Silly Summon Question

[Hugh Neilson]

Assume a character possesses the ability to Summon one specific person. Let's say he's a young wizard who can Summon the spirit of his departed mentor (the necromancy option presented in FREd).

He pays a +1 advantage for Summoning a Specific Being. Presumably, he also pays for his mentor to be Amicable, but I guess that depends on the relationship.

Because he can summon only that one specific spirit, and not "Spirits of the Dead" in general, it seems reasonable the character should get a limitation. After all, he can't talk to his mentor, find out he doesn't know the answer and summon up a different spirit who does. And if something has happened to the one person he can summon, he gets no benefit from these points at all. However, there is no limitation noted in the book, and this one seems pretty obvious.

Is it intended that summoning a single specific being is a +1 advantage over the ability to summon random creatures from a pool, or does the +1 advantage actually represent a character who can select ANY one specific being (eg. Summo the King of Valdoria, expecting King Arkon, but he has been deposed, so start again and Summon Arkon, former King of Valdoria), with a limitation applied if the character's Summon is restricted to one (or more) specific individuals?

Steve, once you provide the rules answer, maybe you can move this to the Discussion board to talk about how the magnitude of the limitation should be (your comments would also be appreciated).

[Steve Long]

No Limitation is available. The power to Summon a specific being is potentially so unbalancing that you pay an Advantage for it, even though it in some ways restricts the character. If you feel like it, you could think of Specific Being (+1) as an amalgam between Specific Being (+1 1/2) and Innate Restrictions Of Summoning One Person (-1/2) -- or whatever values you care to assign. ;)

Moved as requested.

[Hugh Neilson]

These should be GM-defined IMO. How great it is to summon a specific being rather than generic examples depends greatly on who that specific being is.

If I can summon "spirits of the dead", that seems to me more powerful than "summon the spirit of a specific dead person". At least I can keep trying until I get someone with the info I want.

But it would definitely be advantageous to Summon the spirit of someone I know had that info.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
These should be GM-defined IMO. How great it is to summon a specific being rather than generic examples depends greatly on who that specific being is.

If I can summon "spirits of the dead", that seems to me more powerful than "summon the spirit of a specific dead person". At least I can keep trying until I get someone with the info I want.

But it would definitely be advantageous to Summon the spirit of someone I know had that info.

"Summon Spirits of the Dead" gives you no guarantee of getting a spirit who knows anything at all. "Summon Spirit of Akahntant, Chief Librarian of the Akashic Library," guarantees you a spirit with a clearly defined list of skills and abilities that your PC probably knows. If you want to both be able to summon multiple specific beings from a list and/or general beings, advantages and/or power frameworks will let you do it.

It's only a disadvantage if your specific summoned target is useless in a given situation (and situations change) or you get it killed. At that point, a kind GM will let you learn how to summon someone else.

[Fireg0lem]

I've got a question to add on to this thread. Necro the Necromancer can summon any spirit of the dead less than a certain amount of spiritual strength (ie character points). He can choose whose spirit he summons (so long as he has some way of knowing). Is the way to build this with Summon, Any Spirit of the Dead (+1), Summon Specific Being (+1)? If not, what is?

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Fireg0lem
I've got a question to add on to this thread. Necro the Necromancer can summon any spirit of the dead less than a certain amount of spiritual strength (ie character points). He can choose whose spirit he summons (so long as he has some way of knowing). Is the way to build this with Summon, Any Spirit of the Dead (+1), Summon Specific Being (+1)? If not, what is?

That looks right to me.

[JmOz]

On the root of the issue however is the story of "Lenny"

Lenny is a cab driver in NY, a nice friendly guy who can do his job well, but no better or worse than a bunch of other guys.

Well one day he felt weird, he all of a sudden teleported (something he is not capable of doing on himself), it seems the lady he had helped one day (He had seen her in the rain and given her a free ride because she looked so miserable) was a street mage and because of his help she was able to summon him

Now as lenny is a specific person by the book it would require the +1, however common sense says that it should not require it, until he becomes something more extrodinry (If his taxi develops magical powers then yes)

[OddHat]

Originally posted by JmOz
On the root of the issue however is the story of "Lenny"

Lenny is a cab driver in NY, a nice friendly guy who can do his job well, but no better or worse than a bunch of other guys.

Well one day he felt weird, he all of a sudden teleported (something he is not capable of doing on himself), it seems the lady he had helped one day (He had seen her in the rain and given her a free ride because she looked so miserable) was a street mage and because of his help she was able to summon him

Now as lenny is a specific person by the book it would require the +1, however common sense says that it should not require it, until he becomes something more extrodinry (If his taxi develops magical powers then yes)

Why does common sense say that it shouldn't cost a +1 advantage for the mage to always summon Lenny? First off, he's probably a darn cheep summon to begin with, at most a 50 point character. His new master will always know what she's getting with Lenny, and won't have to risk summoning a less competent Taxi Driver. As time goes on they'll develop a relationship, and maybe a kind DM might let Lenny become more useful.

If she spent enough points on summon that Lenny is too weak to waste her time on, then why is she calling him? Let her start calling on someone more powerful to be her chaufer.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by OddHat
Why does common sense say that it shouldn't cost a +1 advantage for the mage to always summon Lenny?

Well I wil answer this by refuting each of your points in turn but simply put, as presented there is little to no extra advantage to being able to summon Lenny over a "NY Cabby"


Originally posted by OddHat
First off, he's probably a darn cheep summon to begin with, at most a 50 point character.

Your right, Lenny is probably not that expensive of a character (However I would peg him at a few points more if you include his cab as a vehicle on the sheet).

HOWEVER that does not matter, as the points you spend on the basic summons should determine the value of the individual in regards to point total. In otherwords if I choose to summon a 50 point fire demeon or a 50 point cab driver the points should cost the same. There should not be a penalty for "This character does not cost much"


Originally posted by OddHat
His new master will always know what she's getting with Lenny, and won't have to risk summoning a less competent Taxi Driver. As time goes on they'll develop a relationship, and maybe a kind DM might let Lenny become more useful.

Your right about not summoning a less competent, but she can also never summon a better one than Lenny either, it is similar to the standard effect where you curtail bad rolls by giveing up exceptional one. Note that the standard effect is a +0 advantage, not a +1.

A Kind GM might, but that is when the advantage starts to make sense, and should be added to that point. As for relationships that is called Role Playing, in my opinion that makes an excelent reason to allow Lenny as a +0 not a +1.


Originally posted by OddHat
If she spent enough points on summon that Lenny is too weak to waste her time on, then why is she calling him? Let her start calling on someone more powerful to be her chaufer.

Ahh but here is the rub of the situation, it is not a matter of wether or not he is to weak for the pionts, it is a matter of making sure the points reflect his usefulness

[OddHat]

Originally posted by JmOz
Well I wil answer this by refuting each of your points in turn but simply put, as presented there is little to no extra advantage to being able to summon Lenny over a "NY Cabby"

SNIP

HOWEVER that does not matter, as the points you spend on the basic summons should determine the value of the individual in regards to point total. In otherwords if I choose to summon a 50 point fire demeon or a 50 point cab driver the points should cost the same. There should not be a penalty for "This character does not cost much"


I think you missed my point. See below.


Originally posted by JmOz
Your right about not summoning a less competent, but she can also never summon a better one than Lenny either, it is similar to the standard effect where you curtail bad rolls by giveing up exceptional one. Note that the standard effect is a +0 advantage, not a +1.
[/B]

If you're not always getting the same character, you have no guarantees as far as the skills, abilities, personality or knowledge of the character that shows up are concerned. Yes, if you paid the points you'll always get a NY city cab driver, probably with minimum AK:NY City and PS: Cab Driver skills of 8 or less and the ability to take directions in English. After that, it's entirely up to the GM how much or little they want the character to be able to do. If on the other hand you've paid the points, you'll always know that Lenny has a given set of skills at a given level, as agreed upon when the character was written up. That isn't a standard effect for this power. For summon, it's a +1. If you don't like it, that's OK. Change it in your campaign.


Originally posted by JmOz
Ahh but here is the rub of the situation, it is not a matter of wether or not he is to weak for the pionts, it is a matter of making sure the points reflect his usefulness [/B]

His point costs do reflect his usefulness. There is only a small advantage to being able to summon Lenny compared to any other NY cab driver, and you'll only pay a few more points for it. There is a considerable advantage to being able to summon Asmodeus, Prince of Hell, as compared to getting just any Greater Devil, which is why you'll pay more points for that. The advantages are proportionately the same, which is why one is a +1 advantage on a 5 or 10 point summon and the other is a +1 advantage on a 100 or 200 point summon.


We're not going to agree on this, which is fine. You say that summoning Lenny is no more useful than summoning a different random 50 point cab driver every time she casts the spell. I say that the combination of always knowing what she's going to get together with the (GM's option) continuity of experience she'll build up with Lenny is worth the few extra points.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Steve Long
No Limitation is available. The power to Summon a specific being is potentially so unbalancing that you pay an Advantage for it, even though it in some ways restricts the character. If you feel like it, you could think of Specific Being (+1) as an amalgam between Specific Being (+1 1/2) and Innate Restrictions Of Summoning One Person (-1/2) -- or whatever values you care to assign. ;)


Oh, well, I've been doing it incorrectly. Since it says "can" Summon a specific individual, I interpreted it to be that you still got a range of possibilities, but could specify which one you wanted on a given use of the Power.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by GamePhil
Oh, well, I've been doing it incorrectly. Since it says "can" Summon a specific individual, I interpreted it to be that you still got a range of possibilities, but could specify which one you wanted on a given use of the Power.

That, to me, makes more sense. If you don't pay the +1, well you get a 50 point NY cab driver. You don't get a 10 point NY cab driver - you paid to summon a 50 point character.

For a +1, you get your pick of NY cab drivers. Normally, I ask for Lenny since I know what I'm getting and I like him. But for this mission, I'm summoning "not Lenny" because I think there's a strong likelihood the cabbie won;t get out alive, and I like Lenny!

This implies there should be a limitation for "can only summon Lenny". Steve's suggestion was that the actual "get a specific person" advantage is higher, but reduced if you can only get that specific person. That's a rational approach as well. But why should the cost to get GRKZT the specific generic Fire Demon be double the cost to get a generic fire demon?

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
But why should the cost to get GRKZT the specific generic Fire Demon be double the cost to get a generic fire demon?

It depends on how much fire demons vary in their knowledge and abilities in your campaign. If all of them have the same powers, the same skills, and the same knowledge and experience, then summoning one specific fire demon isn't an advantage, and you shouldn't spend the points on it. OTOH, the Greater Devil Asmodeus has different skills, powers and knowledge than any other Greater Devil, despite the fact that all greater devils are built on 1000 points and share some powers in common. It is definitely an advantage to be able to summon Asmodeus is a situation where you need his specific knowledge, skills or powers. Same with Lenny. All NY city cab drivers may be built on 50 points, and all of them have roughly equivelant taxi cabs at their disposal. On the other hand, summon Lenny specifically and you know you get his Native Language: English skill and AK: New York City 13 or less. Call for a random 50 point cab driver and you may end up (GMs whim) with Achmed, who only has English: Basic Conversation and AK: New York City 8 or less, and sunk all of his other points into Iraqi soap opera related skills.
That said, I agree that allowing an additional +1/2 advantage: May Summon Any One Specific Cab Driver You Know Of would be perfectly reasonable.

[JmOz]

Thank you for finnaly starting to come around, what I am actualy proposing (Though I have not put it to word yet) is this:

Specific Being: +0 to +1, depending on usefulness, so Lenny the standard Cabby is worth +0, Ben Adreddii the amazing cabby might be worth +1/2, Meter Dan and his Magic cabby might be worth a +1

[OddHat]

Originally posted by JmOz
Thank you for finnaly starting to come around, what I am actualy proposing (Though I have not put it to word yet) is this:

Specific Being: +0 to +1, depending on usefulness, so Lenny the standard Cabby is worth +0, Ben Adreddii the amazing cabby might be worth +1/2, Meter Dan and his Magic cabby might be worth a +1

Nope Jim. ;)

By "additional +1/2 advantage" I meant that being able to pick one specific being was worth +1, being able to pick from a list of tightly related specific beings should be worth +1 for specific beings and in addition +1/2 for the list, or a total of +1.5 for "any one specific NY cab driver." If you want Meter Dan and his Magic Cab, it sounds like he'd be built on more points than Lenny. You'll have to buy a Summon for 200 point Cab Drivers.

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by JmOz
Specific Being: +0 to +1, depending on usefulness, so Lenny the standard Cabby is worth +0, Ben Adreddii the amazing cabby might be worth +1/2, Meter Dan and his Magic cabby might be worth a +1

Perhaps you already mean this, but it should be dependant on the usefulness of the Advantage, not the character.

How to explain this? Let's say that Meter Dan is part of the Mystic Order of Cabbies (this sounds less silly if we're talking demons or unicorns or something, but I digress). Broadly speaking, they all provide the same services. Summoning your buddy Meter Dan specifically is just a role-playing thing, and therefore should not cost any more: the Summoning is only based on his cost and the Amicable Advantage, because his uniqueness as a person gives no game mechanical benefit.

If, however, Meter Dan is the head of the Order, or he's the only being that can provide the benefits he gives, then he has to get the +1 Advantage. It's not fair to charge the +1 Advantage to get Meter Dan if someone else can get exactly the same benefits by summoning a generic member of a type of demon, but if Meter Dan has a monopoly on Instant Transportation, Past Present of Future, then you pay more.

[JmOz]

That is essentialy what I was talking about, except I am including a sliding scale into the equation

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
Nope Jim. ;)

By "additional +1/2 advantage" I meant that being able to pick one specific being was worth +1, being able to pick from a list of tightly related specific beings should be worth +1 for specific beings and in addition +1/2 for the list, or a total of +1.5 for "any one specific NY cab driver." If you want Meter Dan and his Magic Cab, it sounds like he'd be built on more points than Lenny. You'll have to buy a Summon for 200 point Cab Drivers.

So for +1.5, I change from "a random NY cabbie" to "any specific NY cabbie" or from "a random head of state" to "any specific Head of State"? Are these advantages of similar value?

With one, I get to my destination faster. With the other, I can kidnap the head of government of any world nation whenever I want.

Now, I expect the base points will differ, but it seems to me the selective ability on heads of state is worth quite a bit more that selecting my cabbie. I can PHONE Lenny and ask him to specifically come and pick me up. Try calling Tony Blair and asking him how 3 o'clock works for him!

[Hugh Neilson]

The bottom line is that the unwritten corollary to the basic rule of limitations needs to be considered here.

"An advantage that does not actually provide an advantage does not cost points."

[GamePhil]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
"An advantage that does not actually provide an advantage does not cost points."

A corollary used far too infrequently.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
So for +1.5, I change from "a random NY cabbie" to "any specific NY cabbie" or from "a random head of state" to "any specific Head of State"? Are these advantages of similar value?

With one, I get to my destination faster. With the other, I can kidnap the head of government of any world nation whenever I want.

Now, I expect the base points will differ, but it seems to me the selective ability on heads of state is worth quite a bit more that selecting my cabbie. I can PHONE Lenny and ask him to specifically come and pick me up. Try calling Tony Blair and asking him how 3 o'clock works for him!

I agree with some of this, but I'd take the opposite approach. The value of the advantage itself is the same; the difference is all in the base cost of the character summoned. Tony Blair is probably a 300 point summon or more; summoning him specifically is going to cost you 120 points (60 base +60 for the advantage), where as calling Lenny will only cost you 20 (10 base +10 for the advantage). So you did pay more to be able to kidnap a world leader than to be able to call Lenny, and you got more for it. I do agree with your next post.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
The bottom line is that the unwritten corollary to the basic rule of limitations needs to be considered here.

"An advantage that does not actually provide an advantage does not cost points."

Agreed here.

[JmOz]

Originally posted by OddHat
I agree with some of this, but I'd take the oposite approach. The value of the advantage itself is the same; the difference is all in the base cost of the character summoned. Tony Blair is probably a 300 point summon or more; summoning him specifically is going to cost you 120 points (60 base +60 for the advantage), where as calling Lenny will only cost you 20 (10 base +10 for the advantage). So you did pay more to be able to kidnap a world leader than to be able to call Lenny, and you get more for it. I do agree with your next post.

I disagree, most head of states are going be alot less than you seem to think, 15 points in COM/PRE, 30points in perks, 30 in skills, I would be surprised if most even broke 150 points total

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
So for +1.5, I change from "a random NY cabbie" to "any specific NY cabbie" or from "a random head of state" to "any specific Head of State"? Are these advantages of similar value?

By the way, that's not what I wrote. For the base cost of summon you can gat a random NY cabbie, or a random head of state. For +1 you get one specific NY cabbie, or one specific head of state. I suggested (as a house rule) that it would be reasonable to pay +1.5 and get a choice of any specific NY cabbie or head of state. Under the official rules, I'm not sure that's possible without buying a Summon VPP, though I think that the Expanded Class advantage from FREd could be used here.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by JmOz
I disagree, most head of states are going be alot less than you seem to think, 15 points in COM/PRE, 30points in perks, 30 in skills, I would be surprised if most even broke 150 points total

Fair enough, that's the GM's call. He's still worth more base points than the average NY City taxi driver.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by JmOz
I disagree, most head of states are going be alot less than you seem to think, 15 points in COM/PRE, 30points in perks, 30 in skills, I would be surprised if most even broke 150 points total

There's no reason to bel;ieve most heads of state are much more than competent normals. A 150 point character ("Hero") would seem more than adequate to design a world leader.

After all, how many of THEM get their own comic book or movie?

Remember that Hero focuses on adventure gaming, so many skills and perks, and most talents and powers, are combat oriented. Leaders of state don't need combat abilities, so they don't cost much to build. They have "extensive non-combat influence", which comes from that perk "head of state".

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
Fair enough, that's the GM's call. He's still worth more base points than the average NY City taxi driver.

He's not worth that much more. And let's take the comparison further - 150 points would be a ton to build our hypothetical world leader with, so a 30 point summon with a +1.5 advantage to select from a group of world leader makes 75 points. Or we can buy a similar summon to get a specific 150 point fire demon.

Compare this to the power to Summon a (random) 300 point Fire Demon who's friendly, so will do what you request within reason. Same cost - 60 points and a +1/4 advantage to make him Amicable. Which ability is more useful?

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
He's not worth that much more. And let's take the comparison further - 150 points would be a ton to build our hypothetical world leader with, so a 30 point summon with a +1.5 advantage to select from a group of world leader makes 75 points. Or we can buy a similar summon to get a specific 150 point fire demon.

Compare this to the power to Summon a (random) 300 point Fire Demon who's friendly, so will do what you request within reason. Same cost - 60 points and a +1/4 advantage to make him Amicable. Which ability is more useful?

Now this is just getting silly. :)

I have no problem with whatever house rules you like to use, and I've explained why I mostly agree with the rules as published on this. If you disagree, that's cool: neither of us are in the same campaigns.

If your GM were willing to let you build the "Summon Tony Blair" power, I'd say that would be a hell of a lot more powerful in most circumstances than "Summon Random Fire Demon." After all, Tony Blair could call on a heck of a lot of additional resources for your character. If I were GMing, and I permitted that power, I'd build Tony Blair on quite a few points to reflect that, mostly puting the points into bases, vehicles, followers (including British supers), whatever. You could do much of the same thing with just the Head of State perk, but considering what the player would actually be able to do in game over the long term with control over a head of state it would be very, very unballanced.

The real question is whether the random fire demon is more valuable than the specific named fire demon. I'm guessing that your position is that if you've spent the same number of points on both then they should be equally valuable. Cool, that makes sense. If you then say that the number of benefits you get from a 150 point random fire demon are greater than the benefits you get from a 75 point named fire demon, I'd say that the problem is with the use you and the GM plan to make of the demon. If you just want a fire-demon shock trooper, a random fire demon will do the job better for the same points. If you want a weak fire demon with specific skills and knowledges (and maybe powers) that are useful in a given situation, that's what the Summon Specific Being advantage is for. At the same point cost for the power he should be just about as useful, though probably in a different way. If you want someone who is both a kick-ass shock trooper and possessed of specific and controllable knowledge and skills that will have an impact on the game, he should cost more, otherwise you're getting something for nothing.

If it wouldn't make a difference in your campaign, that's fine. That's what house rules are for.

[Crimson Arrow]

Now this is the cup of a carpenter, er, an interesting argument.

Do you get a less powerful character than you have paid points for? For example, Wilbur can summon riding horses. Sometimes they are black, sometimes brown, or piebald or whatever. However, each of them has the same characteristics, powers, disadvantages. Do you ever get a horse that's lame, or bad-tempered etc? IIRC, the answer (subject to house rules), is "no". You've paid the points, you get what you've paid for.

Now, what if Wilbur can summon Mr Ed? This is not a special horse; he's just the same as all of the other riding horses.

Why should it cost more to get a named horse, which is identical to others? I think talking about characters is misleading, as of course Lenny might have his points distributed differently from Bud (who's younger and fitter, not so good at knowing the best routes round town, but still only costs 50 points).

The benefit of specifying a named individual is if that individual has special powers, skills, contacts, knowledge etc. which makes him particularly useful. Also, the character can (generally) only be in one place at a time.

If Wilbur summons the TV Mr Ed, who can speak, not only is he more points (no Animal Intelligence Disadvantage, higher INT etc), but he costs more because he is effectively unique. He's a talking horse.

My take (and yes, this would not be official), is that if you summon somebody or an animal who is familiar to you and therefore there are advantages (eg you don't need time to get the horse friendly), maybe that is an Advantage in game terms. However, you've already (probably) paid for the creature to be amicable, so that points begin to add up, for no real game benefit. For example, Lenny says, "Oh great, my wife'll kill me. Where are we off to this time?" instead of you having to explain everything to Joe Newbod. Even a +1/2 seems a little costly for this kind of benefit, bearing in mind amicability plus the fact that the length of conversations is unlikely to matter much, especially out of combat.

I would be in favour of a sliding scale for the level of the advantage, dependant upon how useful it is to be able to summon the named character.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
Now this is just getting silly. :)
If your GM were willing to let you build the "Summon Tony Blair" power, I'd say that would be a hell of a lot more powerful in most circumstances than "Summon Random Fire Demon." After all, Tony Blair could call on a heck of a lot of additional resources for your character. If I were GMing, and I permitted that power, I'd build Tony Blair on quite a few points to reflect that, mostly puting the points into bases, vehicles, followers (including British supers), whatever. You could do much of the same thing with just the Head of State perk, but considering what the player would actually be able to do in game over the long term with control over a head of state it would be very, very unballanced.

The Summoned creature should clearly be built on a point base which is appropriate to his power/usefulness in the game. And the summoner pays for that extra-powerful character. If his Summon is 1 point, standard human, he doesn't get Tony Blair - he's clearly got more points than "nil balance".

But if he's paid for the ability to summon a 150 point human instead, he should get a 150 point human. The Summon should be somewhat better defined (which is why it works better with summoning generic creatures). But why should my "Summon spirit of Mentor" power cost twice as much as your "Summon spirit of a random knowledgeable wizard power when we both get the same effects? As pointed out elsewhere, if the only advantage is that the "specific person" is amicable, either I must have paid for "amicable", or I will quickly wear out his good feelings by constantly bugging him.

The ability to select ANY specific person from your potential summonees is clearly a big advantage, well worth the +1. The ability to summon only one specific entity, rather than a broad range, is a restriction. Going back to my "specific wizard versus generic wizard spirit", if I use my Summon and ask about the Talisman of Iq'Kwerty, and my mentor says "never heard of it", I'm out of luck

Your randomly summoned spirit says "No, never heard of it", so you say "Oh well - thanks anyway! Back you go" and call up a different one, until you get an answer. Assuming the information would be known by a reasonable subset of "knowledgeable wizards", you'll get an answer eventually. I won't.

If this is knowledge our group wouldn't have (eg. a question about fencing styles), neither of us will get an answer - that's the limitation of the Summon we selected, and we need a broader group (like "all spirits of the dead") to get beyond that limit.

Which of us has the power which should cost more points, the guy who gets one chance, or the guy who gets to keep trying until he gets what he wants.

But, you say, My character knows exactly what he gets - perhaps my mentor is an expert in spell research and knows little about magic objects. Advantageous? Well, I guess I know to save the END and not summon him to ask my question - is that worth +1? What would truly be advantageous to the point of making it worth doubling the cost would be the ability to select from a pool of Knowledgeable Wizards, and pick one I know (or who was reputed to be) expert in magical artifacts.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
The Summoned creature should clearly be built on a point base which is appropriate to his power/usefulness in the game. And the summoner pays for that extra-powerful character. If his Summon is 1 point, standard human, he doesn't get Tony Blair - he's clearly got more points than "nil balance".

But if he's paid for the ability to summon a 150 point human instead, he should get a 150 point human.


I agree with all of this. Before dropping the Tony blair example, I'd ask just how useful having a head of state is going to be in your game, to your player. That determines the base points on which you (as GM) would build the summoned NPC. If Tony Blair doesn't bring much more benefit to the summoner than a valuable hostage, then in game you could make a case that he's only worth 150 points or less. If summoning and controling Tony Blair gives your PC effective control over much of the government and military of the UK, including intelligence services, campaign specific special resources, etc, then Tony is worth a hell of a lot of base points.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
The Summon should be somewhat better defined (which is why it works better with summoning generic creatures). But why should my "Summon spirit of Mentor" power cost twice as much as your "Summon spirit of a random knowledgeable wizard power when we both get the same effects?
[/B]

If they have the same effects (in most likely in game situations), there's no advantage. I said the same thing in an earlier post.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
As pointed out elsewhere, if the only advantage is that the "specific person" is amicable, either I must have paid for "amicable", or I will quickly wear out his good feelings by constantly bugging him.
[/B]

I didn't suggest that the main advantage should ever be that the spirit was amicable. I did mention continuity of experience, but that's a different issue.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
The ability to select ANY specific person from your potential summonees is clearly a big advantage, well worth the +1. The ability to summon only one specific entity, rather than a broad range, is a restriction.
[/B]

Or, as Steve Long posted, it's a -1/2 restriction on the original +1.5 advantage. That's why I suggested allowing players to take a +1.5 summon any specific individual advantage.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Going back to my "specific wizard versus generic wizard spirit", if I use my Summon and ask about the Talisman of Iq'Kwerty, and my mentor says "never heard of it", I'm out of luck

Your randomly summoned spirit says "No, never heard of it", so you say "Oh well - thanks anyway! Back you go" and call up a different one, until you get an answer. Assuming the information would be known by a reasonable subset of "knowledgeable wizards", you'll get an answer eventually. I won't.
[/B]

This is kind-of valid. On the other hand, there are always situations where a given power would be more or less useful. If your GM wants to make your +1 Summon Mentor worthwhile compared to Summon Knowledgeable Wizard, he should probably allow for situations where your mentor has knowledge that is very applicable to a given situation. I admit that it's a bit of a kludge to say that the GM should find a way to make something worthwhile. On the other hand, that's true with almost all non-combat skills. Why spend points on stealth / lipreading / universal translator / whatever if it's not going to be useful in a campaign? The answer is that it would be a waste of points in that campaign, but that doesn't mean that it should be free in the standard rules.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
If this is knowledge our group wouldn't have (eg. a question about fencing styles), neither of us will get an answer - that's the limitation of the Summon we selected, and we need a broader group (like "all spirits of the dead") to get beyond that limit.

Which of us has the power which should cost more points, the guy who gets one chance, or the guy who gets to keep trying until he gets what he wants.
[/B]

A fair question. Maybe the GM goofed by permitting a category like "Spirits of Knowledgeable Wizards" that was, in his campaign, more powerful for the same puposes than a more expensive power.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
But, you say, My character knows exactly what he gets - perhaps my mentor is an expert in spell research and knows little about magic objects. Advantageous? Well, I guess I know to save the END and not summon him to ask my question - is that worth +1?
[/B]

If there are other circumstances where he is more useful (as there should be if the GM green lighted the power), then yes.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
What would truly be advantageous to the point of making it worth doubling the cost would be the ability to select from a pool of Knowledgeable Wizards, and pick one I know (or who was reputed to be) expert in magical artifacts. [/B]

Yep. I'd say that would be a +1.5 advantage. ;)

[Jinx999]

I wouldn't do "Summon the Spirit of my Dead Mentor" as a summon at all. I'd do it as a contact or ally, with the summon part as a special effect. As far as I can tell, the whole point of this power is to be able to call on your teacher for advice.

[DoItHTH]

Wouldn't only being able to summon a specific being be balance out by the fact that they can be injured and killed?

If we accept the +1 advantage to limit summon to an individual how much of a disadvantage would you give for "must be allowed to heal fully or comes hurt." To me this would be a -1 limitation.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by DoItHTH
Wouldn't only being able to summon a specific being be balance out by the fact that they can be injured and killed?

If we accept the +1 advantage to limit summon to an individual how much of a disadvantage would you give for "must be allowed to heal fully or comes hurt." To me this would be a -1 limitation.

That's a tough one as well. IMO the advantage was designed for people summoning specific spirits of the dead to learn their secrets, greater demon princes to work a deal, a specific Djinn to ask for a wish, a specific loa to ride a character or npc, etc. Most of these are non-combat situations. If you plan to use the power in combat, at a guess the GM might;
1) Ask you to stick to summoning generic spirits and beasts as cannon fodder.
2) Tell you to suck up the lost points if your specific summon gets killed, as if it were a follower.
3) Allow you to learn to summon something new worth the same number of points, just as he might let you replace a dead follower with someone new.

[Gary]

One advantage to summoning specific being is that it's much harder to dispel them (more active points). You're much more likely to keep your summons around.

Summoning specific being could be extremely unbalancing, since you could start summoning specific enemies and keeping them out of combat or killing them.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
That's a tough one as well. IMO the advantage was designed for people summoning specific spirits of the dead to learn their secrets, greater demon princes to work a deal, a specific Djinn to ask for a wish, a specific loa to ride a character or npc, etc.

The description indicates that the advantage should be allowed only for summoning deceased beings (Kid Eternity, anyone, or Necromancy) or has been precisely located with some other power.

Hence my "spirits of the dead" example.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by OddHat
I agree with all of this. Before dropping the Tony blair example, I'd ask just how useful having a head of state is going to be in your game, to your player. That determines the base points on which you (as GM) would build the summoned NPC. If Tony Blair doesn't bring much more benefit to the summoner than a valuable hostage, then in game you could make a case that he's only worth 150 points or less. If summoning and controling Tony Blair gives your PC effective control over much of the government and military of the UK, including intelligence services, campaign specific special resources, etc, then Tony is worth a hell of a lot of base points.

This seems to highlight at least some of the problem. Summon was designed (or so it seems) to summon creatures to aid you in combat. Summon was introduced in Fantasy Hero (many editions ago) presumably to match the Summoning spells available in other fantasy RPG's. It wasn't created (at least initially) to let you, for example, create lions with your Power Ring, or Summon a head of state.

Oh, and if I can summon "Tony Blair", what happens if, in campaign, he is killed or retires from politics? Do I get points back? If I choose the generic "PM of Great Britain", I have a useless power if a new PM with a higher point base is elected, or I lose some points for no reason if he has a lower point base.

If they have the same effects (in most likely in game situations), there's no advantage. I said the same thing in an earlier post.[/QUOTE]

Lenny the Cabbie vs any other NY cabbie. Dead mentor vs. a random experienced wizard. The rules indicate there is an advantage - it is +1.

I didn't suggest that the main advantage should ever be that the spirit was amicable. I did mention continuity of experience, but that's a different issue.[/QUOTE]

Now that you mention continuity of experience, Amicable notes even a devoted being can have their loyalty strained. Would you rather have the ability to ditch your (now not so loyal) summoned creature and get a new one? Can't do that if you only Summon the same one over and over (ie a specific being), can you?

Or, as Steve Long posted, it's a -1/2 restriction on the original +1.5 advantage. That's why I suggested allowing players to take a +1.5 summon any specific individual advantage.[/QUOTE]

Actually, Steve posted the assertion that "specific being" was made up of an advantage and a limitation. He used +1/2, but seemed to indicate he hadn't considered the relative values.

To me, moving from "You can only summon this one being" to "you can summon any being in the pool" merits more than an added 1/2 advantage.

This is kind-of valid. On the other hand, there are always situations where a given power would be more or less useful. If your GM wants to make your +1 Summon Mentor worthwhile compared to Summon Knowledgeable Wizard, he should probably allow for situations where your mentor has knowledge that is very applicable to a given situation. I admit that it's a bit of a kludge to say that the GM should find a way to make something worthwhile. On the other hand, that's true with almost all non-combat skills. Why spend points on stealth / lipreading / universal translator / whatever if it's not going to be useful in a campaign? The answer is that it would be a waste of points in that campaign, but that doesn't mean that it should be free in the standard rules.[/QUOTE]

I don't see any cases where moving quietly/reading lips /speaking and understanding any language is a disadvantage. There are lots of examples where being restricted to one specific being, rather than having access to the whole pool (even at random) is a drawback, and very few where it is an advantage.

Sometimes, a Disadvantage or a Limitation works to your advantage, but if it acts to your advantage more often than not, it stops being a point saver and you need to pay points for it. Similarly, if an advantage doesn't carry a benefit, it should cost points.

A fair question. Maybe the GM goofed by permitting a category like "Spirits of Knowledgeable Wizards" that was, in his campaign, more powerful for the same puposes than a more expensive power.[/QUOTE]

I think the rule book goofed by charging the character a +1 advantage for something that actually limits the effectiveness of his power.

If there are other circumstances where he is more useful (as there should be if the GM green lighted the power), then yes.[/QUOTE]

This sounds like the GM should only allow the +1 advantage if the benefits actually justify the point cost. Wouldn't it be simpler to just allow a sliding scale for the advantage, so the cost of the power would depend on its utility?

[Hugh Neilson]

Perhaps we need to re-examine the Summon paradigm. In my view, it was designed for "combat helpers" where significant variance was not hugely advantageous. Getting "White Fang" instead of a generic wolf made no difference if their stats were the same.

Perhaps "specific being" should be +1/4 to +1, similar to the handling of expanded class. +1/4 would permit the summoner to select one specific being he may summon instead of a random pick. +1 would permit any specific being from the class available (within the point limits, of course). Not sure how 1/2 and +3/4 would work, or if these are even needed.

If the character restricts the pool, he should get a limitation.How about -1 for this specific being" assuming he can be replaced if he dies. Note that I get +1 for "any wolf" and -1 for "only that wolf until he dies" for a net nil - Summon Generic Wolf is identical, and should cost the same. If he's irreplaceable, a further -2 might apply (ie he's "expendable"/"independent), to reflect the fact I can lose these points permanently if something bad happens to my "summonee".

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
But if he's paid for the ability to summon a 150 point human instead, he should get a 150 point human. The Summon should be somewhat better defined (which is why it works better with summoning generic creatures). But why should my "Summon spirit of Mentor" power cost twice as much as your "Summon spirit of a random knowledgeable wizard power when we both get the same effects? As pointed out elsewhere, if the only advantage is that the "specific person" is amicable, either I must have paid for "amicable", or I will quickly wear out his good feelings by constantly bugging him.

The ability to select ANY specific person from your potential summonees is clearly a big advantage, well worth the +1. The ability to summon only one specific entity, rather than a broad range, is a restriction. Going back to my "specific wizard versus generic wizard spirit", if I use my Summon and ask about the Talisman of Iq'Kwerty, and my mentor says "never heard of it", I'm out of luck

Your randomly summoned spirit says "No, never heard of it", so you say "Oh well - thanks anyway! Back you go" and call up a different one, until you get an answer. Assuming the information would be known by a reasonable subset of "knowledgeable wizards", you'll get an answer eventually. I won't.


I think part of the problem is differing assumptions over the base nature of the power, and the nature of the fact that you are summoning from a “group” of something. Personally, I assume that at the base level that the group has to be so homogenized that there is no in game benefit from pulling the “I Summon this one, and if he doesn’t know what I want I’ll Dispel him and Summon another trick.” That if you are building a base generic Summon power with no advantages on it and the characters summoned with it have any KS’s, a single KS roll pretty much covers all uses of Summon for that question. Also you would never just through “random” chance get the specific individual you needed to answer a question. To be exact if there were such a chance of that happening, than the group is inherently too diverse to qualify for the base level of Summon. For me the potential for abusive Summon constructs is too great if I were to allow a base “Summon Spirits of Dead Wizards” as anything other than an expanded class. I might even require it to have both Specific Individuals and expanded class, but that would depend on a lot of factors.

I think the putting the advantage on Summon specific being is to discourage attempts to effectively build a follower with an unlimited teleport/EDM, and/or with limitations. Summon specific being has the potential to be extremely powerful, since it can be used to create a teleport/EDM usable as an attack effect that is virtually limitless in range and does not require an attack roll.

[DoItHTH]

hmmm 2x the cost to have a summon that can be a plot aid seems silly. A GM probably wont create a plot limited on a players ability to summon someone with specific powers or knowledge. There would most likely be a work around.

Ok I admit that I like the hack-n-slash and design mostly with combat in mind. Summoning a specific being that could die or be hurt is, to me, more limiting than the base power. This limitation more then makes up for some small advantage to plot development which the GM would provide anyway. Hmmm ok if ressurection and full heals are thrown in then you are getting close to the value of the base power. So you have something like this.

1) summon generic being (+0)

2) summon specific being who comes in the same condition he was at last time only modfied by normal healing (+0)

3) summon specific being who comes ressurected and fully healed (+1)

Do these not sound balanced? So then is the full heal implied in the advantage?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by DoItHTH

1) summon generic being (+0)

2) summon specific being who comes in the same condition he was at last time only modfied by normal healing (+0)

3) summon specific being who comes ressurected and fully healed (+1)

Do these not sound balanced? So then is the full heal implied in the advantage?

But "Summon generic creature" pretty much means it always shows up fully healed, so I'm paying +1 to get a specific wolf that comes wounded, instead of a generic creature with exactly the same stats. This is where the problem lies.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris
I think part of the problem is differing assumptions over the base nature of the power, and the nature of the fact that you are summoning from a “group” of something. Personally, I assume that at the base level that the group has to be so homogenized that there is no in game benefit from pulling the “I Summon this one, and if he doesn’t know what I want I’ll Dispel him and Summon another trick.” That if you are building a base generic Summon power with no advantages on it and the characters summoned with it have any KS’s, a single KS roll pretty much covers all uses of Summon for that question. Also you would never just through “random” chance get the specific individual you needed to answer a question. To be exact if there were such a chance of that happening, than the group is inherently too diverse to qualify for the base level of Summon.

Restricting to one knowledge roll seems reasonable. But this means I either pay +1/4 to broaden the group (or up to +1 to summon anything I want) and get to keep chaning my choice until I get my answer, or pay +1 for Specific being and get one roll only. Where's the advantage?

For me the potential for abusive Summon constructs is too great if I were to allow a base “Summon Spirits of Dead Wizards” as anything other than an expanded class. I might even require it to have both Specific Individuals and expanded class, but that would depend on a lot of factors.[/QUOTE]

See, there's the problem in a nutshell - there is no "specific individuals" advantage. There is only "Specific Individual" - you get this one guy, and that's it. If +1 allowed you to choose any specific individual from your chosen class, this would be worth the points. In fact, maybe the advantage should be based on the class available.

No expanded class = no ability to summon specific individuals - they're generic. "Summon anything" means a further +1 advantage to select the specific "anything" rather than a random generic "whatever you summoned".

I think the putting the advantage on Summon specific being is to discourage attempts to effectively build a follower with an unlimited teleport/EDM, and/or with limitations. Summon specific being has the potential to be extremely powerful, since it can be used to create a teleport/EDM usable as an attack effect that is virtually limitless in range and does not require an attack roll. [/QUOTE]

Duplication can generate the follower effect quite nicely. All Summon really does is bring you a follower, assuming it's amicable - which is an advantage.

I think the bigger issue is the "I summon Grond here now that we're all ready to Push and fire on where he will appear" construct - one which should clearly be disallowed anyway, not simply "Oh, I paid the +1 advantage so I can do this."

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Restricting to one knowledge roll seems reasonable. But this means I either pay +1/4 to broaden the group (or up to +1 to summon anything I want) and get to keep chaning my choice until I get my answer, or pay +1 for Specific being and get one roll only. Where's the advantage? .

No, you misunderstood me the expanded classes is not what would be giving you the additional roll. “Spirits of Dead Wizards” by my interpretation of the rules is an inherently expanded class. I would still not let you get an unlimited number of rolls for just having the expanded class, nor would I let you keep Summoning until the particular Dead Wizard you want shows up. I find both tactics abusive, and not in keeping with the rules as written.

Now your interpretation is valid and there is certainly a strong case for it, but it is not the only interpretation. My interpretation is that inherently Summon is for “generic” creatures and beings. It is used to bring in your basic “mooks”, “thugs”, and “cannon fodder”. If you want something more interesting than a “faceless drone” as an individual you have to apply the Specific Being Advantage, and accept that you only get one. (e.g. In my game you could Summon “dogs” and you would get a different “generic” dog each time, but that dog would never (or so rarely as to be as good as) be your pet collie “Lassie”, even though she is built on the appropriate number of points. Alternatively, you could choose to pay the +1 Advantage to be able to Summon “Lassie”, but you would never get any other dog.) The I’ll keep summoning the “Spirits of Dead Playwrights” until I get William Shakespeare, so we can ask him who really wrote his plays stunt just does not fit with my interpretation of the rules. Summon, can not do that inherently. You will never get from basic summoning someone or something that has a value in and of itself.

Since inherently the “Spirits of Dead Wizards” are all unique individuals and not generic. The only way that I would allow you to use Summon the way you’ve been describing is with both the Expanded Class (at the +1 level) and the Specific Being advantage. I would house rule that in conjunction those two advantages together could produce the results that you’ve been describing as the base effect of Summon. I would probably, let you get a limitation put on it for restricting it to a certain group, and the fact that you get a random one each time you use the power, but the Active Cost and END should be higher do to the potential abuse of the power.



See, there's the problem in a nutshell - there is no "specific individuals" advantage. There is only "Specific Individual" - you get this one guy, and that's it. If +1 allowed you to choose any specific individual from your chosen class, this would be worth the points. In fact, maybe the advantage should be based on the class available.

No expanded class = no ability to summon specific individuals - they're generic. "Summon anything" means a further +1 advantage to select the specific "anything" rather than a random generic "whatever you summoned".

Well, you see, I don’t see where there is an expanded class “anything”. I see an expanded class “any type of being”, which is a fine distinction. Even at the +1 class level, I still rule that you are limited to generic types and not unique types. You could summon a dog, a demon, or a robot. You would not be summoning a randomly selected dog, demon, or robot from all in existence.



Duplication can generate the follower effect quite nicely. All Summon really does is bring you a follower, assuming it's amicable - which is an advantage.

You’re right, Duplication can generate a follower quite nicely, when you apply a +1 advantage for the duplicate not being identical. You can do it with the lesser levels of the advantage, depending on how much like your character you want your follower to be, but it is a trade off I can live with. I seriously think you are underestimating the benefits of bringing you that follower. Since there are no mechanical limits that inherently prevent summoning, except the summoner being subject to an adjustment power. You have a way to instantly rescue the follower from pretty much anything. Heck, just as an exercise, try building the teleport and EDM that you would need to build for a follower to come to your character the way Summons allows them to. You also have the ability to apply limitations to the cost of the follower.



I think the bigger issue is the "I summon Grond here now that we're all ready to Push and fire on where he will appear" construct - one which should clearly be disallowed anyway, not simply "Oh, I paid the +1 advantage so I can do this."

Yeah, but if I have Summon “Mutated four-arm monstrosities” or “super powered beings”, can I keep using and dispelling the Summon, until Grond appears for my team to pummel away on?

[Blue Jogger]

Where the +1 might have come from.

The main idea of Summon a Specific Being was not to summon Tony Blair (if only he knew). I believe, the main idea was really to allow reverse teleport of Stuff (Vehicles, Extra-dimenisonal Headquarters, Followers, etc) to the heroes location. This is far more powerful than summoning standard stuff, because it's your stuff, one way or another...

GM: "Mr. Blair says he's not coming, and nothing you can do will change his mind, he slams the phone down."
Player: "I use my new Summon Tony Blair spell...."
GM: "As you complete your spell, there is a puff of smoke and Mr. Blair stands before you wearing nothing but pajamas, shaking as if you pulled him through the gates of Hell, twice."
Player: "Ah. So glad you could join us."

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris
Now your interpretation is valid and there is certainly a strong case for it, but it is not the only interpretation. My interpretation is that inherently Summon is for “generic” creatures and beings. It is used to bring in your basic “mooks”, “thugs”, and “cannon fodder”.

I think we're on the same page here - if I choose to Summon Dogs, I set the point value of my dog. I probably pick a combat-effectove dog, so I don't get a miniature french poodle. I get basically the same dog every time - color, gender, etc. vary, but it has more or less the same stats (note that the rules envision only very minor statistical changes for basic Summons, with examnples topping out at shifting half a dozen character points).

If you want something more interesting than a “faceless drone” as an individual you have to apply the Specific Being Advantage, and accept that you only get one. (e.g. In my game you could Summon “dogs” and you would get a different “generic” dog each time, but that dog would never (or so rarely as to be as good as) be your pet collie “Lassie”, even though she is built on the appropriate number of points. Alternatively, you could choose to pay the +1 Advantage to be able to Summon “Lassie”, but you would never get any other dog.) [/QUOTE]

The issue to me is "Lassie" versus "generic dog". If you paid to summon a 75 point dog, and Lassie is a 150 point dog, you will NEVER get Lassie - you didn't pay the points. If you paid the points to summon a 150 point dog, what is the game advantage to getting the same color, gender, etc. dog every time ("Lassie")? I don't see this as worth double the points. Note that the dog is no friendlier - you must pay for "amicable", regardless of whether you summon a specific being or a generic "dog".

The I’ll keep summoning the “Spirits of Dead Playwrights” until I get William Shakespeare, so we can ask him who really wrote his plays stunt just does not fit with my interpretation of the rules. Summon, can not do that inherently. You will never get from basic summoning someone or something that has a value in and of itself. [/QUOTE]

I think it twists the rules greatly - I would suggest that, to get "William Shakespeare" specifically of all those possibilities merits an advantage. However, if you can summon generic spirits of the dead (rather than a specific spirit of the dead), their knowledge should logically vary.

ASIDE: Why you would use Summon Spirit of the Dead instead of simulating this with a Knowledge skill bonus, maybe with some limitations, would be a good question. With the cost of a Summon, you could get a pretty good skill bonus.

[/B]Since inherently the “Spirits of Dead Wizards” are all unique individuals and not generic. The only way that I would allow you to use Summon the way you’ve been describing is with both the Expanded Class (at the +1 level) and the Specific Being advantage.[/B][/QUOTE]

So presumably you think that this is worth three times the cost of "summon generic dead wizard". To me, the generic "Summon" gets basically the same generic character sheet every time. Room for customization is, as noted for the base power, very limited, if at all. To get more room for customization, you buy "expanded class" - now I can summon any type of dog, so some statistical variance is possible, but I get a generic dog of the species I choose. Moving up the charts to +1, I can summon a generic **anything** at +1. Summon Human? Sure. Summon Circus Ringmaster? I suppose - depends on SFX. Summon PT Barnum? No.

[/B] I would house rule that in conjunction those two advantages together could produce the results that you’ve been describing as the base effect of Summon. I would probably, let you get a limitation put on it for restricting it to a certain group, and the fact that you get a random one each time you use the power, but the Active Cost and END should be higher do to the potential abuse of the power.[/B][/QUOTE]

If I'm reading you right, we're getting a lot closer to the same page here. I would buy Summon, +1 advantage "Anything" expanded class, +1 "specific person". Now I can basically choose anyone I want (within my point limit, of course). Then I limit the potential choices to a specific group and a random choice, so my actual cost comes back into line.

However, the actual rule is "Specific being" means you summon one, and only one, specific being. My position at the outaset is that we restrict the generic "spirits of dead wizards" to all having identical stats (and, absent an advantage, they would) and "you get one knowledge roll and that's it" (which should also be the case - guven the spirit serves little other purpose, he's likely got a high enough roll that most knowledge is a given anyway). That said, however, I fail to see how saying "I only summon one dead wizard - he has the same stats as the generic dead wizard, but his name is "Wilberforce", he has a thick scottish brogue, he has a long white braided beard and always wears a kilt" means the power should be doubled in cost. It's probably no more limiting - how do you kill someone who's already dead anyway? But it also carries no benefits whatsoever - it's a special effect. As such, it should not carry an extra cost.

Similarly, I believe the advantages and drawbacks of "Only summon this specific being" instead of "summon a generic being of this type" balance out - assuming the "specific being" has the same point cost, is as amicable, etc., as the "generic being". As such, ot should carry no extra cost. However, the ability to select between specific beings at will DOES carry a significant advantage, and is worth the +1 advantage. I also agree with FREd that the ability should generally be restricted in some fashion - "rescue the Princess" is a lot easier when I say "No Problem - Summon the Princess", but that's a matter of game construct and genre (eg. "no telepathy because it's a mystery campaign"), not point balance.

[Hugh Neilson]

Getting long - Part II


Originally posted by caris
Well, you see, I don’t see where there is an expanded class “anything”. I see an expanded class “any type of being”, which is a fine distinction. Even at the +1 class level, I still rule that you are limited to generic types and not unique types. You could summon a dog, a demon, or a robot. You would not be summoning a randomly selected dog, demon, or robot from all in existence.

I agree with the game mechanic - "any type of being" is basically generic. My disagreement is whether +1 "specific being" should mean "only that one specific being may ever be summoned" or "you may choose to summon any specific being within your available class". In my view, to be a +1 advantage, the ability should be "You may select any Summonee desired from your available class within your maximum point total". Perhaps this is only a duplicate of the original (Green Lantern making a power ring lion, for example). Perhaps (and this is a power that should be examined carefully and easily abused) it is a magic spell that summone the real person. "Good evening, Mr. Blair."


You’re right, Duplication can generate a follower quite nicely, when you apply a +1 advantage for the duplicate not being identical. You can do it with the lesser levels of the advantage, depending on how much like your character you want your follower to be, but it is a trade off I can live with.

A completely different duplicate of a 350 point character costs 140 points. The duplicate costs no END to create, but takes a full phase to create, and another to recombine (IIRC). If the duplicate dies, your points are lost.

Let's use Summon instead. Start at 70 points so I can Summon the "duplicate" to begin with. Make him slavishly loyal, because (like my duplicate) he's under my control. That's +1. It's a "Specific Person", so that's another +1. There are some other differences (time to create/combine duplicate; END cost for Summon), but let's assume these balance out.

If "Only this specific person" costs +1, it costs 210 points as a Summon, or 140 for Duplication. If "Specific person" and "can only summon this one specific person" balance out to +0, it costs 140 - exactly the same as Duplication. This seems reasonable to me, since it creates exactly the same effect.


I seriously think you are underestimating the benefits of bringing you that follower. Since there are no mechanical limits that inherently prevent summoning, except the summoner being subject to an adjustment power. You have a way to instantly rescue the follower from pretty much anything. Heck, just as an exercise, try building the teleport and EDM that you would need to build for a follower to come to your character the way Summons allows them to. You also have the ability to apply limitations to the cost of the follower.

Assuming a 70 point follower, you have 70 points to work with under my logic (the +1 advantage to make the Summoned being slavishly loyal, or to make him a duplicate), or 140 points under your model. Teleport with Trigger ("When I snap my fingers, you will return")? Slap it in a multipower starting with ordinary teleport and, say, 16x noncombat, and work your way down through various Megascale options, add an EDM slot, and I think you'll find it can be done for 70 points, remembering that it only works on one person (that's got to be a -2 limitation).


Yeah, but if I have Summon “Mutated four-arm monstrosities” or “super powered beings”, can I keep using and dispelling the Summon, until Grond appears for my team to pummel away on?

Which is why "select a specific person" should be a very carefully examined advantage. If I can ONLY summon grond, I can only beat him up so many times. Yeah, I took Grond off the streets, but I've got no real points left to be effective against anyone else.

Note that, even if one accepts the "Summon brings a randomly selected real person", structure, the odds of getting the specific one you're looking for from the pool is infinitissimal. My example (try again for someone with the knowledge) assumed knowledge fairly common in the class, such that getting someone who has this knowledge is pretty likely. Getting the guy who built the artifact in question? Clearly you'd need "specific person" for that!

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I get basically the same dog every time - color, gender, etc. vary, but it has more or less the same stats (note that the rules envision only very minor statistical changes for basic Summons, with examnples topping out at shifting half a dozen character points).

Actually, I do not see the rules discussing how much variation on the game definitions of the summoned beings. To me that means how much individual specimens are allowed to vary is up to GM discretion. Personally, I don’t allow any, but I’m pretty lazy about things like that in the game. Because of that, a large number of suggested groups people have been throwing around would never fly in my campaign.

I think the biggest issue between us is our perceptions of two key issues.

The first is the abusive uses of the power. If I allow you to build the “Summon: Bob” power, I need a good and clear reason not to allow the “Summon: My Enemy” power, or the “Summon: Person I Want to Rescue” power. This is not quite the same as your telepathy example. In your telepathy example, I’m disallowing the entire power, or a specific type of construct across the board equally. In this case it would be equivalent of telling a player, that they can buy telepathy normally, but they can never use it successfully when I want to run a mystery session. By allowing the construct to exist with the advantage, I’m making the attempts to build the abusive construct more in line with the power they are getting. This is particularly true when the people are putting Summon into a power framework. The ability of “Summon: Specific Being” in a VPP is so great as to make that I may disallow using the VPP to Summon specific individuals. Then again, I’m still stuck with how do I justify allowing it out of the VPP, but not in the VPP. (I just thought of a number of other abuses for Summon: Specific Being that revolve around “is neutral to the character, and the Ego vs. Ego skill roll mechanic.)

The other issue is similarity to Follower. The primary disadvantages of Summon in comparison to Follower are that you have to pay for the points from Disads, the being can be forced away with an adjustment power, the being starts out only neutral to the character (and presumably will always stay that way until the character adds the amicable advantage). The advantages of Summon over Follower, the summon can be more powerful than the character and maintain the 1/5 ratio for base cost, an EDM and a Teleport of any distance with infinite levels of Armor Piercing that only affects the specific being comes for free (no one has to pay any points for this ability, the fact that it costs the character controlling it END seems irrelevant to me), limitations can be applied to Summon. As far as I’m concerned the down sides of Summoning do not offset the benefits, sufficiently, in comparing it to Follower to allow it to create a follower without increasing the active cost of the power in some way.

Those two issues together are more than sufficient reason for me to be glad that the default option on Summon Specific being isn’t a +0 advantage or any kind of limitation.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I think it twists the rules greatly - I would suggest that, to get "William Shakespeare" specifically of all those possibilities merits an advantage. However, if you can summon generic spirits of the dead (rather than a specific spirit of the dead), their knowledge should logically vary.

I’m not sure which you consider to be twisting the rules. The tactic or my ruling why the tactic will fail? If Captain Kidd is the only person who knows where Captain Kidd buried his treasure, than Summon: Pirates, no matter how many times it is used will never produce Captain Kidd. To put it simply, while there may be some variation between the knowledge the individual pirates possess it will never be meaningful within the game. The uniqueness of always getting a specific being allows for it to be potentially meaningful, and potentially unbalancing. With the potential effect being sufficient that the official rules slap an advantage on the power to be able to summon a single specific being, and the even greater potentially abusive ability to pick and choose specific beings from a group of beings is just not even allowed, period. It is like the artificial cap on Healing. Personally, I don’t think Healing needs to have a cap, or at the least should have some way of it being raised. Steve feels that allowing unlimited healing is potentially abusive, and creates an inappropriate feel for gaming. I don’t agree with him, but I can see why he did it. I just in my games blithely ignore him, and go on. This is the first time I’ve ever mentioned my disagreement in this forum, and hopefully, the last.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
ASIDE: Why you would use Summon Spirit of the Dead instead of simulating this with a Knowledge skill bonus, maybe with some limitations, would be a good question. With the cost of a Summon, you could get a pretty good skill bonus.

Primarily, to take advantage of the 1/5 price break, and the fact that Summon is inherently a power. If you can get it so that the “basic” template is built with a large percent of the points spent that you have to account for are put into the skill you can end up with a higher skill roll, than if you had put your own points into the skill. This works best if the GM created such a creature for his own campaign already, or the GM doesn’t pay attention to what they let you build.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
A completely different duplicate of a 350 point character costs 140 points. The duplicate costs no END to create, but takes a full phase to create, and another to recombine (IIRC). If the duplicate dies, your points are lost.

Let's use Summon instead. Start at 70 points so I can Summon the "duplicate" to begin with. Make him slavishly loyal, because (like my duplicate) he's under my control. That's +1. It's a "Specific Person", so that's another +1. There are some other differences (time to create/combine duplicate; END cost for Summon), but let's assume these balance out.

If "Only this specific person" costs +1, it costs 210 points as a Summon, or 140 for Duplication. If "Specific person" and "can only summon this one specific person" balance out to +0, it costs 140 - exactly the same as Duplication. This seems reasonable to me, since it creates exactly the same effect.

With Duplication, you can not recombine at range without the use of a +1/2 advantage, which would bring the duplicate version up to 175, but you still would be limited in the distance that you could call the duplicate from and the need to be on the same plane of existence. Personally, the extra distance on the recombine would easily be worth an extra +1/2, which would take us back up to the 210 active point level for the Duplication.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Assuming a 70 point follower, you have 70 points to work with under my logic (the +1 advantage to make the Summoned being slavishly loyal, or to make him a duplicate), or 140 points under your model. Teleport with Trigger ("When I snap my fingers, you will return")? Slap it in a multipower starting with ordinary teleport and, say, 16x noncombat, and work your way down through various Megascale options, add an EDM slot, and I think you'll find it can be done for 70 points, remembering that it only works on one person (that's got to be a -2 limitation).

Given that the player character would have to be buying these powers, since to mimic Summon that is the person paying the END on them, you would also have to apply the Usable as an Attack Advantage and Ranged on all of them, and either Megascale again for the range or TransDimensional on some of them. I would say that you are getting well over 70 active for your Multipower Reserve, and I’m not going to about the real cost. I’m far more concerned with active costs.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Note that, even if one accepts the "Summon brings a randomly selected real person", structure, the odds of getting the specific one you're looking for from the pool is infinitissimal.

No the odds of getting the specific person is directly dependent on the size of the group. Let us say that you go with “Summon: Castaway from Gilligan’s Island”. I need advice on farming my odds of getting Mary Anne is 1:6 every time.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris
Actually, I do not see the rules discussing how much variation on the game definitions of the summoned beings. To me that means how much individual specimens are allowed to vary is up to GM discretion. Personally, I don’t allow any, but I’m pretty lazy about things like that in the game. Because of that, a large number of suggested groups people have been throwing around would never fly in my campaign.

Realistically, any variation should be minimal, and "none" would be my default as well. This makes "Summon specific person" meaningless unless you've expanded the class - all of the Summoned "specific individuals" should have identical stats. I have no problem with that restriction - you want variety, expand the class.

I think the biggest issue between us is our perceptions of two key issues.

The first is the abusive uses of the power. If I allow you to build the “Summon: Bob” power, I need a good and clear reason not to allow the “Summon: My Enemy” power, or the “Summon: Person I Want to Rescue” power. This is not quite the same as your telepathy example. In your telepathy example, I’m disallowing the entire power, or a specific type of construct across the board equally. In this case it would be equivalent of telling a player, that they can buy telepathy normally, but they can never use it successfully when I want to run a mystery session. By allowing the construct to exist with the advantage, I’m making the attempts to build the abusive construct more in line with the power they are getting. This is particularly true when the people are putting Summon into a power framework. The ability of “Summon: Specific Being” in a VPP is so great as to make that I may disallow using the VPP to Summon specific individuals. Then again, I’m still stuck with how do I justify allowing it out of the VPP, but not in the VPP. (I just thought of a number of other abuses for Summon: Specific Being that revolve around “is neutral to the character, and the Ego vs. Ego skill roll mechanic.)[/QUOTE]

The "summon my enemy" is as legal (or illegal) as you want to make it. The only issue I have a problem with is whether the + means "one specific person" or "choose a specific person or get a standard version". Like any power, restrictions exist, and even the rules as written suggest some pretty serious limits before "summon: specific person" is allowed.

The other issue is similarity to Follower. The primary disadvantages of Summon in comparison to Follower are that you have to pay for the points from Disads, the being can be forced away with an adjustment power, the being starts out only neutral to the character (and presumably will always stay that way until the character adds the amicable advantage). The advantages of Summon over Follower, the summon can be more powerful than the character and maintain the 1/5 ratio for base cost, an EDM and a Teleport of any distance with infinite levels of Armor Piercing that only affects the specific being comes for free (no one has to pay any points for this ability, the fact that it costs the character controlling it END seems irrelevant to me), limitations can be applied to Summon. As far as I’m concerned the down sides of Summoning do not offset the benefits, sufficiently, in comparing it to Follower to allow it to create a follower without increasing the active cost of the power in some way. [/QUOTE]

Followers are presumed loyal (to some extent, at least), where Summon requires the Amicable advantage (up gpes the point cost) or an ego roll. A mistreated follower will leave. A mistreated "generic summon" can just be resummoned, but a "this specific guy only" summon, if mistreated, will presumably remember, so your "amicable" points are lost.

As well, to me, the follower always exists and the Summoned being either does not, or does not on this plane of existence. If you are captured, and rendered powerless (common comic book plot device), your follower will come looking for you. Your Summon will not. Most games I've seen assume your follower comes with you (or not) as you see fit, so there is generally no need to Summon him. Until your Summoned creature is "dismissed", he or she cannot be resummoned - you already have your "one creature" limit summoned.

I’m not sure which you consider to be twisting the rules. The tactic or my ruling why the tactic will fail? If Captain Kidd is the only person who knows where Captain Kidd buried his treasure, than Summon: Pirates, no matter how many times it is used will never produce Captain Kidd. To put it simply, while there may be some variation between the knowledge the individual pirates possess it will never be meaningful within the game. The uniqueness of always getting a specific being allows for it to be potentially meaningful, and potentially unbalancing. With the potential effect being sufficient that the official rules slap an advantage on the power to be able to summon a single specific being, and the even greater potentially abusive ability to pick and choose specific beings from a group of beings is just not even allowed, period.[/QUOTE]

My example assumes knowledge that anyone with the knowledge skill might possess. Keep asking enough art experts (all with KS: Art), and one will identify your Van Gogh. Yours assumes knowledge only one specific being possesses - you won't get that info unless you get that one specific being. If you are looking for more general knowledge, each "spirit of the dead" will have different gaps in his knowledge.

It is like the artificial cap on Healing. Personally, I don’t think Healing needs to have a cap, or at the least should have some way of it being raised. Steve feels that allowing unlimited healing is potentially abusive, and creates an inappropriate feel for gaming. I don’t agree with him, but I can see why he did it. I just in my games blithely ignore him, and go on. This is the first time I’ve ever mentioned my disagreement in this forum, and hopefully, the last.[/QUOTE]

Or an advantage to remove the cap (you can reverse engineer this from Regeneration pretty easily). But the fact we need to assume rules away because reasonable effects are not covered is indicative of a problem in the rules which should be addressed.

Primarily, to take advantage of the 1/5 price break, and the fact that Summon is inherently a power. If you can get it so that the “basic” template is built with a large percent of the points spent that you have to account for are put into the skill you can end up with a higher skill roll, than if you had put your own points into the skill. This works best if the GM created such a creature for his own campaign already, or the GM doesn’t pay attention to what they let you build.[/QUOTE]

Ummmmm...pay for Summon a spirit of a dead wizard (desolidification, stats and who knows what else) or pay for a Knowledge Skill with (say) +3 to the roll. Even with no point break because the skill is "really" a power, I pay what, 9 points for the skill (a 45 point deceased wizard that I pay END to summon and have to mind wrestle with to get an answer). The skill is way cheaper.

With Duplication, you can not recombine at range without the use of a +1/2 advantage, which would bring the duplicate version up to 175, but you still would be limited in the distance that you could call the duplicate from and the need to be on the same plane of existence. Personally, the extra distance on the recombine would easily be worth an extra +1/2, which would take us back up to the 210 active point level for the Duplication.[/QUOTE]

With summon, I can't make the summoned creature go away without another power, and I don't have to share the Summoned being's damage when I do send him away.


Given that the player character would have to be buying these powers, since to mimic Summon that is the person paying the END on them, you would also have to apply the Usable as an Attack Advantage and Ranged on all of them, and either Megascale again for the range or TransDimensional on some of them. I would say that you are getting well over 70 active for your Multipower Reserve, and I’m not going to about the real cost. I’m far more concerned with active costs.[/QUOTE]

I paid the End when I set up the Triggered teleport, so that's done and recovered. I don't need Range since I set the power up to be triggered when I was with my follower. He's not going to object, so I need "usable by others". I don't need any range because he was in range when I used the power (to set up the trigger). Active cost will definitely be high, but the limits bring it right back down again.


No the odds of getting the specific person is directly dependent on the size of the group. Let us say that you go with “Summon: Castaway from Gilligan’s Island”. I need advice on farming my odds of getting Mary Anne is 1:6 every time. [/QUOTE]

There were seven castaways.

Now, this opens another issue. I can vary the stats on my Summoned creatures with an expanded class (eg. "all canines" - I can select the canine whose stats are most to my liking). Why can't I choose between seven castaways (each with their own fixed stats) for a similar advantage?

You and I would both disallow the ability to just Summon an enemy for a beating - it's abusive, whatever the rules say. The issue here is where we're Summoning a specific being with a name, an appearance and maybe the occasional quirk, rather than a generic being, and getting no special advantage. You're willing to boost the cost if it's exceptionally effective, but not to reduce the cost if it isn't?

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Realistically, any variation should be minimal, and "none" would be my default as well. This makes "Summon specific person" meaningless unless you've expanded the class - all of the Summoned "specific individuals" should have identical stats. I have no problem with that restriction - you want variety, expand the class.

Here is where we are probably running into the biggest difference of assumption, and we keep running into it because I apparently haven’t been doing a very good job of expressing myself. For purposes of relating to Summon, all beings fall into one of two categories for me, generic and specific. It is a little hard to describe the distinction here in terms other than Summon can never be used on beings in the “specific” category. As a GM I do not even allow the “Summon: Specific Being” with the +1 Advantage. If I were going to allow you to Summon: Bob the Dead Mage at all, I would need to be able to justify why you could do that, and why Tony couldn’t build Summon: Mary the Barmaid, who is his girlfriend that just got kidnapped, particularly if there isn’t some way for Bob the Dead Mage to get kidnapped. I really dislike as a campaign rule sticking on a “Lim: Power only works when it won’t screw with the GM’s plot” as a requirement to any power construct.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
The "summon my enemy" is as legal (or illegal) as you want to make it. The only issue I have a problem with is whether the + means "one specific person" or "choose a specific person or get a standard version". Like any power, restrictions exist, and even the rules as written suggest some pretty serious limits before "summon: specific person" is allowed.

Sorry, I don’t really consider them that restrictive. You have to be able to precisely determine the specific being’s location or the character is already dead, and even then they are only suggestions.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Followers are presumed loyal (to some extent, at least), where Summon requires the Amicable advantage (up gpes the point cost) or an ego roll.

I firmly acknowledge that without an advantage, Followers start out friendly to the player, and Summon’s are only “neutral”. I even counted that fact as an advantage to follower, even though you can not compel a Follower to obey orders with an Ego contest, unlike a summoned being.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
A mistreated follower will leave. A mistreated "generic summon" can just be resummoned, but a "this specific guy only" summon, if mistreated, will presumably remember, so your "amicable" points are lost.

A mistreated follower, who leaves may never come back, meaning the points invested in the character are lost. A Summoned “Specific Person” who is mistreated will have to come every time he is summoned, and can be compelled to follow orders by an Ego contest. In addition logically, if a Summoned specific being can become less friendly over time without causing a cost break to the PC, than it should be able to become more friendly to the PC over time without costing the PC additional points. The power write up does not address the issue of the Summoned Being’s attitude changing over time. It would be equally valid to assume that the power “Summon” can also influence the attitudes of the beings summoned so whenever the Specific Being is summoned the power compels him to react to you at the level at which you paid the points regardless of past history. A distinct possibility given its ability to force the summoned being to perform tasks after the Ego contest.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
As well, to me, the follower always exists and the Summoned being either does not, or does not on this plane of existence. If you are captured, and rendered powerless (common comic book plot device), your follower will come looking for you. Your Summon will not. Most games I've seen assume your follower comes with you (or not) as you see fit, so there is generally no need to Summon him. Until your Summoned creature is "dismissed", he or she cannot be resummoned - you already have your "one creature" limit summoned.

I would have to disagree with your assessment of the default status of the power. The power does not as a default presuppose the where the creature is at all. Since “Arrives Under Own Power” is a limitation, I would rule the generic beings are presumed to exist, and are on whatever plane is appropriate for them to exist. If I am summoning a cat, and cats exist on the plane with me than I’m summoning a “generic” cat from my plane.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
My example assumes knowledge that anyone with the knowledge skill might possess. Keep asking enough art experts (all with KS: Art), and one will identify your Van Gogh. Yours assumes knowledge only one specific being possesses - you won't get that info unless you get that one specific being. If you are looking for more general knowledge, each "spirit of the dead" will have different gaps in his knowledge.

Which takes us back to getting a KS, that you can keep rolling over and over again until you succeed, which I do not interpret the rules as allowing. In turn my interpretation means that Louie the art expert is not any more limiting than any other art critic. The fact that allowing you to summon Louie the art critic, who may not be any more beneficial than a random generic art critic opens me up to requests to Summon potentially abusive uses of the power means that either I don’t allow Specific Being Summons at all, or I make everyone buy the advantage. Granted this best fits my sense of fair play. You may feel that it is more appropriate for this to be ruled on a case by case basis. Steve apparently felt that the flat application rule with a stop sign best met his sense of fair play.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Ummmmm...pay for Summon a spirit of a dead wizard (desolidification, stats and who knows what else) or pay for a Knowledge Skill with (say) +3 to the roll. Even with no point break because the skill is "really" a power, I pay what, 9 points for the skill (a 45 point deceased wizard that I pay END to summon and have to mind wrestle with to get an answer). The skill is way cheaper.

Not all constructs are geared to take advantage of the benefits, and the GM is specifically warned to watch the power carefully, that doesn’t prevent players from trying to take advantage of the possibility. Your construct assumes that the Dead Wizard has to have points spent on a large variety of things. I could make a good case for selling back all of the physical primary stats 1, movement powers to 0, not requiring the Desolid (I summon it into a vessel that is represented by the Body that I included in the write up. Destroying the vessel effectively “kills” this generic dead wizard.), and not having to pay any points for any spells since my Dead Wizards no longer can manipulate/access/whatever magic. Meaning that I can dump all the points into the appropriate skills, and getting someone to answer a few questions shouldn’t take more than a +1/4 advantage which means that it is now a 1.25 to 5 ratio.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
With summon, I can't make the summoned creature go away without another power, and I don't have to share the Summoned being's damage when I do send him away.

Since a Summoned being may leave at anytime unless the coerced to stay, I always took the paragraph discussing dispel, or suppress vs. Summoning only applying to other characters, in most cases. The paragraph in question also references “otherwise coerce the being into leaving”. None of this qualifies as defining when the Summon beings no longer qualifies as applying towards the Summoner’s limit for number of beings summoned. The rule also applies to defining how many of the summoned beings that the character has present at one time, it does not address using summon to bring the same being back to the closest available area to contain the being. In the case of summoning a different generic being each time, he would not be able to summon the already existing being, since by definition he can only summon different ones each time, no impact. In the case where he is summoning a specific being, he can keep summoning that being as many times as he wishes to pay the END to do so.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I paid the End when I set up the Triggered teleport, so that's done and recovered. I don't need Range since I set the power up to be triggered when I was with my follower. He's not going to object, so I need "usable by others". I don't need any range because he was in range when I used the power (to set up the trigger). Active cost will definitely be high, but the limits bring it right back down again.

You are simply replacing “ranged” with “trigger”. As a GM I would require you to buy a megascaled transdimentional sense of some sort with it to go with it, but you would theoretically need it for the summon too, so I won’t quibble. On the other hand the follower can not choose if you put the power on him, or refuse to use the power if triggered. You are still in complete control of the power and pay the END for it, that is Usable as an Attack, not Usable by Others. (I’m sorry, I just don’t consider Followers inherently “slavishly devoted”.)



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
There were seven castaways.

Sorry, I expressed it as the ratio of right answers to wrong answers not as the ratio of successes to all possible results.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Now, this opens another issue. I can vary the stats on my Summoned creatures with an expanded class (eg. "all canines" - I can select the canine whose stats are most to my liking). Why can't I choose between seven castaways (each with their own fixed stats) for a similar advantage?

Well, I touched upon my reasoning earlier. For me the seven castaways would all be “specific beings” and therefore the entire category would be useless. I wouldn’t allow “Summon: Castaways from Gilligan’s Island.” On the other hand I’m also glad that I do not allow Summon: Specific Being option, because thinking about how x2 the number of Summoned beings for +5 points would enter into all of this is making my head hurt. Could you legally increase the number of summoned beings by using the +5 adder? If you can do you have to summon all of them at once, or can you summon less than the max? If you can summon less than max, do you get to pick and choose which ones come?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
You and I would both disallow the ability to just Summon an enemy for a beating - it's abusive, whatever the rules say. The issue here is where we're Summoning a specific being with a name, an appearance and maybe the occasional quirk, rather than a generic being, and getting no special advantage. You're willing to boost the cost if it's exceptionally effective, but not to reduce the cost if it isn't?

Well, you have yet to convince me that there is a case where Summon: Generic Being is more effective than Summon: Specific Being, so I certainly will never allow it to cost less than the basic form of Summoning. Since I have a very tiny mind when it comes to keeping my rulings consistent for my players, the fact that I can see it’s potential for being more powerful than the generic, means that everyone has to pay an advantage for it, if I allow it at all.

[AnotherSkip]

[i]
After all, how many of THEM get their own comic book or movie?

[/B]

ERm I have a copy of the first issue of the Saddam Hussein "It's my Reich and I'm gonna do what I want to" comic book.


Also er What about Good old Ronnie Regan? he had a few moies under his belt.

[DoItHTH]

Caris said:

Well, you have yet to convince me that there is a case where Summon: Generic Being is more effective than Summon: Specific Being, so I certainly will never allow it to cost less than the basic form of Summoning. Since I have a very tiny mind when it comes to keeping my rulings consistent for my players, the fact that I can see it’s potential for being more powerful than the generic, means that everyone has to pay an advantage for it, if I allow it at all.

here is a case where generic is better:

I summon a generic policeman to arrest the criminals I just beat up. No problem he gladly cuffs them and starts interviewing witnesses.

I summon Officer Stumpy who last week got hit by a car while walking between his cruiser and a car he just pulled over for speeding. Stumpy appears in a full body cast, screaming with pain since he now is laying on the ground instead of his nice soft hospital bed.

Ok is this not a case where specific is worse then generic?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by DoItHTH
Caris said:

Well, you have yet to convince me that there is a case where Summon: Generic Being is more effective than Summon: Specific Being, so I certainly will never allow it to cost less than the basic form of Summoning. Since I have a very tiny mind when it comes to keeping my rulings consistent for my players, the fact that I can see it’s potential for being more powerful than the generic, means that everyone has to pay an advantage for it, if I allow it at all.

here is a case where generic is better:

I summon a generic policeman to arrest the criminals I just beat up. No problem he gladly cuffs them and starts interviewing witnesses.

I summon Officer Stumpy who last week got hit by a car while walking between his cruiser and a car he just pulled over for speeding. Stumpy appears in a full body cast, screaming with pain since he now is laying on the ground instead of his nice soft hospital bed.

Ok is this not a case where specific is worse then generic?

This is the case in a nutshell. The ability to summon a specific police officer gave me no special advantages when Stumpy was in good shape. When he is in less than 100% full condition, I am at a disadvantage.

Similarly, if Officer Stumpy is investigated by Internal Affairs and becomes Felon Stumpy, I'm now left with the choice of saying "those were wasted points" or, in summoning him, freeing a felon from prison.

The case has been made that my "specific" summon may become friendlier over time. But the terms of my Summon determine how friendly he is. If I want him to get more friendly, I need to pay more points. That's the same way my EB becomes more accurate - I use experience to make it so.

Now, if "specific person" permitted me to select the police officer I wish to summon from a pool, then I could elect to summon Stumpy, but to bring Officer Friendly, who has neither been hit by car nor nailed on charges. I can also choose which skills I get to some extent (I can decide whether I want a sharpshooter from tactical or a detective from homocide). However, this requires me to take an advantage to widen my Summon, since it will allow considerable variation in allocation of points (I'd say +1/4 - "any human" being 1/2 and "any being" a +1)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by AnotherSkip
ERm I have a copy of the first issue of the Saddam Hussein "It's my Reich and I'm gonna do what I want to" comic book.

Also er What about Good old Ronnie Regan? he had a few moies under his belt.

Saddam - that's one.

Ronnie - gonna have to veto that - he made movies, no one made movies about him (as a politician). Sure, they get the occasional TV show on Biography, but that's not up to the standards of our Action Heroes!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris
A mistreated follower, who leaves may never come back, meaning the points invested in the character are lost. A Summoned “Specific Person” who is mistreated will have to come every time he is summoned, and can be compelled to follow orders by an Ego contest.

"Amicable" eliminates the required ego contest, but doesn't say it is not still possible, I suppose. If you have already roll played your "amicable" summoned SPECIFIC being into a an antagonistic being, guess you're out of luck. If you made him hostile ("antagonistic" - ego roll bonuses), it's even harder to make that ego contest. And your roll is -1 per 10 active points in Summon already, so you better have a good Ego!

In addition logically, if a Summoned specific being can become less friendly over time without causing a cost break to the PC, than it should be able to become more friendly to the PC over time without costing the PC additional points. The power write up does not address the issue of the Summoned Being’s attitude changing over time. It would be equally valid to assume that the power “Summon” can also influence the attitudes of the beings summoned so whenever the Specific Being is summoned the power compels him to react to you at the level at which you paid the points regardless of past history. A distinct possibility given its ability to force the summoned being to perform tasks after the Ego contest.[/QUOTE]

Every couple of weeks, you appear in a strange man's house. He orders you to do his domestic chores, and you feel yourself compelled to obey. After the fifth time, are you starting to like him?

Either the character will have paid for friendly, or role played his way to a better relationship. He could have role played a better relationship with any character he meets.

Which takes us back to getting a KS, that you can keep rolling over and over again until you succeed, which I do not interpret the rules as allowing. In turn my interpretation means that Louie the art expert is not any more limiting than any other art critic. The fact that allowing you to summon Louie the art critic, who may not be any more beneficial than a random generic art critic opens me up to requests to Summon potentially abusive uses of the power means that either I don’t allow Specific Being Summons at all, or I make everyone buy the advantage. Granted this best fits my sense of fair play. You may feel that it is more appropriate for this to be ruled on a case by case basis. Steve apparently felt that the flat application rule with a stop sign best met his sense of fair play[/QUOTE]

So your sense of fair play is "Louie the Art Critic provides neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. Consequently, you must pay double if you wish to summon Louie (and Louie alone - if he dies, or becomes mentally unstable, too bad for you!) instead of a generic art critic.

As for Steve's sense of fair play, I wonder whether he would enforce that +1 for Louie, or turn to page 70 of FREd and read the discussion of special effects, and consider Louie to be a special effect. "Only if this benefit becomes useful in the game on a frequent basis, or the character tries to exploit it in combat, should the GM consider making him pay points for it." This "uber-rule" seems ignored in your discussion.

Since a Summoned being may leave at anytime unless the coerced to stay, I always took the paragraph discussing dispel, or suppress vs. Summoning only applying to other characters, in most cases. The paragraph in question also references “otherwise coerce the being into leaving”. [/QUOTE]

This paragraph references "a character", not "a character other than the one who summoned", but this is a good question which I think I'll put on the Rules board.

None of this qualifies as defining when the Summon beings no longer qualifies as applying towards the Summoner’s limit for number of beings summoned. The rule also applies to defining how many of the summoned beings that the character has present at one time, it does not address using summon to bring the same being back to the closest available area to contain the being. In the case of summoning a different generic being each time, he would not be able to summon the already existing being, since by definition he can only summon different ones each time, no impact. In the case where he is summoning a specific being, he can keep summoning that being as many times as he wishes to pay the END to do so.[/QUOTE]

Assuming we ignore the specific notation that "Summon should not be used as a cheap form of teleportation, nor as a way to Summon an individual so that the Summoner can kill him". As such, any player who is trying for these construicts, which seem to be your main abuse concern, are clearly outside the rules.

This paragraph goes on to reference Summona specific being as something requiring GM permission (two stop signs and an in-text admonition seems to me to indicate that Steve is well aware the power can be abused - are there powers which cannot?).


You are simply replacing “ranged” with “trigger”. As a GM I would require you to buy a megascaled transdimentional sense of some sort with it to go with it, but you would theoretically need it for the summon too, so I won’t quibble. On the other hand the follower can not choose if you put the power on him, or refuse to use the power if triggered. You are still in complete control of the power and pay the END for it, that is Usable as an Attack, not Usable by Others. (I’m sorry, I just don’t consider Followers inherently “slavishly devoted”.)[/QUOTE]

Why can't the follower choose to reject the use of Teleport on him? That's his choice - I made it so when I chose NOT to buy "usable as an attack". The fact it goes off when Triggered is the same as any other Triggered power - no one gets a choice!

[caris]

Originally posted by DoItHTH
here is a case where generic is better:

I summon a generic policeman to arrest the criminals I just beat up. No problem he gladly cuffs them and starts interviewing witnesses.

I summon Officer Stumpy who last week got hit by a car while walking between his cruiser and a car he just pulled over for speeding. Stumpy appears in a full body cast, screaming with pain since he now is laying on the ground instead of his nice soft hospital bed.

Ok is this not a case where specific is worse then generic? [/B]

The rub here is that we keep getting into the fact that we are taking the rules to do something that the base assumption is the power shouldn’t be doing, so the rules don’t address it. Your assumption here is that when you Summon Stumpy you get him exactly as he is at this moment in time, which is fine and logical. It is still an assumption. There is nothing in the power description indicating that would be the case. It is solely up to the GM to make it up on the spot.

Let’s take the example a step further. What if Stumpy died in that car crash? The rules do not discuss what happens when your Summoned dies or is injured when dismissed, because they assume it is irrelevant you are always going to get a different one. The basic assumption is that you will always get what you Summoned at full health and ready to go, so you could make the case that for the duration of the time that Stumpy is Summoned it is as if he was never hit by the car, and is fully functional.

[OddHat]

Originally posted by caris
The rub here is that we keep getting into the fact that we are taking the rules to do something that the base assumption is the power shouldn’t be doing, so the rules don’t address it. Your assumption here is that when you Summon Stumpy you get him exactly as he is at this moment in time, which is fine and logical. It is still an assumption. There is nothing in the power description indicating that would be the case. It is solely up to the GM to make it up on the spot.

Let’s take the example a step further. What if Stumpy died in that car crash? The rules do not discuss what happens when your Summoned dies or is injured when dismissed, because they assume it is irrelevant you are always going to get a different one. The basic assumption is that you will always get what you Summoned at full health and ready to go, so you could make the case that for the duration of the time that Stumpy is Summoned it is as if he was never hit by the car, and is fully functional.

Actually, FREd p.143, under Summon Specific Being, specifically cautions against allowing the summoning of Officer Stumpy (or Tony Blair) unless you've already located them by "some other means." It doesn't look like it was intended for summoning anything much beyond spirits of the dead, and doesn't directly address issues like always getting the same summoned toaster or demon at all. All of it comes the GMs call, which for a power as potentially unballancing as Summon makes perfect sense.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris
The rub here is that we keep getting into the fact that we are taking the rules to do something that the base assumption is the power shouldn’t be doing, so the rules don’t address it. Your assumption here is that when you Summon Stumpy you get him exactly as he is at this moment in time, which is fine and logical. It is still an assumption. There is nothing in the power description indicating that would be the case. It is solely up to the GM to make it up on the spot.

I think it's a much greater assumption to assume you get a fully healed facsimile of the character. Although I have seen Summon used in similar fashion to simulate both raising the dead and perpetual reincarnation.

But I can see why you feel this is unbalancing - you just keep adding extra benefits to the power. In addition to the ability to fully heal Stumpy (or, presumably, bring him vback from the dead), he's going to be pretty co-operative if he understands his choices are obedience, or I Dispel my summon and back you go!

Let’s take the example a step further. What if Stumpy died in that car crash? The rules do not discuss what happens when your Summoned dies or is injured when dismissed, because they assume it is irrelevant you are always going to get a different one. The basic assumption is that you will always get what you Summoned at full health and ready to go, so you could make the case that for the duration of the time that Stumpy is Summoned it is as if he was never hit by the car, and is fully functional. [/QUOTE]

Again, this covers off a lot of the difference in perceived values - if you allow that the Summoned character will always be fully healed and cannot die and be lost, the ability is worth...exactly as much as summoning a generic character of the same abilities who always arrives in full health. Maybe some bonus based on the benefits of our "specific individual" outside his personal stats (eg. a 1 point summon, +1 advantage = 2, for an Incompetent Normal looks pretty useless until I tell you it's the president's grandson).

Perhaps one solution is the EDM/Time Travel writeout. You can summon an exact duplicate of the specific individual (cloned, demon shapechanger, parallel universe, etc.), but the "real thing" is still out there, oblivious to your actions. Summon Grond and beat him - if you can - but the real Grond is still out there.

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
"Amicable" eliminates the required ego contest, but doesn't say it is not still possible, I suppose. If you have already roll played your "amicable" summoned SPECIFIC being into a an antagonistic being, guess you're out of luck. If you made him hostile ("antagonistic" - ego roll bonuses), it's even harder to make that ego contest. And your roll is -1 per 10 active points in Summon already, so you better have a good Ego!

It is still something you can not do with a Follower at all. If you piss off the follower, he doesn’t have to appear every time you call him. I can see quite a number of ways where I can use just that aspect of the power to my advantage, even if I have gotten the Specific Being so pissed off at me that he is now effectively “Antagonistic.”


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Every couple of weeks, you appear in a strange man's house. He orders you to do his domestic chores, and you feel yourself compelled to obey. After the fifth time, are you starting to like him?

You’re a spirit of a dead mage consigned to a void and boring limbo. Every couple of weeks a strange man pulls you out of limbo, and engages you in lively conversation and asks you interesting questions. After the third time, are you starting to long for those occasions?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Either the character will have paid for friendly, or role played his way to a better relationship. He could have role played a better relationship with any character he meets.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Yes, any player could role-play out his relationship with any NPC, but that isn’t the issue. The issue we are discussing here is, how buying Summon: Specific Being differs from buying a Follower. NPC’s that are brought into the game without the expenditure of points fall into what I call “plot devices,” which have another whole set of issues around them.

So your sense of fair play is "Louie the Art Critic provides neither an advantage nor a disadvantage. Consequently, you must pay double if you wish to summon Louie (and Louie alone - if he dies, or becomes mentally unstable, too bad for you!) instead of a generic art critic.

As I mentioned in another posted, your assumptions covering the Specific Being becoming hurt, disabled or deceased are not addressed by the rules.

Since I’m allowing the player to do something that I would not inherently allow every other player in my campaign to do, than, yes, I consider it fair to make him pay for the ability. If for no other reasons, so that I am at least partially compensated for having to explain to other players why his version of Summon: Specific Being is acceptable, and theirs is not. I might tell him not to bother building a power that way, because it is worthless, but I just wouldn’t let him do something for free that I make other people pay for. If I’m running a game and some one gives me a 1D6 EB that is Armor Piercing, and in my few if any people that he is going to be reasonably fighting have a Def small enough for it to be usefull, I may tell him to lose the Armor Piercing, but I won’t give it to him for free either.

Actually, my sense of fair play is to say “Why do you want to Summon Louie the Art Critic? Why do you feel Summon is the right construct for what you are trying to accomplish? Why do you want to Summon: Louie, rather than just Art Critics (assuming that I would consider it a valid category)?” I can think of only a limited number of situations where the player trying to buy Summon Louie the Art Critic is choosing it for some other reason than trying to exploit the benefits Summon over other reasonable constructs, and in those cases, since I have a blanket banning of the Summoning Specific Beings, I probably have some sort of work around.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
As for Steve's sense of fair play, I wonder whether he would enforce that +1 for Louie, or turn to page 70 of FREd and read the discussion of special effects, and consider Louie to be a special effect. "Only if this benefit becomes useful in the game on a frequent basis, or the character tries to exploit it in combat, should the GM consider making him pay points for it." This "uber-rule" seems ignored in your discussion.

Once again we are back to differing assumptions. For me special effect is how in the game world is the mechanical effect of the power manifested not the manifestation of the power itself. I do not consider the issue of “generic” being vs. “specific” being to be an issue of special effect any more than I consider Normal Damage vs. Killing Damage to be special effect.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
This paragraph references "a character", not "a character other than the one who summoned", but this is a good question which I think I'll put on the Rules board.

I said “in most cases” for a reason. It is pretty vague in the rules, and I certainly agree that it shouldn’t be abused. By the same token, I think requiring the Dispel simply to be able to ever use the power again is a tad excessive. Obviously, if I summon a “generic” lion and the lion is attacked by an opponent, the lion will probably start attacking that opponent, and I should not be allowed to “cancel” the summon on the lion. On the other hand should, I have to kill or dispel each lion I ever summon, before I can summon a new one?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Assuming we ignore the specific notation that "Summon should not be used as a cheap form of teleportation, nor as a way to Summon an individual so that the Summoner can kill him". As such, any player who is trying for these construicts, which seem to be your main abuse concern, are clearly outside the rules.

Which sorts of begs the question, when isn’t summon a cheap form of Teleportation or EDM, particularly when applied to a specific being? The specific being has to exist somewhere, even if it is on another plane of existence, that is for game purposes some where.



Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
This paragraph goes on to reference Summona specific being as something requiring GM permission (two stop signs and an in-text admonition seems to me to indicate that Steve is well aware the power can be abused - are there powers which cannot?).

Yes, didn’t Steve specifically state that because of its high potential for abuse being why it has an advantage? If Steve thought it was merely a matter of special effect he would have stated that this advantage was only needed in the cases where there is some clear advantage to the “specific being,” rather than making the advantage a blanket one?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Why can't the follower choose to reject the use of Teleport on him? That's his choice - I made it so when I chose NOT to buy "usable as an attack". The fact it goes off when Triggered is the same as any other Triggered power - no one gets a choice!

The key here is that a Summoned being would not get that choice, and I asked you to model the power that Summon gives someone in terms of teleportation and EDM over there Summoned: Specific Being.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris
It is still something you can not do with a Follower at all. If you piss off the follower, he doesn’t have to appear every time you call him. I can see quite a number of ways where I can use just that aspect of the power to my advantage, even if I have gotten the Specific Being so pissed off at me that he is now effectively “Antagonistic.”

Besides making a follower that comes when you call, automatically and instantaneously, what does Summon do? Sure, your Summon may not like you very much if you don't pay for amicable, so it's a way to have a less loyal follower.

You've made a lot of cmments about "Steve says" - why do you think Steve includes the power rather than requiring you to buy teleport and EDM for a follower?


You’re a spirit of a dead mage consigned to a void and boring limbo. Every couple of weeks a strange man pulls you out of limbo, and engages you in lively conversation and asks you interesting questions. After the third time, are you starting to long for those occasions?

Better buy Amicable then. Otherwise, the dead mage is neutral, and may even resent being pulled away from his eternal reward in the afterlife. You have to overwhelm him to get any answers, so clearly he's not overjoyed about being here.


As I mentioned in another posted, your assumptions covering the Specific Being becoming hurt, disabled or deceased are not addressed by the rules.

I'm hoping to get Steve's input on that...we'll see what he thinks. But you're right - it's not in the rules, so anything either of us believes is an assumption. But "Summon specific being also includes unlimited healing" seems the less likely interpretation.


Since I’m allowing the player to do something that I would not inherently allow every other player in my campaign to do, than, yes, I consider it fair to make him pay for the ability. If for no other reasons, so that I am at least partially compensated for having to explain to other players why his version of Summon: Specific Being is acceptable, and theirs is not. I might tell him not to bother building a power that way, because it is worthless, but I just wouldn’t let him do something for free that I make other people pay for. If I’m running a game and some one gives me a 1D6 EB that is Armor Piercing, and in my few if any people that he is going to be reasonably fighting have a Def small enough for it to be usefull, I may tell him to lose the Armor Piercing, but I won’t give it to him for free either.

AP has a game effect of halving most defenses. Besides "he gets to like you over time", you have yet to provide a single game effect benefit of summoning Louie the Art Critic rather than a generic Art Critic. The possibility he becomes amicable ovewr time contradicts your "he always arrives in the same state" argument regarding an injured "specific being".

Steve's comment on the rules board on loss of amicability [That’s up to the GM, but in general a character who abuses an Amicable Summonee is going to lose the benefits of that Advantage until he makes amends. It’s a matter of common sense.] implies these things can and will change over time. Oddly, this makes amicability more valuable for a generic summon - so I abuse this one - the next one will be amicable again!


Actually, my sense of fair play is to say “Why do you want to Summon Louie the Art Critic? Why do you feel Summon is the right construct for what you are trying to accomplish? Why do you want to Summon: Louie, rather than just Art Critics (assuming that I would consider it a valid category)?” I can think of only a limited number of situations where the player trying to buy Summon Louie the Art Critic is choosing it for some other reason than trying to exploit the benefits Summon over other reasonable constructs, and in those cases, since I have a blanket banning of the Summoning Specific Beings, I probably have some sort of work around.

Because Louie is the character's uncle. Because he's trying to build some personality and background rather than have a generic summon that's bland and unmemorable. Because he's trying to create a character, not just a series of abilities nailed together by flimsy justification.

Given the paucity of "benefits", it seems unlikely the player is "exploiting" them. I agree "Summon Specific Being" can be unbalanced if abused. The solution, however, is not "Pay +1 whether you get no benefits or whether you create the "unbeatable power". It is to set the Advantage cost commensurate with the advantage it provides.

If (for whatever reason) there is no desolidification permitted in your campaign, do you still let characters pay a +1/2 advantage for attacks that affect the desolid?


Once again we are back to differing assumptions. For me special effect is how in the game world is the mechanical effect of the power manifested not the manifestation of the power itself. I do not consider the issue of “generic” being vs. “specific” being to be an issue of special effect any more than I consider Normal Damage vs. Killing Damage to be special effect.

A "special effect" has no, or minimal, actual impact on the mechanics of game play - they are flavour. Two otherwise identical powers with different special effects impact the game in exactly the same way. Summon Generic Art Cirtic and Summon Uncle Louie have the same game benefits, but different flavour. KA's and normal damage have completely different game mechanics, even if they share the same special effects. To me, that's the difference.


I said “in most cases” for a reason. It is pretty vague in the rules, and I certainly agree that it shouldn’t be abused. By the same token, I think requiring the Dispel simply to be able to ever use the power again is a tad excessive. Obviously, if I summon a “generic” lion and the lion is attacked by an opponent, the lion will probably start attacking that opponent, and I should not be allowed to “cancel” the summon on the lion. On the other hand should, I have to kill or dispel each lion I ever summon, before I can summon a new one?

From the FAQ, Q: Can a character make an Amicable Summoned creature “go away” automatically, or must he buy a Dispel to accomplish this effect?

A: It’s up to the GM, based on how friendly/loyal the Amicable being is, but generally a character can make an Amicable being “go away” automatically, without the need for a Dispel.

From my question on the Rules Board: It “departs” when it actually leaves; losing control of it does not count as departure. As for having to Dispel it, that depends on the circumstances; for example, the Rules FAQ has a question re: being able to automatically “banish” Amicable Summonees.


Which sorts of begs the question, when isn’t summon a cheap form of Teleportation or EDM, particularly when applied to a specific being? The specific being has to exist somewhere, even if it is on another plane of existence, that is for game purposes some where.

Apparantly, when it is used in the usual parameters of the Summon power (ie you define what you summon, it always comes to you in the nearest open space, and you stick to the Summon rules). Using it to Teleport Betty the Barmaid away from her kidnappers would, in my view, be using it as a cheap teleport.


Yes, didn’t Steve specifically state that because of its high potential for abuse being why it has an advantage? If Steve thought it was merely a matter of special effect he would have stated that this advantage was only needed in the cases where there is some clear advantage to the “specific being,” rather than making the advantage a blanket one?

Of course. Wouldn't he also have noticed it's always a cheap form of teleport and EDM, and therefore banned the whole power outright? :confused: :confused:


The key here is that a Summoned being would not get that choice, and I asked you to model the power that Summon gives someone in terms of teleportation and EDM over there Summoned: Specific Being.

Get rid of Summon and instead require the power to be modelled by Teleport, EDM and Mind Control, then. Why does this differ depending on whether its a specific character?

[caris]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Besides making a follower that comes when you call, automatically and instantaneously, what does Summon do? Sure, your Summon may not like you very much if you don't pay for amicable, so it's a way to have a less loyal follower.

You've made a lot of cmments about "Steve says" - why do you think Steve includes the power rather than requiring you to buy teleport and EDM for a follower?

Actually, I referenced one specific statement by Mr. Long, and then speculated twice upon his possible reasoning based on what he has done. You asked if I thought he wouldn’t consider it an issue of special effect, I gave my answer and the reasoning for that answer.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Better buy Amicable then. Otherwise, the dead mage is neutral, and may even resent being pulled away from his eternal reward in the afterlife. You have to overwhelm him to get any answers, so clearly he's not overjoyed about being here.

You gave an example, implying that all uses of Summon would inherently lead to a worsening of relations with a specific being, I provided an example where the use of Summoning would lead to an improvement in relations.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
I'm hoping to get Steve's input on that...we'll see what he thinks. But you're right - it's not in the rules, so anything either of us believes is an assumption. But "Summon specific being also includes unlimited healing" seems the less likely interpretation.

I certainly agree with you about how Steve will answer, since I made a reasonable interpretation of the rule that had strong abuse potential, but you are asking Steve to make a general ruling. Steve’s ruling is going to be geared toward preventing abuses of Summon: Specific Being. The real question is after listing all the reasons why “Summon: Specific Being” is inferior to “Summon: Generic Follower”, will Steve make any stronger ruling than “individual GM’s may waive the advantage and apply limitations for their campaigns if they find it to not be abusive, but the rule as written stands”?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
AP has a game effect of halving most defenses. Besides "he gets to like you over time", you have yet to provide a single game effect benefit of summoning Louie the Art Critic rather than a generic Art Critic. The possibility he becomes amicable ovewr time contradicts your "he always arrives in the same state" argument regarding an injured "specific being".

Steve's comment on the rules board on loss of amicability [That’s up to the GM, but in general a character who abuses an Amicable Summonee is going to lose the benefits of that Advantage until he makes amends. It’s a matter of common sense.] implies these things can and will change over time. Oddly, this makes amicability more valuable for a generic summon - so I abuse this one - the next one will be amicable again!

First of all, the “Stumpy” example is an artificial construct where the GM created a situation where the specific is less effective than the generic. The statement that the GM can always create situations where one construct is superior over another doesn’t really prove anything either way. The better argument is that “Stumpy” was Summoned by you two days ago, and took 10 Body during the fight, and when you Summon him today he has not recovered all of the Body he lost. Now is that a legitimate argument for your side, but I believe that all of those limitations and restrictions were considered and Summoning Specific Being was still given a +1 Advantage to be done.

As for Steve’s comment on about the reduction of the “Amicable” advantage, he invoked the “common sense” ruling. Using common sense any time you are summoning reasonable intelligent and self-aware type of being, there is a chance that those beings are going to communicate amongst themselves. If “Stumpy” is merely a specific example of the “generic” group police officers, it seems reasonable that as you continue to summon up different police officer and treat them poorly, that word is going to get around. You would find that the police officers you summon are getting more and more hostile to you as time goes on.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Because Louie is the character's uncle. Because he's trying to build some personality and background rather than have a generic summon that's bland and unmemorable. Because he's trying to create a character, not just a series of abilities nailed together by flimsy justification.

Ok, so you have an Uncle Louie, who is an art critic, you expect that he is going to play enough of a beneficial role in the campaign to warrant paying points for him. Why are you using Summon, and not Follower, Contact, or Favor to build him? Convince me that this isn’t just a follower with a cheap form of teleport.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Given the paucity of "benefits", it seems unlikely the player is "exploiting" them. I agree "Summon Specific Being" can be unbalanced if abused. The solution, however, is not "Pay +1 whether you get no benefits or whether you create the "unbeatable power". It is to set the Advantage cost commensurate with the advantage it provides.

If (for whatever reason) there is no desolidification permitted in your campaign, do you still let characters pay a +1/2 advantage for attacks that affect the desolid?

Would I let the character pay the points? Yes, I would. I would also tell the player that those points are worthless, just as I tell players that beyond a certain point multiple levels of Armor Piercing are worthless. I don’t stop the players from spending worthless points, if that is what they want to do.


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
A "special effect" has no, or minimal, actual impact on the mechanics of game play - they are flavour. Two otherwise identical powers with different special effects impact the game in exactly the same way. Summon Generic Art Cirtic and Summon Uncle Louie have the same game benefits, but different flavour. KA's and normal damage have completely different game mechanics, even if they share the same special effects. To me, that's the difference.

Actually, wasn’t the entire point of your initial question premised in the assumption that there are mechanical differences between a “generic” and a “specific” summon, and that those differences warrant a limitation? Haven’t we been discussing how the rulings and the way that the power has to work effectively in game terms have to vary between the two cases?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
From the FAQ, Q: Can a character make an Amicable Summoned creature “go away” automatically, or must he buy a Dispel to accomplish this effect?

A: It’s up to the GM, based on how friendly/loyal the Amicable being is, but generally a character can make an Amicable being “go away” automatically, without the need for a Dispel.

From my question on the Rules Board: It “departs” when it actually leaves; losing control of it does not count as departure. As for having to Dispel it, that depends on the circumstances; for example, the Rules FAQ has a question re: being able to automatically “banish” Amicable Summonees.

You forgot to cover in your question, and Steve did not address the issue if the Summoned being is forced to “depart”. If it is killed has it departed? If it is grabbed and carried away, has it departed?


Originally posted by Hugh Neilson
Apparantly, when it is used in the usual parameters of the Summon power (ie you define what you summon, it always comes to you in the nearest open space, and you stick to the Summon rules). Using it to Teleport Betty the Barmaid away from her kidnappers would, in my view, be using it as a cheap teleport.

Of course. Wouldn't he also have noticed it's always a cheap form of teleport and EDM, and therefore banned the whole power outright? :confused: :confused:

Get rid of Summon and instead require the power to be modelled by Teleport, EDM and Mind Control, then. Why does this differ depending on whether its a specific character?

Alternatively, Summon isn’t a cheap form of teleport when it is used to pull a meaningless, bland, and unmemorable character into the game? As you pointed out it is generally easy to assume that a “generic” summon has no meaningful existence outside of his being summoned. It is much harder to maintain that assumption when it is the same distinctive summoned being each time.

The issue of generic vs. specific is important, because the in game side issues are relevant when it is one over the other. Like, why could I summon Betty 3 phases ago, but now that the evil wizard teleported away with her I can’t? If it is because the wizard has erected a “magical” barrier, what advantages do I need to overcome it? Why do I need an advantage for summoning “current monarch of the kingdom” or “the guy hunting me”, and not for summoning “Betty”? The list keeps going all down through all the differences we’ve been siting through this thread.

Truthfully, neither of us is truly arguing that there is no mechanical difference between the two concepts. What we are arguing is which one deserves to get the cost break. The rules have assigned the generic version the cost break. Presumably, because of the much higher potential for abuse. I think it also creates a simpler conceptual frame work under which to work.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by caris
You gave an example, implying that all uses of Summon would inherently lead to a worsening of relations with a specific being, I provided an example where the use of Summoning would lead to an improvement in relations.

Wouldn't the "generic mage spirit" be just as pleased to leave limbo as the "specific mage spirit"? I suspect the "generic" would be as good or better, in that the "specific spirit" gets used to the privilege. Bottom line: like anything else, you can generally worsen the relationship through role playing, but if you want the benefits of a better relationship consistently, you'll have to pay the points to buy up the loyalty.


I certainly agree with you about how Steve will answer, since I made a reasonable interpretation of the rule that had strong abuse potential, but you are asking Steve to make a general ruling. Steve’s ruling is going to be geared toward preventing abuses of Summon: Specific Being. The real question is after listing all the reasons why “Summon: Specific Being” is inferior to “Summon: Generic Follower”, will Steve make any stronger ruling than “individual GM’s may waive the advantage and apply limitations for their campaigns if they find it to not be abusive, but the rule as written stands”?

Nice logic there... First you say "Summon Specific Being will heal the being up, so no disadvantage if he's injured/killed". Then you say "Well of course Steve will rule that doesn't happen, but that's irrelevant". You were provided with an example where Summon Specific was, in fact, a drawback. That was what you requested. We have now established that your convoluted rulkes interpretation which makes it not a drawback was incorrect. Do you now accept that the potential injury of the "specific being" creates a case where "summon generic" is more advantageous?

In any case, the whole point of this discussion is an analysis of when one would deviate from the general rule, not whyether the book says "Specific person is a +1 advantage". It does. The question is whether that cost should always be applied, or whether the GM should run his game and revise costs where the benefits are there, not hide behind the Big Book and say "This is the Rule!".

The single best thing about the Hero system is its versatility. When a reasonable power construct is inefficient due to point costs put in place to prevent abuses, the system effectively bans a reasonable character ability. Thus, the rules should be interpreted (in my vision of the world) in such a fashion that the cost a character pays for an ability is commensurate with the benefits of THAT ability, not the abusive ability someone else may try to use the same mechanic to obtain.

How many character examples in Hero's myriad of products explicitly state they are not in strict accordance with the rules? Why are they in "official products, if not because the rules must be applied with common sense, not simply adhered to blindly?

Note that the book includes tons of "should not's", (for example, "Special powers should not be used in power frameworks"). Numerous examples also exist, in FREd and in other products (and I understand Steve is heavily involved in editing and approving products) where these rules are waived. (Flash defense in a gadget pool, for example.)

If I were Steve, I would not make any stronger ruling outside a formal revision to the rule books. That would, in my eyes, contitute a specific change to the rules best addressed in an actual rules book. Will some costs change if there is a 6th edition? Probably. Will Summon be among them? Who knows. But it is one of the newer abilities, so it has less history, and thus less experience, behind it. It's also one of the ones that generates significant discussion and controversy. So I suspect it would be looked at more closely than, say, "Should we change Force Field or Energy Blast?"


First of all, the “Stumpy” example is an artificial construct where the GM created a situation where the specific is less effective than the generic. The statement that the GM can always create situations where one construct is superior over another doesn’t really prove anything either way. The better argument is that “Stumpy” was Summoned by you two days ago, and took 10 Body during the fight, and when you Summon him today he has not recovered all of the Body he lost. Now is that a legitimate argument for your side, but I believe that all of those limitations and restrictions were considered and Summoning Specific Being was still given a +1 Advantage to be done.

The GM did not create the situation. The player did, when he designed his character as he did. Now the question becomes whether, in fact, the +1 advantage is appropriate in all cases. And that is the discussion at hand. If a Limitation is not limiting, it isn't worth any points. If an Advantage carries no advantage, why should it be worth points?

There is no overall advantage of Summoning Officer Stumpy over Summoning a generic policeman with these stats. There may be some benefits (familiarity being key), but drawbacks also exist (he gets hurt, he quits the force, he doesn't like you any more) whice pretty much net out (if not create net drawbacks). No advantage, so no Advantage. There is an overall advantage to Summoning Tony Blair over summoning a generic individual having the same stats and skills, but holding no special position of power or fame. There's an advantage, so you buy an Advantage.

In my campaign, I invoke the "common sense"ule and say "you're not getting an advantage from summoning Stumpy over a generic police officer, so you need not pay extra points. But, he will not become more friendly over time unless you pay for the Amicable advantages over time."

In yours, the player chooses between paying double points for no increase in efficiency or puts the idea back on the shelf and summons bland, generic policemen instead (or not summoning at all and saving this interesting, but unusual, contruct for a more reasonable GM). We remove a reasonable ability from the game, and the game is weakened (just a bit, but if we disallowed every power which could be subject to abuse, what's left?)


As for Steve’s comment on about the reduction of the “Amicable” advantage, he invoked the “common sense” ruling. Using common sense any time you are summoning reasonable intelligent and self-aware type of being, there is a chance that those beings are going to communicate amongst themselves. If “Stumpy” is merely a specific example of the “generic” group police officers, it seems reasonable that as you continue to summon up different police officer and treat them poorly, that word is going to get around. You would find that the police officers you summon are getting more and more hostile to you as time goes on.

And you talk about me assuming things ito the powers? One could just as easily assume "generic" summoned creatures return from whence they came, unchanged and with no memory of what happened to them, or that Summon creates a facsimile being instead of a real one. It all depends on special effects.

In any case, I suspect your players will quickly learn not to use Summon in your campaign, as you seem to have a bias against the ability in general.


Ok, so you have an Uncle Louie, who is an art critic, you expect that he is going to play enough of a beneficial role in the campaign to warrant paying points for him. Why are you using Summon, and not Follower, Contact, or Favor to build him? Convince me that this isn’t just a follower with a cheap form of teleport.

It is a Summon with a special effect that the guy who shows up always has the same name, personality and wardrobe. Should Aladdin's Genie be a Follower or a Summon (we'll ignore Contact and Favour for now)? He is a Summon with a bit of flavour.

Convince me that Summon of a generic being is in any material way different from summoning a specific being which has stats identical to the generic being. How is "Generic Collie" any different from "Laddie, the Generic Collie"?


Actually, wasn’t the entire point of your initial question premised in the assumption that there are mechanical differences between a “generic” and a “specific” summon, and that those differences warrant a limitation? Haven’t we been discussing how the rulings and the way that the power has to work effectively in game terms have to vary between the two cases?

It was that the mechanical differences between "summon one specific being only" and "summon a generic being each time" were generally not sufficient to support a +1 advantage for the former over the latter. If the "generic being" or "specific being" always has the same stats, always shows up fully healed, always has the same personality and always arrives with the same amicability towards the summoner, what mechanical difference is there between "Summon Uncle Louie the Art Critic" and "Summon Generic Art Critic"? There is none. Consequently, it is a special effect, neither an advantage nor a limitation.

If, however, injury of Uncle Louie is not healed by the next Summon, and the death of Uncle Louie means the character points are now wasted (unless you find a use for summoning a dead body, I suppose), then this power is less useful than Summon Generic Art Critic. Whether that should manifest in the form of a -1/2 limit, a -1/4 limit or no limit (and, given the likelihood of Louie being used in combat, I'd say the last - a combatant would be different), it should not manifest in a doubling of the cost solely because the player thought through the summon and wants an effect that brings no mechanical advantage whatsoever.


You forgot to cover in your question, and Steve did not address the issue if the Summoned being is forced to “depart”. If it is killed has it departed? If it is grabbed and carried away, has it departed?

Addressed to Steve; good points


Alternatively, Summon isn’t a cheap form of teleport when it is used to pull a meaningless, bland, and unmemorable character into the game? As you pointed out it is generally easy to assume that a “generic” summon has no meaningful existence outside of his being summoned. It is much harder to maintain that assumption when it is the same distinctive summoned being each time.

Again, sounds like you just don't like Summon. How is it that Steve did such a great job measuring the benefits and limits of summoning a specific being, and missed the boat on the power as whole, I wonder. Maybe the better answer would be to scrap "Follower" and make it a modified form of Summon.


The issue of generic vs. specific is important, because the in game side issues are relevant when it is one over the other. Like, why could I summon Betty 3 phases ago, but now that the evil wizard teleported away with her I can’t? If it is because the wizard has erected a “magical” barrier, what advantages do I need to overcome it? Why do I need an advantage for summoning “current monarch of the kingdom” or “the guy hunting me”, and not for summoning “Betty”? The list keeps going all down through all the differences we’ve been siting through this thread.

OO REVELATION OO Your examples all include characters who are important to the campaign outside their existence as a being the character Summons. Mine (eg. Uncle Louie) assume the character has no importance to the campaign outside his existence as a Summoned being. That may be a summary of the difference in a nutshell.

If the character has campaign importance outside existence as a summoned being (Betty the Barmaid, the King's Daughter, your DNPC), then they are a "specific being" subject to the +1 advantage. These are the potentially abusive situations.

If, on the other hand, they have no real campaign existence outside being a summoned creature (ie a generic art critic vs Uncle Louie), they are not really "specific beings" and no advantage should be required. Note that this precludes taking your summoned being as a DNPC, for example.

They automatically show up fully healed, just like a generic summon, and their amicability never changes (or changes as an it would for a generic summon) unless you take a limitation (or advantage) of some form in this regard.


Truthfully, neither of us is truly arguing that there is no mechanical difference between the two concepts. What we are arguing is which one deserves to get the cost break. The rules have assigned the generic version the cost break. Presumably, because of the much higher potential for abuse. I think it also creates a simpler conceptual frame work under which to work.

"Potential for abuse" is the real problem. This is the crux of the matter. Adding a +1 advantage to all uses of a power, abusive or not, subjects reasonable players to unreasonable extra point costs while permitting abuse to occur provided the cost is paid. The advantage should determine the Advantage - if it's not getting any difference over generic "summon", there should be no difference in cost. If the power is twice as useful, a +1 advantage is appropriate. And if it's three times as useful (or what have you), the advantage should increase accordingly. But the points should be based on the actual benefits of this specific power, not the potential for abuse inherent in the mechanic as a whole.

[DoItHTH]

Assuming that nuthing comes for free. The President buys the appropriate KS, Perks, etc. to do what he does. Then the most abusive thing "Specific Being" that I can think of would be to allow the player the ability to summon another player to assist him on the battlefield. Granted this is a pretty powerful, and could be considered a form of teleport. But the player must specify which player ahead of time and must buy the power with enough points to summon a character with points probably comparable to his own.

However to simply summon a superbeing of a generic type but as powerful would also be equally useful. The only difference is the generic case would then require some advantage to make the summoned superbeing as easy to deal with as your friend. Ahhhh and here comes the +1 "Slavishly Loyal" modifier. I guess that would depend how well you get along with the other players in your group ;)

For this specific case it seems to me that using the "summon" power for this SFX makes sense from the stand point of buying teleport with a bunch of advantages would be more cumbersome.

Can someone give me a clearly abussive summon of a specifc being. (Please dont use campaign significance as the abuse since, like I started the post, I dont believe the Perks come free.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by DoItHTH
Assuming that nuthing comes for free. The President buys the appropriate KS, Perks, etc. to do what he does.

The problem here is that the perks are largely priced with combat effectiveness in mind. Wealthy and Head of State are pretty cheap if you think about the real life benefits, but they don't takle down Firewing in open combat!

Then the most abusive thing "Specific Being" that I can think of would be to allow the player the ability to summon another player to assist him on the battlefield. Granted this is a pretty powerful, and could be considered a form of teleport. But the player must specify which player ahead of time and must buy the power with enough points to summon a character with points probably comparable to his own.

However to simply summon a superbeing of a generic type but as powerful would also be equally useful. The only difference is the generic case would then require some advantage to make the summoned superbeing as easy to deal with as your friend. Ahhhh and here comes the +1 "Slavishly Loyal" modifier. I guess that would depend how well you get along with the other players in your group ;)[/QUOTE]

I'd rather have the generic guy - my teammate is normally there anyway! Would you need slavish loyalty? He's a superhero, isn't he? Surely he won't stand idly by while the villains trample the champions of Good and Righteousness! I'd say at least Friendly - you want him to know which spandex-clad crazies are the villains!

For this specific case it seems to me that using the "summon" power for this SFX makes sense from the stand point of buying teleport with a bunch of advantages would be more cumbersome.[/QUOTE]

Yup. What's Summon for if not to bring you some help?

Can someone give me a clearly abussive summon of a specifc being. (Please dont use campaign significance as the abuse since, like I started the post, I dont believe the Perks come free.) [/QUOTE]

How bout "it's his DNPC". That was a good example earlier - my DNPC is never in danger since, with a mere snap of my fingers, she returns to me.". This is especially ugly since more valuable DNPC's have less points and are therefore cheaper to summon. Feeble old grandma DNPC 14-; 25 point. Summon Feeble old grandma - 1 point x 2 = 2 points. What shall I spend the remaing 23 points on? :D

And just in case my players are reading, let me state now
NO WFAY! :mad:

I think if you want to Summon specific individuals, you buy a VPP, Summon only, changes automatically. WAY more effective than paying to just summon that one guy.