33:58 2008 From: white-wolf at stormmage.com (Troy Lees) Date: Wed Apr 2 11:35:45 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules Message-ID: The US is now playtesting new imbue item rules. I'm not familiar enough with the system to give a good judgement on how good these new rules are, but I'd like to hear other people's opinions. Discuss. US Addendum Rule: Imbue Item. These rules are active, but because of the sweeping nature of the change, should be considered under United States playtest. Announcements and future Addenda will tweak these rules as weaknesses become apparent- Procedure to use this spell: 1) Cast Imbue Item on an object. This creates a 'proto-item'. Record this Potency as the Suppression Resistance Potency of the final item. Note that the Suppression Resistance Potency of the item is three (3) lower if the creator chooses for the item to have a mana pool. Record this duration as the lifespan of the item. Record the Gnosis of the creator for the purposes of Paradox generation. Record the Prime of the creator as the Factor Maximum of the item. (See step 3 for use of Factor Maximum, the Factor Maximum is the maximum number of steps on any Spell Factor a spell placed into an Imbued Item may have from any source.) 1a) Items in this 'proto-item' state are not usable and must be completed before they may be used (see step 4). 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all spells cast into the item no matter who casts them. 2) Cast into the proto-item as many spells as you wish, resolve Paradox for these spells as normal at this time. Record the Arcana level they are cast at, their base aspect, and if they are known by the caster as Rotes or not. 3) Any spell that can be Indefinite given the Arcana Knowledge of the creator, Aspect of the spell, and Factor Maximum of the item may be Persistent or Triggered at the choice of the caster. Persistent effects have their primary factor equal to the Factor Maximum of the item, Duration of Indefinite, and all other factors are base for the spell. 3a) Any spell that cannot be Indefinite given the Arcana Knowledge of the creator, Aspect of the spell, and Factor maximum of the item is considered triggered. Triggered powers use the Arcana level the spell was cast at and the Gnosis of the user of the item (not the creator) to generate successes. Those successes are allocated to the primary factor of the spell only and no more successes may be allocated than the Factor Maximum of the item. 4) Imbue Item must be released through either normal spell release methods (willpower point or willpower dot) or through a sanctioned finishing spell from Tome of Mysteries. All sanctioned finishing spells from Tome of Mysteries are considered the same as spending a willpower point in terms of mechanics for how to treat the spell. 5) The Merit Dot value of the item is as per the MET: Awakening book. 6) When activating triggered effects or putting on an item with a persistent effect the item may generate paradox (as per normal paradox generation rules for Vulgar or Improbable -- Troy Lees - US2007059970 Changeling VST www.soulswithoutnames.com - FL-037-D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/544cc774/attachment.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Wed Apr 2 11:45:49 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Wed Apr 2 11:47:34 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Troy Lees wrote: > with the system to give a good judgement on how good these new rules are, > but I'd like to hear other people's opinions. Sure! Always willing to be opinionated! > US Addendum Rule: Imbue Item. These rules are active, but because of the > sweeping nature of the change, should be considered under United States playtest. I'm not real sure what this means...should we be approving items under these rules? Are older items grandfathered? > 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all > spells cast into the item no matter who casts them. > 2) Cast into the proto-item as many spells as you wish, resolve Paradox for > these spells as normal at this time. The implication here is that mages other than the caster are able to cast spells into the Imbue item. This is a dramatic change. (One I suspect is good, but it's hard to predict) Because this changes the "successes needed for the Imbue spell" limitation, items containing more spells become much more viable. High Gnosis characters combining multiple spells will become highly desired. > 4) Imbue Item must be released through either normal spell release methods > (willpower point > or willpower dot) or through a sanctioned finishing spell from Tome of > Mysteries. All > sanctioned finishing spells from Tome of Mysteries are considered the same > as spending a > willpower point in terms of mechanics for how to treat the spell. Willpower point = item can be dispelled. The Tome of Mysteries finishing spells just became worthless. (They used to be the same as spending a willpower dot). On the whole these rules work just fine, but I strongly disagree with the decision to nerf the ToM finishing spells. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From delwin at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 12:03:33 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Wed Apr 2 12:05:18 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> *whistles innocently* > > > The implication here is that mages other than the caster are able to > cast spells into the Imbue item. This is a dramatic change. (One I > suspect is good, but it's hard to predict) > Huh, sure looks like it. I honestly didn't expect this route but it appears that we get group items from ToM. > Because this changes the "successes needed for the Imbue spell" > limitation, items containing more spells become much more viable. > High Gnosis characters combining multiple spells will become highly > desired. > > Not necessarily - High Gnosis = High Paradox pull for Imbued Items. So really you want High Gnosis (all covert and pray to god you don't go Improbable) or Low Gnosis (Vulgar). Both now have their place. > On the whole these rules work just fine, but I strongly disagree with > the decision to nerf the ToM finishing spells. No XP = can be dispelled. XP = cannot be dispelled. That's a simple enough line in the sand. Also remember that you only regenerate willpower so fast so if you want to start mass producing items you're going to need those finishing spells. -- ------ David Sauter US2002021140 From thebuser at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 13:37:41 2008 From: thebuser at gmail.com (christopher buser) Date: Wed Apr 2 13:39:26 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/2/08, Troy Lees wrote: > > The US is now playtesting new imbue item rules. I'm not familiar enough > with the system to give a good judgement on how good these new rules are, > but I'd like to hear other people's opinions. Can we get it boiled down to "Imbuement for Dummies", or is this as simple as it gets? -- Chris Buser US2002021013 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/7597ed1a/attachment.html From white-wolf at stormmage.com Wed Apr 2 13:41:39 2008 From: white-wolf at stormmage.com (Troy Lees) Date: Wed Apr 2 13:43:24 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Imbuing for dummies version: 1. Cast Imbue 2. Everyone casts desired effect spells on it 3. Finalize it by spending willpower / ToM spells 4. Cost is same as MET. On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:37 PM, christopher buser wrote: > Can we get it boiled down to "Imbuement for Dummies", or is this as simple > as it gets? > -- Troy Lees - US2007059970 Changeling VST www.soulswithoutnames.com - FL-037-D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/c1aa26db/attachment.html From ghostofthewired at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 13:47:56 2008 From: ghostofthewired at gmail.com (Spencer McAtee) Date: Wed Apr 2 13:49:47 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: woots the way i always wanted imbue to work! *does happy dance* Spencer McAtee US2006129186 515 Night Life -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/2585b32f/attachment.html From thebuser at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 13:52:23 2008 From: thebuser at gmail.com (christopher buser) Date: Wed Apr 2 13:54:07 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 4/2/08, Troy Lees wrote: > > Imbuing for dummies version: That's fair. I'm not against the playtest rules, more curious as to how to explain it to others. -- Chris Buser US2002021013 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/5853bfd1/attachment.html From daniel.mald at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 14:04:53 2008 From: daniel.mald at gmail.com (Daniel) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:06:39 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> Unless another rule about inbue items changes, this isn't exactly true. All people possessing an enchanted or imbued item have to spend 2xp per dot of the item. So it boils down to this: can be dispelled = 2xp per merit dot paid by the user of the item cannot be dispelled = 2xp per merit dot paid by the user AND 8 xp paid by the caster of the "imbue item" spell. Daniel Maldonado US2004071628 > No XP = can be dispelled. XP = cannot be dispelled. That's a simple > enough line in the sand. Also remember that you only regenerate > willpower so fast so if you want to start mass producing items you're > going to need those finishing spells. > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/09875048/attachment.html From dspawlowski at mac.com Wed Apr 2 14:03:56 2008 From: dspawlowski at mac.com (Daniel Pawlowski) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:07:06 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> For the love of balance, I hope that only the Imbuer can cast spells into the proto-Item. Other wise things get really messy, really quick. Not that I wouldn't mind a ring that gave me all 9 mage sights. I like everything with the new rules/steps save that implication that anyone can cast a spell to be held by the Imbue Item matrix. Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: >> 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects >> all >> spells cast into the item no matter who casts them. >> 2) Cast into the proto-item as many spells as you wish, resolve >> Paradox for >> these spells as normal at this time. > > The implication here is that mages other than the caster are able to > cast spells into the Imbue item. This is a dramatic change. (One I > suspect is good, but it's hard to predict) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/bb70982d/attachment.html From white-wolf at stormmage.com Wed Apr 2 14:09:04 2008 From: white-wolf at stormmage.com (Troy Lees) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:10:48 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, christopher buser wrote: > > That's fair. I'm not against the playtest rules, more curious as to how > to explain it to others. > Basically what I wrote is how the new imbue rules work. The other stuff is just details on what limits there are (including maximum number of successes), what to do if someone tries to dispel it, how bad the paradox is if you're using your wand of fireballs, and what to do if you can't cast a spell at indefinite duration. The biggest question I have is what the intent was for the sentence on the number of successes was. As is, I can interpret it as "maximum number of successes allocated -per spell- is equal to the max factor" or "maximum number of successes allocated -total- is equal to the max factor" If you want a more detailed dummies version: 1. Cast imbue. 2. Everyone casts spells. 3. Finalize using willpower 4. Cost is same as MET Potency of the imbue is how difficult it is to dispel Max number of successes is Prime of the creator All spells are permanent by default If you can't cast it as permanent, its a triggered effect Original casting paradox is based on the caster's Gnosis Triggered spells are cast at Arcana it was originally cast at and Gnosis of the person using it Spend a willpower dot, it can't be dispelled. Spend a willpower point, it can. ToM spells are the same as using a willpower point Another point of note is that a sleepwalker can use a wand of fireballs with impunity because they have a Gnosis of 0 and paradox is generated off the users's Gnosis. -- Troy Lees - US2007059970 Changeling VST www.soulswithoutnames.com - FL-037-D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/944cd2b1/attachment-0001.html From dspawlowski at mac.com Wed Apr 2 14:10:30 2008 From: dspawlowski at mac.com (Daniel Pawlowski) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:13:36 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <3894A096-BF8D-4AA7-B74B-5C5C63CF76C4@mac.com> Gah! I went back and re-read about releasing Imbue and I have to disagree with making the TotM Alternate Release spell count as a point of WP. Those were made with rather harsh costs for most, much more harsh than a point of WP. A Imbued Item that destroys itself ends up kill XP anyway. Having 20 Mana with how Hallows work now costs the XP for a Hallow so the spell doesn't kill you. Making an item that will never work for you after a certain period of time? That makes it lost XP too. Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) On Apr 2, 2008, at 2:04 PM, Daniel wrote: > Unless another rule about inbue items changes, this isn't exactly > true. > > All people possessing an enchanted or imbued item have to spend 2xp > per dot of the item. > > So it boils down to this: > can be dispelled = 2xp per merit dot paid by the user of the item > cannot be dispelled = 2xp per merit dot paid by the user AND 8 xp > paid by the caster of the "imbue item" spell. > > Daniel Maldonado > US2004071628 > No XP = can be dispelled. XP = cannot be dispelled. That's a simple > enough line in the sand. Also remember that you only regenerate > willpower so fast so if you want to start mass producing items you're > going to need those finishing spells. > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/6a1e32f5/attachment.html From amst.awakening at googlemail.com Wed Apr 2 14:38:23 2008 From: amst.awakening at googlemail.com (Kevin Drugan - AMST Awakening) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:40:10 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <16e8d0ab0804021138j62c96ad7u24e279fffe62980a@mail.gmail.com> Troy, I'm not sure where in the new rules here you get the impression that multiple casters can cast into the item? On 02/04/2008, Troy Lees wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 1:52 PM, christopher buser > wrote: > > > > > > > > That's fair. I'm not against the playtest rules, more curious as to how to > explain it to others. > > Basically what I wrote is how the new imbue rules work. The other stuff is > just details on what limits there are (including maximum number of > successes), what to do if someone tries to dispel it, how bad the paradox is > if you're using your wand of fireballs, and what to do if you can't cast a > spell at indefinite duration. > > The biggest question I have is what the intent was for the sentence on the > number of successes was. As is, I can interpret it as "maximum number of > successes allocated -per spell- is equal to the max factor" or "maximum > number of successes allocated -total- is equal to the max factor" > > If you want a more detailed dummies version: > > 1. Cast imbue. > 2. Everyone casts spells. > 3. Finalize using willpower > 4. Cost is same as MET > > Potency of the imbue is how difficult it is to dispel > Max number of successes is Prime of the creator > All spells are permanent by default > If you can't cast it as permanent, its a triggered effect > Original casting paradox is based on the caster's Gnosis > Triggered spells are cast at Arcana it was originally cast at and Gnosis of > the person using it > Spend a willpower dot, it can't be dispelled. Spend a willpower point, it > can. > ToM spells are the same as using a willpower point > > Another point of note is that a sleepwalker can use a wand of fireballs with > impunity because they have a Gnosis of 0 and paradox is generated off the > users's Gnosis. > > -- > Troy Lees - US2007059970 > Changeling VST > www.soulswithoutnames.com - FL-037-D > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > -- Kevin Drugan UK98040591 AMST Awakening (outgoing) From swiftone at swiftone.org Wed Apr 2 14:42:07 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:43:51 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <16e8d0ab0804021138j62c96ad7u24e279fffe62980a@mail.gmail.com> References: <16e8d0ab0804021138j62c96ad7u24e279fffe62980a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804021142m72926940m1b1ea33ac6b38ff2@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kevin Drugan - AMST Awakening wrote: > I'm not sure where in the new rules here you get the impression that > multiple casters can cast into the item? That'd be: 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all spells cast into the item no matter who casts them. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From delwin at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 14:42:20 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:44:15 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> If you _really_ want to pay 30ish XP and have your tolerance eaten by just Sights be my guest... David Sauter US2002021140 On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Daniel Pawlowski wrote: > For the love of balance, I hope that only the Imbuer can cast spells into > the proto-Item. Other wise things get really messy, really quick. Not that > I wouldn't mind a ring that gave me all 9 mage sights. > > I like everything with the new rules/steps save that implication that anyone > can cast a spell to be held by the Imbue Item matrix. > > > > > Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) > VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) > > On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > > > > 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all > > spells cast into the item no matter who casts them. > > 2) Cast into the proto-item as many spells as you wish, resolve Paradox for > > these spells as normal at this time. > > > > > The implication here is that mages other than the caster are able to > > cast spells into the Imbue item. This is a dramatic change. (One I > > suspect is good, but it's hard to predict) > > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > -- ------ David S From amst.awakening at googlemail.com Wed Apr 2 14:44:17 2008 From: amst.awakening at googlemail.com (Kevin Drugan - AMST Awakening) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:46:33 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804021142m72926940m1b1ea33ac6b38ff2@mail.gmail.com> References: <16e8d0ab0804021138j62c96ad7u24e279fffe62980a@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021142m72926940m1b1ea33ac6b38ff2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <16e8d0ab0804021144y220e3c14o39a093d500c96bb@mail.gmail.com> On 02/04/2008, Brett Ritter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kevin Drugan - AMST Awakening > > wrote: > > > I'm not sure where in the new rules here you get the impression that > > multiple casters can cast into the item? > > > That'd be: > > > 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all > spells cast into the item no matter who casts > them. I see where the impression comes from now. I've ping'd Jon Herrmann about this (he's not on this list), as we'd been discussing the system prior to this and his note was that the system shouldn't allow other casters to put spells into the item - since we don't have the Ritual Synergy merit sanctioned. -- Kevin Drugan UK98040591 AMST Awakening (outgoing) From swiftone at swiftone.org Wed Apr 2 14:47:16 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:49:01 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804021147x526c393clca835e2df7059db6@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM, David Sauter wrote: > If you _really_ want to pay 30ish XP and have your tolerance eaten by > just Sights be my guest... A Gnosis 6 character can put 9 sights in as 3 spells eating two slots. 6 sights would eat 1 slot. The 9 sight version would be 5 dots = 10 XP, the 6 sight version would be 4 dots = 8 XP. _That_ is why high gnosis characters will be in demand. Non-persistent vulgar spells are not the only use of imbued items. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From delwin at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 14:50:29 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:52:14 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804021147x526c393clca835e2df7059db6@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021147x526c393clca835e2df7059db6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804021150r4c0807efr4aee9a2e2b973c85@mail.gmail.com> ... and those are all at Potency 1? Which means any instant cast Veiling spell hides from your ring. Useful? yes, broken? no. David Sauter US2002021140 On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:42 PM, David Sauter wrote: > > If you _really_ want to pay 30ish XP and have your tolerance eaten by > > just Sights be my guest... > > A Gnosis 6 character can put 9 sights in as 3 spells eating two slots. > 6 sights would eat 1 slot. > The 9 sight version would be 5 dots = 10 XP, the 6 sight version would > be 4 dots = 8 XP. > > _That_ is why high gnosis characters will be in demand. > Non-persistent vulgar spells are not the only use of imbued items. > > > -- > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > US2003011110 > swiftone@swiftone.org > _______________________________________________ > > > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- ------ David S From delwin at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 14:51:59 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:53:44 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <16e8d0ab0804021144y220e3c14o39a093d500c96bb@mail.gmail.com> References: <16e8d0ab0804021138j62c96ad7u24e279fffe62980a@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021142m72926940m1b1ea33ac6b38ff2@mail.gmail.com> <16e8d0ab0804021144y220e3c14o39a093d500c96bb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804021151h1bd915fnfcdb24514d17b2b1@mail.gmail.com> Multiple people casting into an Imbue is not the same as ritual synergy. Very different in fact as Item creation (like homomculi) is a multi-step process with different spells involved. ToM has both these processes being able to be done by multiple people without the aid of Ritual Synergy. David Sauter US2002021140 On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:44 AM, Kevin Drugan - AMST Awakening wrote: > On 02/04/2008, Brett Ritter wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Kevin Drugan - AMST Awakening > > > > wrote: > > > > > I'm not sure where in the new rules here you get the impression that > > > multiple casters can cast into the item? > > > > > > That'd be: > > > > > > 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all > > spells cast into the item no matter who casts > > them. > > I see where the impression comes from now. I've ping'd Jon Herrmann > about this (he's not on this list), as we'd been discussing the system > prior to this and his note was that the system shouldn't allow other > casters to put spells into the item - since we don't have the Ritual > Synergy merit sanctioned. > > > -- > Kevin Drugan > UK98040591 > AMST Awakening (outgoing) > _______________________________________________ > > > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- ------ David S From swiftone at swiftone.org Wed Apr 2 14:54:38 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:56:23 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804021150r4c0807efr4aee9a2e2b973c85@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021147x526c393clca835e2df7059db6@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804021150r4c0807efr4aee9a2e2b973c85@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804021154n267c2041na5b4e7bf8e4ce9f5@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM, David Sauter wrote: > ... and those are all at Potency 1? Which means any instant cast > Veiling spell hides from your ring. Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, but I don't see anything in the new rules that makes those be Potency 1. They'd be at the Factor Maximum, which is 4 or 5. Am I missing something? > Useful? yes, broken? no. I never said broken, I said these changes will make high gnosis characters have more demand for creating items. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From dspawlowski at mac.com Wed Apr 2 14:54:41 2008 From: dspawlowski at mac.com (Daniel Pawlowski) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:56:29 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <708E0F10-0119-1000-8347-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> Persistent Items only ever count as 1 towards Spell Tolerance. Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) On Wednesday, April 02, 2008, at 02:42PM, "David Sauter" wrote: >If you _really_ want to pay 30ish XP and have your tolerance eaten by >just Sights be my guest... > >David Sauter >US2002021140 > >On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Daniel Pawlowski wrote: >> For the love of balance, I hope that only the Imbuer can cast spells into >> the proto-Item. Other wise things get really messy, really quick. Not that >> I wouldn't mind a ring that gave me all 9 mage sights. >> >> I like everything with the new rules/steps save that implication that anyone >> can cast a spell to be held by the Imbue Item matrix. >> >> >> >> >> Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) >> VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) >> >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: >> >> >> >> 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all >> >> spells cast into the item no matter who casts them. >> >> 2) Cast into the proto-item as many spells as you wish, resolve Paradox for >> >> these spells as normal at this time. >> >> >> >> >> The implication here is that mages other than the caster are able to >> >> cast spells into the Imbue item. This is a dramatic change. (One I >> >> suspect is good, but it's hard to predict) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Awakening-rules mailing list >> Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com >> http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules >> >> > > > >-- >------ >David S >_______________________________________________ >Awakening-rules mailing list >Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com >http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > From delwin at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 14:57:49 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:59:33 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804021154n267c2041na5b4e7bf8e4ce9f5@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021147x526c393clca835e2df7059db6@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804021150r4c0807efr4aee9a2e2b973c85@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021154n267c2041na5b4e7bf8e4ce9f5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804021157s456995e1t5690bdf9d9dedb56@mail.gmail.com> The dots then is minimum 14, so 28XP for the item (potency 5 +1/spell beyond the first, +1 for persistent). note: 3) Any spell that can be Indefinite given the Arcana Knowledge of the creator, Aspect of the spell, and Factor Maximum of the item may be Persistent I want to point out 'Factor maximum'. Duration is a factor. You need Prime 5 to create persistent items and thus their potency is 5. David Sauter US2002021140 On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:50 PM, David Sauter wrote: > > ... and those are all at Potency 1? Which means any instant cast > > Veiling spell hides from your ring. > > Perhaps I'm not reading it correctly, but I don't see anything in the > new rules that makes those be Potency 1. They'd be at the Factor > Maximum, which is 4 or 5. Am I missing something? > > > Useful? yes, broken? no. > > I never said broken, I said these changes will make high gnosis > characters have more demand for creating items. > > > > -- > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > US2003011110 > swiftone@swiftone.org > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- ------ David S From swiftone at swiftone.org Wed Apr 2 14:57:52 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Wed Apr 2 14:59:38 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <708E0F10-0119-1000-8347-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-8347-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804021157n70f916bcgc18bf9fea0650f0a@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:54 PM, Daniel Pawlowski wrote: > Persistent Items only ever count as 1 towards Spell Tolerance. Where is that? Last I say they counted half the normal per item, rounded up to the nearest whole unit. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From delwin at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 14:58:28 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Wed Apr 2 15:00:12 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <708E0F10-0119-1000-8347-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-8347-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804021158g6a300a74o55ed661aa2d9e942@mail.gmail.com> Imbued Items count as 1/2 spells round up. So 9 spells is 5. 3 spells (Gnosis 6) is 2. David Sauter US2002021140 On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:54 AM, Daniel Pawlowski wrote: > Persistent Items only ever count as 1 towards Spell Tolerance. > > > Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) > VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) > > > > On Wednesday, April 02, 2008, at 02:42PM, "David Sauter" wrote: > >If you _really_ want to pay 30ish XP and have your tolerance eaten by > >just Sights be my guest... > > > >David Sauter > >US2002021140 > > > >On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 11:03 AM, Daniel Pawlowski wrote: > >> For the love of balance, I hope that only the Imbuer can cast spells into > >> the proto-Item. Other wise things get really messy, really quick. Not that > >> I wouldn't mind a ring that gave me all 9 mage sights. > >> > >> I like everything with the new rules/steps save that implication that anyone > >> can cast a spell to be held by the Imbue Item matrix. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) > >> VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) > >> > >> On Apr 2, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> 1b) The Factor Maximum of the creator of the 'proto-item' effects all > >> > >> spells cast into the item no matter who casts them. > >> > >> 2) Cast into the proto-item as many spells as you wish, resolve Paradox for > >> > >> these spells as normal at this time. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> The implication here is that mages other than the caster are able to > >> > >> cast spells into the Imbue item. This is a dramatic change. (One I > >> > >> suspect is good, but it's hard to predict) > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Awakening-rules mailing list > >> Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > >> http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > >> > >> > > > > > > > >-- > >------ > >David S > >_______________________________________________ > >Awakening-rules mailing list > >Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > >http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- ------ David S From swiftone at swiftone.org Wed Apr 2 15:00:01 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Wed Apr 2 15:01:46 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804021157s456995e1t5690bdf9d9dedb56@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <2806E57C-C4E8-45CC-A5FE-D5B44681A080@mac.com> <945cfca20804021142w4a808d68scaa6179f0ac27df8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021147x526c393clca835e2df7059db6@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804021150r4c0807efr4aee9a2e2b973c85@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804021154n267c2041na5b4e7bf8e4ce9f5@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804021157s456995e1t5690bdf9d9dedb56@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804021200j2b5c960ah6381bafa35ae6bcd@mail.gmail.com> On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 2:57 PM, David Sauter wrote: > The dots then is minimum 14, so 28XP for the item (potency 5 +1/spell > beyond the first, +1 for persistent). Combined spells are each 1 spell, with multiple effects, not separate spells, thus my previous math. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From sshasteen at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 16:07:01 2008 From: sshasteen at gmail.com (Steve Shasteen) Date: Wed Apr 2 16:09:12 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> >From MET:A p.71; Enhanced Items: ?Characters can spend Merit points for an enhanced item only at character creation. After that, characters can gain an enhanced item only through roleplay actions but acquiring one does not require the expenditure of experience points on this Merit.? >From MET:A p.75' Imbued Items: "Characters can spend Merit points for an imbued item only at character creation. After that, characters can gain an imbued item only through roleplay actions but acquiring one does not require the expenditure of experience points for dots in this Merit." I don't see anything in either Addenda that counters either of these statements, meaning that the last remaining XP-related cost of imbuing an item lies in replacing the Permanent Willpower Dot expended; which I believe is the current topic on debate. Where are these play-testing rules located? Also, if my two cents count I would make the ToM finishing spells count as a Willpower Dot, otherwise they are remarkably pointless. I know there are upsides and downsides to this, and I'm sure that the thread will continue to illustrate both, but that's my opinion anyway. Steve Shasteen US2002022290 AIM: CSTFL024 ICQ: 1120973 Pensacola Gulf Breeze & NW FL GTalk: sshasteen@gmail.com http://members.cox.net/fl024d P'Cola: The Other White Beach From: awakening-rules-bounces@cammail.white-wolf.com [mailto:awakening-rules-bounces@cammail.white-wolf.com] On Behalf Of Daniel Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 1:05 PM To: Rules discussion for the Awakening venue Subject: Re: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules Unless another rule about inbue items changes, this isn't exactly true. ? All people possessing an enchanted or imbued item have to spend 2xp per dot of the item. ? So it boils down to this: can be dispelled?= 2xp per merit dot paid by the user of the item cannot be dispelled = 2xp per merit dot paid by the user AND 8 xp paid by the caster of the "imbue item" spell. From white-wolf at stormmage.com Wed Apr 2 16:11:19 2008 From: white-wolf at stormmage.com (Troy Lees) Date: Wed Apr 2 16:13:04 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> Message-ID: On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Steve Shasteen wrote: > Where are these play-testing rules located? Also, if my two cents count I > would make the ToM finishing spells count as a Willpower Dot, otherwise > they > are remarkably pointless. I know there are upsides and downsides to this, > and I'm sure that the thread will continue to illustrate both, but that's > my > opinion anyway. > They're located in my first post or the US Addendum, whichever you prefer. -- Troy Lees - US2007059970 Changeling VST www.soulswithoutnames.com - FL-037-D -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080402/3c27ebff/attachment.html From dspawlowski at mac.com Wed Apr 2 16:20:39 2008 From: dspawlowski at mac.com (Daniel Pawlowski) Date: Wed Apr 2 16:22:26 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> Message-ID: <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> Gaining and Losing Merits [U.6.01] If a player character acquires ownership or access to something in-game that would normally be represented by Merit dots, they must pay the requisite xp after a one month period and the new Merit dots be added to their character sheet. This can result in xp debt. This cannot be avoided by passing ownership of items back and forth or leaving them in convenient locations where they are not "owned" but access is easy. Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) On Wednesday, April 02, 2008, at 04:07PM, "Steve Shasteen" wrote: >I don't see anything in either Addenda that counters either of these >statements, meaning that the last remaining XP-related cost of imbuing an >item lies in replacing the Permanent Willpower Dot expended; which I believe >is the current topic on debate. From sshasteen at gmail.com Wed Apr 2 16:28:35 2008 From: sshasteen at gmail.com (Steve Shasteen) Date: Wed Apr 2 16:30:46 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> Message-ID: <00c101c89500$21a4db90$64ee92b0$@com> Well, color me stupid. I've been looking at the newest US Addenda in the USNST site. No wonder I didn't see all of the new stuff. Steve Shasteen US2002022290 AIM: CSTFL024 ICQ: 1120973 Pensacola Gulf Breeze & NW FL GTalk: sshasteen@gmail.com http://members.cox.net/fl024d P'Cola: The Other White Beach From thane.magus at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 01:44:54 2008 From: thane.magus at gmail.com (Thane Shepherd) Date: Thu Apr 3 01:46:39 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7cd7ccd80804022244kca386c6qfe8403c2525d84c1@mail.gmail.com> > > 6) When activating triggered effects or putting on an item with a > persistent effect the item > may generate paradox (as per normal paradox generation rules for Vulgar or > Improbable > Did anyone else notice the end of the rules appear to cut off mid-sentence? It's that way in the PDF as well... Mike Prettiman US2002022648 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080403/0fef6def/attachment.html From Draconius at draconius.net Thu Apr 3 17:07:27 2008 From: Draconius at draconius.net (Donny Mason) Date: Thu Apr 3 17:07:28 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com><945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com><7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com><009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> Message-ID: <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> Doesn't the specific rule (The passage saying imbued items aren't paid for after creation) usually supercede the general rule(that "something" aquired in-game must be purchased if it is kept - with no specific mention of imbued items or that it supercedes the specific rule)? This passage is talking about merits in general, and is in place to prevent people from having access to things without paying the XP cost for them when they normally should. However, being that under no circumstances does one have to pay XP for an imbued item after character creation, it would seem to me that this rule wouldn't apply, as the specific rule states that imbued items don't have to be paid for after character creation. Now, it may be that it was intended to apply to imbued items as well, in which case, I think a specific mention is warranted due to the contradiction in rules. Donny Mason US2003102425 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Pawlowski" To: "'Rules discussion for the Awakening venue'" Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:20 PM Subject: RE: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules > Gaining and Losing Merits [U.6.01] > If a player character acquires ownership or access to something in-game > that would normally be represented by Merit dots, they > must pay the requisite xp after a one month period and the new Merit dots > be added to their character sheet. This can result in > xp debt. This cannot be avoided by passing ownership of items back and > forth or leaving them in convenient locations where > they are not "owned" but access is easy. > > Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) > VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) > > On Wednesday, April 02, 2008, at 04:07PM, "Steve Shasteen" > wrote: >>I don't see anything in either Addenda that counters either of these >>statements, meaning that the last remaining XP-related cost of imbuing an >>item lies in replacing the Permanent Willpower Dot expended; which I >>believe >>is the current topic on debate. > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG. > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: 4/1/2008 > 5:37 PM > From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 3 17:10:27 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 3 17:12:12 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804031410h18e21abalce01c5137c99123b@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:07 PM, Donny Mason wrote: > Doesn't the specific rule (The passage saying imbued items aren't paid for > after creation) usually supercede the general rule(that "something" aquired > in-game must be purchased if it is kept - with no specific mention of imbued > items or that it supercedes the specific rule)? The later rule also supercedes the earlier rule. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From chipvolgate at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 17:11:34 2008 From: chipvolgate at gmail.com (Halo) Date: Thu Apr 3 17:13:22 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804031410h18e21abalce01c5137c99123b@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> <6a6bb9960804031410h18e21abalce01c5137c99123b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6c8921c30804031411n50eae370w29513884ee974558@mail.gmail.com> > > The later rule also supercedes the earlier rule. > > -- > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > Thats a little confusing. Rephrase? ----------------------------------------------------------------- Felix Drost US2003092300 Unseen Shield: Because rapiers aren't designed to penetrate fields of semi-solid kinetic energy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080403/3b8e34af/attachment.html From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 17:30:05 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 3 17:31:53 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <6c8921c30804031411n50eae370w29513884ee974558@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> <6a6bb9960804031410h18e21abalce01c5137c99123b@mail.gmail.com> <6c8921c30804031411n50eae370w29513884ee974558@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804031430r63636e79y415fe17dc1490ae@mail.gmail.com> The ruling that items cost XP even if made or acquired in game was made after the rule that you do not pay for them. On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Halo wrote: > The later rule also supercedes the earlier rule. > > > > -- > > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > > > > > Thats a little confusing. Rephrase? > > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Felix Drost > US2003092300 > > Unseen Shield: Because rapiers aren't designed to penetrate fields of > semi-solid kinetic energy. > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080403/25438caa/attachment-0001.html From delwin at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 17:45:18 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Thu Apr 3 17:47:04 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <8efd93220804031430r63636e79y415fe17dc1490ae@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> <6a6bb9960804031410h18e21abalce01c5137c99123b@mail.gmail.com> <6c8921c30804031411n50eae370w29513884ee974558@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804031430r63636e79y415fe17dc1490ae@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804031445g78d5509dpcb66218d1406371d@mail.gmail.com> Specific overrules general: "5) The Merit Dot value of the item is as per the MET: Awakening book." Imbued Items created under this system have Merit Dots attached, and thus cost XP. David Sauter US2002021140 From rulesninja at gmail.com Thu Apr 3 17:46:24 2008 From: rulesninja at gmail.com (m0rtis) Date: Thu Apr 3 17:48:10 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules In-Reply-To: <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> References: <6a6bb9960804020845v5ad0b531udc8ea8ff063e017c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804020903j45da7e9by68358213ba186b3f@mail.gmail.com> <7dabbd2c0804021104x61e46eb5pa127feef187920dc@mail.gmail.com> <009c01c894fd$1edf8160$5c9e8420$@com> <708E0F10-0119-1000-854E-37E26BD08081-Webmail-10007@mac.com> <021201c895ce$bb7137e0$6701a8c0@NewHotness> Message-ID: <49ffd2240804031446v4cf1228fq29a1240099baa66a@mail.gmail.com> All the magic items cost XP in our game. Always have. Also, all the magic item merits say they dont cost XP after creation. This is a overall change to all of those merits. =) On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 4:07 PM, Donny Mason wrote: > Doesn't the specific rule (The passage saying imbued items aren't paid for > after creation) usually supercede the general rule(that "something" aquired > in-game must be purchased if it is kept - with no specific mention of imbued > items or that it supercedes the specific rule)? > > This passage is talking about merits in general, and is in place to > prevent people from having access to things without paying the XP cost for > them when they normally should. However, being that under no circumstances > does one have to pay XP for an imbued item after character creation, it > would seem to me that this rule wouldn't apply, as the specific rule states > that imbued items don't have to be paid for after character creation. > > Now, it may be that it was intended to apply to imbued items as well, in > which case, I think a specific mention is warranted due to the contradiction > in rules. > > Donny Mason > US2003102425 > > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Daniel Pawlowski" > > To: "'Rules discussion for the Awakening venue'" < > awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com> > Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:20 PM > Subject: RE: [Awakening-rules] US Imbue Item Rules > > > Gaining and Losing Merits [U.6.01] > > If a player character acquires ownership or access to something in-game > > that would normally be represented by Merit dots, they > > must pay the requisite xp after a one month period and the new Merit > > dots be added to their character sheet. This can result in > > xp debt. This cannot be avoided by passing ownership of items back and > > forth or leaving them in convenient locations where > > they are not "owned" but access is easy. > > > > Dan Pawlowski (US2002045158) > > VST: Mage DC(VA-0-20-D) > > > > On Wednesday, April 02, 2008, at 04:07PM, "Steve Shasteen" < > > sshasteen@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I don't see anything in either Addenda that counters either of these > > > statements, meaning that the last remaining XP-related cost of imbuing > > > an > > > item lies in replacing the Permanent Willpower Dot expended; which I > > > believe > > > is the current topic on debate. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Awakening-rules mailing list > > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > > > > > -- > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG. > > Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.4/1355 - Release Date: > > 4/1/2008 5:37 PM > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- Dan Wright US2002021042 Domain Storyteller - OKC http://www.cam-wiki.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080403/b464918d/attachment.html From camarilla.mike at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 14:11:28 2008 From: camarilla.mike at gmail.com (Michael Bryan) Date: Thu Apr 10 14:13:22 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield Message-ID: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> Hi, okay so here's a question that me an my ST ran into recently, a person with incognito cast can only be noticed if someone has mental shield up AND matches successes on a gnosis+mind roll. So does the Mental Shield still provide it's defence against the mental effect of incognito (-1 per dot of mind) or does it provide no effect but he ability to test to see them? My guess is that it provides both the defense and the ability to test to see them as it protects you from being influenced, but I could and have been wrong in the past :) -- Michael Bryan US2005043255 When IC (Requiem) Baron Alder Miguel Almidon Eldriago Gangrel Priscus of Charlotte Sheriff of Charlotte Patriarch House Eldriago Legatus of Japan Patron of the Bitter Rose Invictus x 3 Gangrel x 1 http://cam-wiki.org/index.php/Miguel_Almidon_Eldriago (Awakening) Dr. David Huber http://magetheawakening.org/Dr_David_Huber (Lost) Trystan Hunter Summer Mantle x 1 Knight Banneret Charlotte US Marshals x 3 http://changeling.cam-wiki.org/index.php/Trystan_Hunter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/d0d9adf0/attachment.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 14:16:01 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 14:23:21 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Michael Bryan wrote: > Hi, okay so here's a question that me an my ST ran into recently, a person > with incognito cast can only be noticed if someone has mental shield up AND > matches successes on a gnosis+mind roll. Note that Incognito Presence isn't Obfuscate. It provides penalties to notice or remember, not a blanket "you don't". > So does the Mental Shield still > provide it's defence against the mental effect of incognito (-1 per dot of > mind) or does it provide no effect but he ability to test to see them? The latter. Incognito Presence isn't a targeted effect, so the mental shield gives you a test to notice the effect rather than a resistance. > My guess is that it provides both the defense and the ability to test to see > them as it protects you from being influenced, but I could and have been > wrong in the past :) If I put up Incognito Presence before encountering your character, how would that penalty work? No test is made at the time we encounter each other (aside from any Mental Shield-based test) -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne Us2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From camarilla.mike at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 14:34:35 2008 From: camarilla.mike at gmail.com (Michael Bryan) Date: Thu Apr 10 14:36:28 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> ahh, actually in the new MET Mage the Awakening book Incogntio has become obfuscate and worse it's better than ob ;) Quoting the text from MET Mage: "Each success adds to the difficulty of noticing or remembering the mage. Note that any blatant attention-grabbing actions automatically violate the subtle occlusion of the spell. The spell affects anyone who witnesses the mage. It does not need special Target factors to affect more than one person. Those who possess some form of supernatural mental protection (such as a "Mental Shield," below) are subject to a reflexive contested Gnosis + Mind test upon first encountering the caster. If the test's successes equal or exceed the "Incognito Presence" spell's successes, the onlooker can remember the mage normally." In MET Mage it no longer says that each success provides a -1 to perception checks, it says adds to the dificulty to remember, but without the actual mechanics behind it (like in TT Mage) it becomes like obfuscate with mental shield providing an Auspex like test. But yeah I can understand the metnal wall not providing the normal protection, I was thinking that at mind 5 mental wall would drop the potency by 1 ;) On 4/10/08, Brett Ritter wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:11 PM, Michael Bryan > wrote: > > Hi, okay so here's a question that me an my ST ran into recently, a > person > > with incognito cast can only be noticed if someone has mental shield up > AND > > matches successes on a gnosis+mind roll. > > Note that Incognito Presence isn't Obfuscate. It provides penalties > to notice or remember, not a blanket "you don't". > > > So does the Mental Shield still > > provide it's defence against the mental effect of incognito (-1 per dot > of > > mind) or does it provide no effect but he ability to test to see them? > > The latter. Incognito Presence isn't a targeted effect, so the mental > shield gives you a test to notice the effect rather than a resistance. > > > My guess is that it provides both the defense and the ability to test to > see > > them as it protects you from being influenced, but I could and have been > > wrong in the past :) > > If I put up Incognito Presence before encountering your character, how > would that penalty work? No test is made at the time we encounter > each other (aside from any Mental Shield-based test) > -- > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > Us2003011110 > swiftone@swiftone.org > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- Michael Bryan US2005043255 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/b65e0bd7/attachment-0001.html From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 14:42:20 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 14:44:17 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> The onlooker can "remember" the mage normally if the successes match or exceed. That means it doesn't take effect until you try to remember them from the time they had that spell going. It's not like Obfuscate in the least. It provides a penalty to the roll to remember (Int + Com, iirc). On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Michael Bryan wrote: > ahh, actually in the new MET Mage the Awakening book Incogntio has become > obfuscate and worse it's better than ob ;) > > Quoting the text from MET Mage: > "Each success adds to the difficulty of noticing or remembering the mage. > Note that > > any blatant attention-grabbing actions automatically violate the subtle > occlusion of the > > spell. The spell affects anyone who witnesses the mage. It does not need > special Target > > factors to affect more than one person. > > Those who possess some form of supernatural mental protection (such as a > "Mental > > Shield," below) are subject to a reflexive contested Gnosis + Mind test > upon first encountering > > the caster. If the test's successes equal or exceed the "Incognito > Presence" > > spell's successes, the onlooker can remember the mage normally." > > > > In MET Mage it no longer says that each success provides a -1 to > perception checks, it says adds to the dificulty to remember, but without > the actual mechanics behind it (like in TT Mage) it becomes like obfuscate > with mental shield providing an Auspex like test. > > But yeah I can understand the metnal wall not providing the normal > protection, I was thinking that at mind 5 mental wall would drop the potency > by 1 ;) > -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/5b6d981d/attachment.html From delwin at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 14:42:35 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Thu Apr 10 14:44:28 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804101142y13a575e4pf73309ec94740a5c@mail.gmail.com> > But yeah I can understand the metnal wall not providing the normal > protection, I was thinking that at mind 5 mental wall would drop the potency > by 1 ;) OK, time for me to get on a soap box for a moment. Higher Arcana spells are not more powerful than Lower Arcana spells. They are more complex (I.E. able to do a wider range of things). Power is measured in potency. Complexity is measured in required Arcana. This is why there's no 'Advanced Potency' like there is 'Advanced Duration' and 'Advanced targets'. Please please everyone don't confuse this. This confusion is one of the reasons we have so much trouble with the Creative Thaum rules. David Sauter US2002021140 From camarilla.mike at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 14:49:16 2008 From: camarilla.mike at gmail.com (Michael Bryan) Date: Thu Apr 10 14:51:09 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804101142y13a575e4pf73309ec94740a5c@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804101142y13a575e4pf73309ec94740a5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <600368fd0804101149n8f135c3i1c72d9fb0a1d11ce@mail.gmail.com> Oh I know that they aren't more powerful, I was thinking at a -5 would take away a single success. On 4/10/08, David Sauter wrote: > > > But yeah I can understand the metnal wall not providing the normal > > protection, I was thinking that at mind 5 mental wall would drop the > potency > > by 1 ;) > > OK, time for me to get on a soap box for a moment. > > Higher Arcana spells are not more powerful than Lower Arcana spells. > They are more complex (I.E. able to do a wider range of things). > > Power is measured in potency. Complexity is measured in required > Arcana. This is why there's no 'Advanced Potency' like there is > 'Advanced Duration' and 'Advanced targets'. > > Please please everyone don't confuse this. This confusion is one of > the reasons we have so much trouble with the Creative Thaum rules. > > David Sauter > US2002021140 > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- Michael Bryan US2005043255 When IC (Requiem) Baron Alder Miguel Almidon Eldriago Gangrel Priscus of Charlotte Sheriff of Charlotte Patriarch House Eldriago Legatus of Japan Patron of the Bitter Rose Invictus x 3 Gangrel x 1 http://cam-wiki.org/index.php/Miguel_Almidon_Eldriago (Awakening) Dr. David Huber http://magetheawakening.org/Dr_David_Huber (Lost) Trystan Hunter Summer Mantle x 1 Knight Banneret Charlotte US Marshals x 3 http://changeling.cam-wiki.org/index.php/Trystan_Hunter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/55593272/attachment.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 14:50:18 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 14:52:12 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101150o7a19511ev9ec4b319e3b4700c@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Michael Bryan wrote: > ahh, actually in the new MET Mage the Awakening book Incogntio has become > obfuscate and worse it's better than ob ;) Actually, this is what I was basing it on: > "Each success adds to the difficulty of noticing or remembering the mage. Thus they need to make whatever test they would make to notice you. Normally they'd need 1 success, but now you add a number equal to the Potency to this requirement. Thus a Potency 3 > In MET Mage it no longer says that each success provides a -1 to perception > checks, it says adds to the dificulty to remember, but without the actual > mechanics behind it (like in TT Mage) it becomes like obfuscate with mental > shield providing an Auspex like test. That's a logical leap I don't see. +1 success required/potency is indeed more powerful than -1/ potency, but the power is not absolute. If you check the WOD book, I'm sure you'll find tests for perception (Wits+Composure, I believe). Likewise there is a test for memory (Int+Comp, I think, but it's rarely an issue). -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 14:53:42 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:02:24 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101150o7a19511ev9ec4b319e3b4700c@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101150o7a19511ev9ec4b319e3b4700c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101153s606bce9ay7980abd34eea199a@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:50 PM, Brett Ritter wrote: > Potency to this requirement. Thus a Potency 3 Whups, cut myself off there. A Potency 3 Incognito Presence means they need 4 successes on a perception test to notice me, or 4 successes on a memory test to remember that I was there. That's potent, but not automatic. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From camarilla.mike at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 15:01:11 2008 From: camarilla.mike at gmail.com (Michael Bryan) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:03:04 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101150o7a19511ev9ec4b319e3b4700c@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101150o7a19511ev9ec4b319e3b4700c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <600368fd0804101201t3cf2b879tb7d5b36e5b163f74@mail.gmail.com> On 4/10/08, Brett Ritter wrote: > > >Thus they need to make whatever test they would make to notice you. > >Normally they'd need 1 success, but now you add a number equal to the > >Potency to this requirement. Thus a Potency 3 > > >> In MET Mage it no longer says that each success provides a -1 to > perception > >>checks, it says adds to the dificulty to remember, but without the > actual > >>mechanics behind it (like in TT Mage) it becomes like obfuscate with > mental > >>shield providing an Auspex like test. > > >That's a logical leap I don't see. +1 success required/potency is > >indeed more powerful than -1/ potency, but the power is not absolute. > >If you check the WOD book, I'm sure you'll find tests for perception > >(Wits+Composure, I believe). Likewise there is a test for memory > >(Int+Comp, I think, but it's rarely an issue). The problem with that is that it doesn't give any hard rules about how it works, it could require an additional success it could grant a negative on draws, it could be jsut whatever the ST decides it means, the only clear mechanics to the spell is that Mental Wall provides a test that will enable you to notice and perceive the person as normal, there are no other mechanics to it and thus it could be ruled that unless you have a mentall wall noone can notice or remember you, and even witht he mental wall you ahve to match the potency of the spell with your own reflexive draw. By the way jsut so everyone knows this discussion came up not because I was using Incognito, but because it was recently used by an NPC and with the MET Mage mechanics to the rules both me and my ST got confused over exactly what does what ;) Especially when Incognito is ritually cast, it makes an extremely large difference betwen -1 per success and +1 success per success or whether you get any of those draws at all. -- > Michael Bryan > US2005043255 > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/d39feee5/attachment-0001.html From camarilla.mike at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 15:02:13 2008 From: camarilla.mike at gmail.com (Michael Bryan) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:04:07 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> Also effects noticing them to begin with. On 4/10/08, Eric Moore wrote: > > The onlooker can "remember" the mage normally if the successes match or > exceed. That means it doesn't take effect until you try to remember them > from the time they had that spell going. It's not like Obfuscate in the > least. It provides a penalty to the roll to remember (Int + Com, iirc). > > On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Michael Bryan > wrote: > > > ahh, actually in the new MET Mage the Awakening book Incogntio has > > become obfuscate and worse it's better than ob ;) > > > > Quoting the text from MET Mage: > > "Each success adds to the difficulty of noticing or remembering the > > mage. Note that > > > > any blatant attention-grabbing actions automatically violate the subtle > > occlusion of the > > > > spell. The spell affects anyone who witnesses the mage. It does not need > > special Target > > > > factors to affect more than one person. > > > > Those who possess some form of supernatural mental protection (such as a > > "Mental > > > > Shield," below) are subject to a reflexive contested Gnosis + Mind test > > upon first encountering > > > > the caster. If the test's successes equal or exceed the "Incognito > > Presence" > > > > spell's successes, the onlooker can remember the mage normally." > > > > > > > > In MET Mage it no longer says that each success provides a -1 to > > perception checks, it says adds to the dificulty to remember, but without > > the actual mechanics behind it (like in TT Mage) it becomes like obfuscate > > with mental shield providing an Auspex like test. > > > > But yeah I can understand the metnal wall not providing the normal > > protection, I was thinking that at mind 5 mental wall would drop the potency > > by 1 ;) > > > > > -- > Eric Moore > US2004112432 > I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. > You are in my Monkeysphere. > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > -- Michael Bryan US2005043255 When IC (Requiem) Baron Alder Miguel Almidon Eldriago Gangrel Priscus of Charlotte Sheriff of Charlotte Patriarch House Eldriago Legatus of Japan Patron of the Bitter Rose Invictus x 3 Gangrel x 1 http://cam-wiki.org/index.php/Miguel_Almidon_Eldriago (Awakening) Dr. David Huber http://magetheawakening.org/Dr_David_Huber (Lost) Trystan Hunter Summer Mantle x 1 Knight Banneret Charlotte US Marshals x 3 http://changeling.cam-wiki.org/index.php/Trystan_Hunter -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/ca5526ac/attachment.html From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 15:09:17 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:17:34 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101209h5b196aevbd2372b0b1d39152@mail.gmail.com> No, not really. Otherwise, the following section would mention you being able to notice them normally, instead of just remembering them normally. "Those who possess some form of supernatural mental protection (such as a "MentalShield," below) are subject to a reflexive contested Gnosis + Mind test upon first encountering the caster. If the test's successes equal or exceed the "Incognito Presence" spell's successes, the onlooker can remember the mage normally." You still see them and everything, they just don't stick in your memory unless they draw attention to themselves. This is different from Obfuscate in that they aren't occluded from your current perception. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:02 PM, Michael Bryan wrote: > Also effects noticing them to begin with. -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/94ff68d9/attachment.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 15:17:36 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:19:30 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <8efd93220804101209h5b196aevbd2372b0b1d39152@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101209h5b196aevbd2372b0b1d39152@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101217h5fbd90c1n494ae3a5da050489@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:09 PM, Eric Moore wrote: > No, not really. Otherwise, the following section would mention you being I have to disagree with you. The earlier clause clearly states "notice" in addition to "remember". You might have an argument that Mental Shield doesn't prevent the occlude notice effect (poor WW editing), but I see no basis to say that Incognito Presence doesn't hinder them from noticing you. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 15:17:50 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:19:43 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <600368fd0804101201t3cf2b879tb7d5b36e5b163f74@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101150o7a19511ev9ec4b319e3b4700c@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101201t3cf2b879tb7d5b36e5b163f74@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101217m987809cg34c279eda3648cce@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:01 PM, Michael Bryan wrote: > The problem with that is that it doesn't give any hard rules about how it > works, it could require an additional success it could grant a negative on > draws, it could be jsut whatever the ST decides it means, It says "Each success adds to the difficulty of noticing or remembering the mage." My recollection is that "difficulty" refers to number of successes. Poking around the books, I see that WW defines this word poorly. Difficulty is used in the context I use it in for the TT books (as well as to refer to modifiers), but that usage didn't make it into MET. Nonetheless, I hold to that definition in this context. What is the normal difficulty of noticing the mage? Add Potency to that. Regardless of whether the ST decides on a pool modifier or a number of required successes, the effect is not automatic, and this is not like obfuscate. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From auronculari63 at yahoo.com Thu Apr 10 15:20:26 2008 From: auronculari63 at yahoo.com (Luke Hill) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:22:19 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804101142y13a575e4pf73309ec94740a5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <643887.46537.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> I'm going to build on what Dave said, just a little bit. Potency is the raw power of a spell. It measures a spell's ability to force itself upon the Tapestry of the world. Because of this, when two spells directly contest (and the rules don't specifically say otherwise) the spell with the higher Potency wins. Push goes to the defender (i.e. the spell maintaining the preceding status quo). Now back to the original discussion... The discussion thus far has focused upon the fact that Incognito Presence makes it harder to notice a person when you test to do so. My question regarding its mechanics is this: What effect does Incognito Presence have in situations where a person does not need to test to notice a target, but does so automatically (such as when guards are watching an empty, plain hallway down which walks only the Mage in question)? Does it make such a test compulsory, does it automatically fail (i.e. the Mage is noticed), does it automatically succeed (i.e. the Mage is NOT noticed), or does it do something else entirely? I accept that in a crowd, while stealthily sneaking about, or in other situation like that Incognito Presence should make a person hard to notice. However, when you're alone and plainly visible does the 'subtle occlusion' of the spell provide any benefit at all, or does it simply cease to function? My inclination is to say that it fails in those situations, but I'd like to see what everybody thinks on this as well. So, thoughts? Happy trails, Luke Hill David Sauter wrote: > But yeah I can understand the metnal wall not providing the normal > protection, I was thinking that at mind 5 mental wall would drop the potency > by 1 ;) OK, time for me to get on a soap box for a moment. Higher Arcana spells are not more powerful than Lower Arcana spells. They are more complex (I.E. able to do a wider range of things). Power is measured in potency. Complexity is measured in required Arcana. This is why there's no 'Advanced Potency' like there is 'Advanced Duration' and 'Advanced targets'. Please please everyone don't confuse this. This confusion is one of the reasons we have so much trouble with the Creative Thaum rules. David Sauter US2002021140 _______________________________________________ Awakening-rules mailing list Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules --------------------- Luke Hill US2004031302 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/ff0b11aa/attachment-0001.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 15:26:23 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:28:17 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <643887.46537.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> References: <945cfca20804101142y13a575e4pf73309ec94740a5c@mail.gmail.com> <643887.46537.qm@web54106.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101226u19993b7cwc20924e140d74a5@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:20 PM, Luke Hill wrote: > What effect does Incognito Presence have in situations where a person does > not need to test to notice a target, but does so automatically (such as when > guards are watching an empty, plain hallway down which walks only the Mage > in question)? Does it make such a test compulsory, does it automatically > fail (i.e. the Mage is noticed), does it automatically succeed (i.e. the > Mage is NOT noticed), or does it do something else entirely? My thoughts? It requires a test, where the base test required 0 successes, so a Potency 3 spell will require 3 successes rather than 4, and a Potency 1 spell is often seen through. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne Us2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From rulesninja at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 15:26:50 2008 From: rulesninja at gmail.com (m0rtis) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:28:42 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101217h5fbd90c1n494ae3a5da050489@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101209h5b196aevbd2372b0b1d39152@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101217h5fbd90c1n494ae3a5da050489@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49ffd2240804101226t1f70e5fehcf59e72c154832ac@mail.gmail.com> It would seem there are actually two effects here. Sleepers fail to notice you or remember you (sort of like obfuscate, but not as cool since they still get a chance). However, it would seem that awakened mages with Mental Shield only needs to exceed potency to remember the mage later on. This does not allow them to be unnoticed by other mages at the time. At least this is my read on it. -- Dan Wright US2002021042 Domain Storyteller - OKC http://www.cam-wiki.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/d73cc9b5/attachment.html From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 15:27:41 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:29:35 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101217h5fbd90c1n494ae3a5da050489@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101209h5b196aevbd2372b0b1d39152@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101217h5fbd90c1n494ae3a5da050489@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101227t6b92b995hd7fb7288f2ce402d@mail.gmail.com> And I have to point out that it is, word for word, the same as the text in the TT book. It even says they see you, but don't see anything special about you unless you draw attention to yourself, and are apt to simply dismiss your presence. It's the same as walking down a crowded street. You see a lot of people. You only remember the ones who are special in some way, like the lady in the red dress or the man who draws a gun on you. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:17 PM, Brett Ritter wrote: > I have to disagree with you. The earlier clause clearly states "notice" > in addition to "remember". You might have an argument that Mental Shield > doesn't prevent the occlude notice effect (poor WW editing), but I see no > basis to say that Incognito Presence doesn't hinder them from noticing you. -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/5718af5e/attachment.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 15:31:33 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:33:27 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <8efd93220804101227t6b92b995hd7fb7288f2ce402d@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101209h5b196aevbd2372b0b1d39152@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101217h5fbd90c1n494ae3a5da050489@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101227t6b92b995hd7fb7288f2ce402d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101231w5d1baf05m589558c68e016ceb@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:27 PM, Eric Moore wrote: > the TT book. It even says they see you, but don't see anything special about > you unless you draw attention to yourself, and are apt to simply dismiss > your presence. So a guard is supposed to check ids at a workplace, but let's those he's used to seeing pass uninspected. Does he stop the person with Incognito presence or not? I say no, he fails to "notice" them. What is your answer? (assuming any test is failed) -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 15:34:40 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 15:43:33 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101231w5d1baf05m589558c68e016ceb@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101142k682ebc2bt6b66a0d31884c415@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101202gdf0d3c5td851f6fec138259@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101209h5b196aevbd2372b0b1d39152@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101217h5fbd90c1n494ae3a5da050489@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101227t6b92b995hd7fb7288f2ce402d@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101231w5d1baf05m589558c68e016ceb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101234l7aa28f76of0112c6d2c73e3b5@mail.gmail.com> Walking into an id checkpoint and not showing ID when the people don't know you is attention getting. I'd rule the spell ends and you're in trouble. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 3:31 PM, Brett Ritter wrote: > So a guard is supposed to check ids at a workplace, but let's those he's > used to seeing pass uninspected. Does he stop the person with Incognito > presence or not? > > I say no, he fails to "notice" them. What is your answer? (assuming any > test is failed) -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/76954614/attachment.html From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 17:02:43 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 17:04:38 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> It occurs to me that I should point out that there's nothing in the TT text that says it gives a -1 to perception tests to notice the mage. There's absolutely no difference between the two. Difficulty also isn't a game term, and the closest thing I can find to a "difficulty" chart is the degree of challenge chart on page 16 of the MET core book (p 124 of the TT core, and there's no difference between the two). So the way I read the relevant mechanics, it still is a penalty equal to the Potency of the spell, not adding to a total number of successes to remember. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Michael Bryan wrote: > In MET Mage it no longer says that each success provides a -1 to > perception checks, it says adds to the dificulty to remember, but without > the actual mechanics behind it (like in TT Mage) it becomes like obfuscate > with mental shield providing an Auspex like test. -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/a63bab7d/attachment.html From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 17:04:21 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 17:06:19 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101404i4de958d6y968f18b876592cb4@mail.gmail.com> Sorry, that should read "Difficulty also isn't a game term ...". I suppose we could read it in MET as increasing the base number required for a single success from 10 to 10+Potency, but that's not in line with the original power. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Eric Moore wrote: > Difficulty also isn't a game term, -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/041c9828/attachment-0001.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 17:12:55 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 17:14:51 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101412y28816e9dr64b9bba5b37b6dc3@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Eric Moore wrote: > absolutely no difference between the two. Difficulty also isn't a game term, > and the closest thing I can find to a "difficulty" chart is the degree of If you read some of the skill texts, they use "difficulty" in different ways. (off hand, I think a "repair" clause refers to difficulty as number of successes, and other citations point to pool modifiers). Other books also use difficulty in different ways. It's shoddy WW editing. If an ST chooses to use the -1/potency usage, I don't think they're _wrong_, but they're not probably right either. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 17:18:54 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 17:20:47 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101412y28816e9dr64b9bba5b37b6dc3@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101412y28816e9dr64b9bba5b37b6dc3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101418r64e11392id9737f45812658d0@mail.gmail.com> Should we ask for an official clarification then? There's a pretty big difference between the three potentially valid ways of reading that rule in a MET context, or even the two in the original context. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Brett Ritter wrote: > If you read some of the skill texts, they use "difficulty" in different > ways. (off hand, I think a "repair" clause refers to difficulty as number > of successes, and other citations point to pool modifiers). Other books > also use difficulty in different ways. > > It's shoddy WW editing. If an ST chooses to use the -1/potency usage, I > don't think they're _wrong_, but they're not probably right either. -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/cc4f3138/attachment.html From eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com Thu Apr 10 17:22:07 2008 From: eric.matthew.moore at gmail.com (Eric Moore) Date: Thu Apr 10 17:24:02 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101412y28816e9dr64b9bba5b37b6dc3@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101412y28816e9dr64b9bba5b37b6dc3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <8efd93220804101422j487b10d5qb65ff1c933c3660a@mail.gmail.com> Oh, and while that is a valid standpoint to take, "Memorizing and Remembering" on page 46 of MET core handles difficult things to remember by assigning penalties, not by extra successes. On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Brett Ritter wrote: > If you read some of the skill texts, they use "difficulty" in different > ways. (off hand, I think a "repair" clause refers to difficulty as number > of successes, and other citations point to pool modifiers). Other books > also use difficulty in different ways. > > It's shoddy WW editing. If an ST chooses to use the -1/potency usage, I > don't think they're _wrong_, but they're not probably right either. -- Eric Moore US2004112432 I have a promise to keep: Caelestis Proles. You are in my Monkeysphere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080410/98f9c922/attachment.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Thu Apr 10 17:22:39 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Thu Apr 10 17:24:31 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Question on Incognito vs Mental Shield In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804101412y28816e9dr64b9bba5b37b6dc3@mail.gmail.com> References: <600368fd0804101111m5cfc00a4r4fbbd17065444ac8@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101116k644d011ao8b8deda4439c3824@mail.gmail.com> <600368fd0804101134w4588f3fbk55eb6daf6d6d2ac3@mail.gmail.com> <8efd93220804101402y39a03743k9c4d3186cb15824b@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804101412y28816e9dr64b9bba5b37b6dc3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804101422q38d9fa74o891885189bd754df@mail.gmail.com> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 5:12 PM, Brett Ritter wrote: > It's shoddy WW editing. If an ST chooses to use the -1/potency usage, > I don't think they're _wrong_, but they're not probably right either. That was shoddy _me_ editing. I meant to say "not _provably_ right either". -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From swiftone at swiftone.org Mon Apr 14 11:51:10 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Mon Apr 14 11:53:07 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Mana Primer Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804140851j60cd6f3eof7c4e69f9dc02e29@mail.gmail.com> Under the onslaught of MET rules and recent plot, a lot of players may be unfamiliar with the current Mana rules. This is intended to be a simple lesson in Mana. Maximum Mana: 9 + Gnosis (until 7+, at which point you shouldn't be relying on my primers anyway) Mana per turn: Gnosis rating (until 9+) Things that cost mana (not including anything in the spell descriptions) * Non rote non-ruling spells * Prepared spells (via Time 2 metmagic) * Pattern restoration (healing via Mana) * Sympathetic spells * Spending to reduce chance of Paradox * Spell Cloak (Prime 3 metamagic) * Sense the Threads (Space 2/Prime 2 metamagic) * Mana bleed (Gnosis - Wisdom = mana lost/week) Things that save mana * Casting at a hallow (-1 to mana cost) * Rotes (if casting a non-ruling spell) Sources of Mana: * Hallows, either via oblations or by collecting Tass (Rating/week) * Pattern Scouring (Physical attributes, limited times) * Pattern Scouring (Health, limited times before it deals Agg) * Ritual Sacrifice (Wisdom check) * Legacy Oblation (once/week) * Devouring the Slain (Death 3) (Vulgar) (requires a victim who has agg, costs 1 Mana) * Devouring the Living (Death * Siphon Essence (Prime 4) (Vulgar) (requires spirit, ghost, or locus) * Siphon Integrity (Prime 4) (Vulgar) (requires big item) * Siphon Mana (Prime 5) (vulgar) (requires mage) Transferring Mana: * Tass can be traded * Create Tass (Prime 3) puts mana into tass form *temporarily* (not same as natural tass) * Channel Mana (Prime 3) lets you take mana from an Item or tass, or place it in an Item. * Imbue Mana (Prime 3) lets Mages place mana into other creatures * Siphon Mana (Prime 5) lets Mages take mana from other mages Common Mana mistakes: * Only the Physical Armor spells & Armor of the Soul (Prime 3) can be put up with 1 day duration for 1 Mana. Not Mage Sights. * The following "common" spells cost 1 Mana (base) ** Counterspell (Any) ** Exceptional Luck (Fate 2) ** Magic Shield (Prime 2, per use) ** Dispel Magic (Prime 1), Controlled Dispellation (Prime 3), and Supernal Dispellation (Prime 4) -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne swiftone@swiftone.org From swiftone at swiftone.org Mon Apr 14 11:54:00 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Mon Apr 14 11:55:56 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Re: Mana Primer In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804140851j60cd6f3eof7c4e69f9dc02e29@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804140851j60cd6f3eof7c4e69f9dc02e29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804140854r33343d2cs410ee9c488d3e853@mail.gmail.com> On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > Under the onslaught of MET rules and recent plot, a lot of players may oops. I bumped the wrong button and that sent incomplete. A better version will come soon. -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From rulesninja at gmail.com Mon Apr 14 15:19:01 2008 From: rulesninja at gmail.com (m0rtis) Date: Mon Apr 14 15:20:59 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Re: Mana Primer In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804140854r33343d2cs410ee9c488d3e853@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804140851j60cd6f3eof7c4e69f9dc02e29@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804140854r33343d2cs410ee9c488d3e853@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <49ffd2240804141219t3e6c4f42j11dca69393e7d95e@mail.gmail.com> Yeah, I was going to say you're missing Artifacts and Familars. =) On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 11:51 AM, Brett Ritter > wrote: > > Under the onslaught of MET rules and recent plot, a lot of players may > > oops. I bumped the wrong button and that sent incomplete. A better > version will come soon. > > -- > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > US2003011110 > swiftone@swiftone.org > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- Dan Wright US2002021042 Domain Storyteller - OKC http://www.cam-wiki.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080414/d9780504/attachment.html From circuitfox at yahoo.com Sun Apr 20 00:52:05 2008 From: circuitfox at yahoo.com (Laura Simpson) Date: Sun Apr 20 00:54:08 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Zombie creation In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804140851j60cd6f3eof7c4e69f9dc02e29@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <248288.95924.qm@web32406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Can death mages add Zombie aspects to their zombies they create per the aspects they give in the antagonists book? In the spell Quicken Corpse it gives rules for adding to acting speed, initiative, defense and giving the zombies indestructible. It does not, however, give any rules for additional successes giving additional benefits like aspects. Can you use additional successes to add aspects to zombies created using the Quicken Corpse spell, or by using creative thaumaturgy? Laura OOC: Laura Simpson US2002022887 VST Mage AR012D, Little Rock, AR Also known as the Jicama of Evil. IC: Quitalla Montalvio, Circle of the Crone, Hierophant, Primogen Keeper of Elysium for Little Rock, AR Kitsune, Thyrsus (Orphan of Proteus), Mysterium Herald for the Concillium of Little Rock, AR Poetic License, Ithaeur, Iron Master Alpha of Necessary Arson Grendel, Hacker, Ukranian Mafia "Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080419/d5816597/attachment-0001.html From rulesninja at gmail.com Sun Apr 20 02:34:34 2008 From: rulesninja at gmail.com (m0rtis) Date: Sun Apr 20 02:36:35 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Zombie creation In-Reply-To: <248288.95924.qm@web32406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <6a6bb9960804140851j60cd6f3eof7c4e69f9dc02e29@mail.gmail.com> <248288.95924.qm@web32406.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <49ffd2240804192334tc9158ffv62f14cb7093dec7a@mail.gmail.com> It's not in any published spell, however, you can do so with creative thaumaturgy with the STs approval. On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM, Laura Simpson wrote: > Can death mages add Zombie aspects to their zombies they create per the > aspects they give in the antagonists book? > > In the spell Quicken Corpse it gives rules for adding to acting speed, > initiative, defense and giving the zombies indestructible. It does not, > however, give any rules for additional successes giving additional benefits > like aspects. Can you use additional successes to add aspects to zombies > created using the Quicken Corpse spell, or by using creative thaumaturgy? > > Laura > > > OOC: > Laura Simpson > US2002022887 > VST Mage AR012D, Little Rock, AR > Also known as the Jicama of Evil. > > IC: > Quitalla Montalvio, Circle of the Crone, Hierophant, Primogen > Keeper of Elysium for Little Rock, AR > Kitsune, Thyrsus (Orphan of Proteus), Mysterium > Herald for the Concillium of Little Rock, AR > Poetic License, Ithaeur, Iron Master > Alpha of Necessary Arson > Grendel, Hacker, Ukranian Mafia > > "Real programmers set the universal constants at the start such that the > universe evolves to contain the disk with the data they want." > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > -- Dan Wright US2002021042 Domain Storyteller - OKC http://www.cam-wiki.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080420/a53e34ba/attachment.html From rulesninja at gmail.com Sun Apr 20 23:25:24 2008 From: rulesninja at gmail.com (m0rtis) Date: Sun Apr 20 23:27:28 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] A reminder about Supernal Dispellation / Quell the Spark Message-ID: <49ffd2240804202025k45553482k189f26a728b9a92b@mail.gmail.com> Just as a note, since I've noticed a number of storytellers running this incorrectly. These spells do not work like counterspell, where successes take away from overall potency. These spells must exceed the potency of the spell they're dispelling in order to affect the spell in any way. Example: Mike the Moros is trying to dispell Andy Acanthus' spell. Andy's spell is potency 4. Mike casts Quell the Spark, gaining 3 successes. He fails. He needed 5 successes to dispell Andy's spell. Andy's spell is still potency 4 because Mike did not exceed it's potency. -- Dan Wright US2002021042 Domain Storyteller - OKC http://www.cam-wiki.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080420/1731fe27/attachment.html From mmex at digitalfreaks.org Tue Apr 22 08:36:25 2008 From: mmex at digitalfreaks.org (Mathew Monroe) Date: Tue Apr 22 08:38:37 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] A reminder about Supernal Dispellation / Quell the Spark In-Reply-To: <49ffd2240804202025k45553482k189f26a728b9a92b@mail.gmail.com> References: <49ffd2240804202025k45553482k189f26a728b9a92b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <480DDBC9.9080600@digitalfreaks.org> m0rtis wrote: > Just as a note, since I've noticed a number of storytellers running this > incorrectly. > > These spells do not work like counterspell, where successes take away > from overall potency. > > These spells must exceed the potency of the spell they're dispelling in > order to affect the spell in any way. > > Example: > > Mike the Moros is trying to dispell Andy Acanthus' spell. Andy's spell > is potency 4. Mike casts Quell the Spark, gaining 3 successes. He fails. > He needed 5 successes to dispell Andy's spell. Andy's spell is still > potency 4 because Mike did not exceed it's potency. > More importantly, there is no way to degrade the potency of an existing effect directly. Morals with supernal vision are the only way to do that... Mathew Monroe US2002034186 From delwin at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 09:58:20 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Tue Apr 22 10:00:25 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] A reminder about Supernal Dispellation / Quell the Spark In-Reply-To: <480DDBC9.9080600@digitalfreaks.org> References: <49ffd2240804202025k45553482k189f26a728b9a92b@mail.gmail.com> <480DDBC9.9080600@digitalfreaks.org> Message-ID: <945cfca20804220658p1d679002od3ea0b2aec76fe40@mail.gmail.com> Nope. That one got changed in MET to conform with spell control. Disbelief just keeps accruing successes until it gets more than the potency then 'pop'. 'Unraveling' MET 174 David Sauter US2002021140 On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:36 AM, Mathew Monroe wrote: > m0rtis wrote: > > > Just as a note, since I've noticed a number of storytellers running this > incorrectly. > > > > These spells do not work like counterspell, where successes take away from > overall potency. > > > > These spells must exceed the potency of the spell they're dispelling in > order to affect the spell in any way. > > > > Example: > > > > Mike the Moros is trying to dispell Andy Acanthus' spell. Andy's spell is > potency 4. Mike casts Quell the Spark, gaining 3 successes. He fails. He > needed 5 successes to dispell Andy's spell. Andy's spell is still potency 4 > because Mike did not exceed it's potency. > > > > > > More importantly, there is no way to degrade the potency of an existing > effect directly. Morals with supernal vision are the only way to do that... > > Mathew Monroe > US2002034186 > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- ------ David S From rulesninja at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 17:18:11 2008 From: rulesninja at gmail.com (m0rtis) Date: Tue Apr 22 17:20:18 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Another quick note: Spells as Numina Message-ID: <49ffd2240804221418t1b5f6bdnefed930f9e80a525@mail.gmail.com> Since Spells as Numina is an optional rule in the MET:Awakening book, spirits may no longer employ any spells as Numen. However, there are numen that can be used in: - MET:A - W:tF - Blasphemies - Predators - Book of Spirits (Note: Gifts as Numina are still available) -- Dan Wright US2002021042 Domain Storyteller - OKC http://www.cam-wiki.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080422/48ec5fe4/attachment.html From mmex at digitalfreaks.org Tue Apr 22 21:29:42 2008 From: mmex at digitalfreaks.org (Mathew Monroe) Date: Tue Apr 22 21:31:50 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] A reminder about Supernal Dispellation / Quell the Spark In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804220658p1d679002od3ea0b2aec76fe40@mail.gmail.com> References: <49ffd2240804202025k45553482k189f26a728b9a92b@mail.gmail.com> <480DDBC9.9080600@digitalfreaks.org> <945cfca20804220658p1d679002od3ea0b2aec76fe40@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <480E9106.6020809@digitalfreaks.org> David Sauter wrote: > Nope. That one got changed in MET to conform with spell control. > Disbelief just keeps accruing successes until it gets more than the > potency then 'pop'. > > 'Unraveling' MET 174 > Noted. :) Mathew Monroe US2002034186 From daniel.mald at gmail.com Tue Apr 22 22:37:05 2008 From: daniel.mald at gmail.com (Daniel) Date: Tue Apr 22 22:39:57 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] A reminder about Supernal Dispellation / Quell the Spark In-Reply-To: <49ffd2240804202025k45553482k189f26a728b9a92b@mail.gmail.com> References: <49ffd2240804202025k45553482k189f26a728b9a92b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <7dabbd2c0804221937o3a7579fbx6130c4661a48aead@mail.gmail.com> Nothing degrades the potency of spells except wards, when their potency is breached by a higher potency space spell. Or you could cheat and be a thamavore, I think they could degrade spells. The spiders running around now probably can top. Or be a banisher, they have spells that wear down the potency of a spell. I hope to god that's never approved for PC use. Daniel Maldonado US2004071628 On Sun, Apr 20, 2008 at 10:25 PM, m0rtis wrote: > Just as a note, since I've noticed a number of storytellers running this > incorrectly. > > These spells do not work like counterspell, where successes take away from > overall potency. > > These spells must exceed the potency of the spell they're dispelling in > order to affect the spell in any way. > > Example: > > Mike the Moros is trying to dispell Andy Acanthus' spell. Andy's spell is > potency 4. Mike casts Quell the Spark, gaining 3 successes. He fails. He > needed 5 successes to dispell Andy's spell. Andy's spell is still potency 4 > because Mike did not exceed it's potency. > > > -- > Dan Wright > US2002021042 > Domain Storyteller - OKC > http://www.cam-wiki.org > > > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://cammail.white-wolf.com/pipermail/awakening-rules/attachments/20080422/8582e391/attachment-0001.html From swiftone at swiftone.org Fri Apr 25 08:03:22 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Fri Apr 25 08:05:29 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Dispelling and Area-Affect Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804250503n57097f9u9c9ebc634780866d@mail.gmail.com> Each of the Prime variations of Dispel Magic have: Cost: 1 Mana per spell affected Under Area Affecting (MET:a p150) It describes that with a higher understanding of the Arcana, single target spells can be made area-affecting. If Joe Mage has 3 spells on him, and he's within the area of my AOE Dispel, how does the Mana cost work? 1) I pay 1 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, and it hits all 3 spells. 2) I pay 3 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, because I know it will hit 3 spells. (What if I'm wrong about the number of spells in the AOE? What if I don't pay enough for all the spells there: what happens?) #1 seems the only workable option unless we start randomly picking spells to effect, which doesn't seem AOE, that seems like multi-targeting. Thoughts? Rulings? -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From delwin at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 09:58:47 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Fri Apr 25 10:00:55 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Dispelling and Area-Affect In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804250503n57097f9u9c9ebc634780866d@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804250503n57097f9u9c9ebc634780866d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804250658u1d9b6c20s67c823fe1836f9c9@mail.gmail.com> ... I never caught that. Interesting. It costs 1 mana per spell effected. Conversion to AoE does not overrule this. Thus if you cast an AoE Supernal Disspell and there are 5 spells in it's AoE but you only have 4 mana spent on it then it will only dispel 4 of those spells (assuming of course it has the Potency to do so). This gets really important when dealing with prepared Dispel as you invest the Mana ahead of time. As for which spells it would dispel I would go lowest to highest potency that it can effect. That's how it'll work at ICC this year at least. Caveat: Other ST's may rule differently and I can always rule differently on site if circumstances force it - but I don't right now see how any circumstance could force this ruling to change. David Sauter US2002021140 ICC Awakening Lead, 2007-2008 On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 5:03 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > Each of the Prime variations of Dispel Magic have: > Cost: 1 Mana per spell affected > > Under Area Affecting (MET:a p150) It describes that with a higher > understanding of the Arcana, single target spells can be made > area-affecting. > > If Joe Mage has 3 spells on him, and he's within the area of my AOE > Dispel, how does the Mana cost work? > > 1) I pay 1 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, and it hits > all 3 spells. > 2) I pay 3 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, because I > know it will hit 3 spells. (What if I'm wrong about the number of > spells in the AOE? What if I don't pay enough for all the spells > there: what happens?) > > #1 seems the only workable option unless we start randomly picking > spells to effect, which doesn't seem AOE, that seems like > multi-targeting. > > Thoughts? Rulings? > -- > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > US2003011110 > swiftone@swiftone.org > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- ------ David S From swiftone at swiftone.org Fri Apr 25 10:00:25 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Fri Apr 25 10:02:47 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Re: Dispelling and Area-Affect In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804250503n57097f9u9c9ebc634780866d@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804250503n57097f9u9c9ebc634780866d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804250700h28c7342bgce4fba9bf5dcea4c@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > If Joe Mage has 3 spells on him, and he's within the area of my AOE > Dispel, how does the Mana cost work? > > 1) I pay 1 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, and it hits > all 3 spells. > 2) I pay 3 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, because I > know it will hit 3 spells. I missed: 3) I pay 1 Mana to make it AOE, and as it's not targeted anymore the base cost is 0. as an option -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From delwin at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 11:56:29 2008 From: delwin at gmail.com (David Sauter) Date: Fri Apr 25 11:58:37 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Re: Dispelling and Area-Affect In-Reply-To: <6a6bb9960804250700h28c7342bgce4fba9bf5dcea4c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804250503n57097f9u9c9ebc634780866d@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804250700h28c7342bgce4fba9bf5dcea4c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <945cfca20804250856i10bfb117r9affbe4fa71c2f5c@mail.gmail.com> See I don't see that the cost is tied to it being targeted. It does not say '1 mana per target' but '1 mana per spell'. That said I'm more than happy to hear argument against this position and am willing to reverse if you convince me. David Sauter US2002021140 On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 7:00 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 8:03 AM, Brett Ritter wrote: > > > If Joe Mage has 3 spells on him, and he's within the area of my AOE > > Dispel, how does the Mana cost work? > > > > 1) I pay 1 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, and it hits > > all 3 spells. > > 2) I pay 3 Mana for the spell and 1 Mana to make it AOE, because I > > know it will hit 3 spells. > > I missed: > > 3) I pay 1 Mana to make it AOE, and as it's not targeted anymore the > base cost is 0. > > as an option > > > > -- > Brett Ritter / SwiftOne > US2003011110 > swiftone@swiftone.org > _______________________________________________ > Awakening-rules mailing list > Awakening-rules@cammail.white-wolf.com > http://cammail.white-wolf.com/mailman/listinfo/awakening-rules > -- ------ David S From swiftone at swiftone.org Fri Apr 25 12:03:22 2008 From: swiftone at swiftone.org (Brett Ritter) Date: Fri Apr 25 12:05:30 2008 Subject: [Awakening-rules] Re: Dispelling and Area-Affect In-Reply-To: <945cfca20804250856i10bfb117r9affbe4fa71c2f5c@mail.gmail.com> References: <6a6bb9960804250503n57097f9u9c9ebc634780866d@mail.gmail.com> <6a6bb9960804250700h28c7342bgce4fba9bf5dcea4c@mail.gmail.com> <945cfca20804250856i10bfb117r9affbe4fa71c2f5c@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6a6bb9960804250903g27576cb7jd5d543f9ea28d3f5@mail.gmail.com> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 11:56 AM, David Sauter wrote: > See I don't see that the cost is tied to it being targeted. I'm not convinced either way - as written, I don't think the spell works without the ST making up some stuff. But it's a possible interpretation, so I wanted to list it as well. My understanding of AOE is that it affects everything within the AOE, (perhaps not successfully, but it "hits"). That's incompatible with "1 per". -- Brett Ritter / SwiftOne US2003011110 swiftone@swiftone.org From thebuser at gmail.com Fri Apr 25 12:10:33