[Sorcerer] Perhaps a dumb (rules) question, but...

[Demada]

I can't seem to find the answer in the book.  Can penalties, in Sorcerer, negate the entirity of a dice pool?

Example: A player in a game has an inconspicuous demon that looks like an everday Teddy Bear. It is presented by its child-master to another, who is a sorcerer. This Sorcerer has Lore 4, the Demon has power 7. With no augmentation does the Sorcerer have a chance to spot the Teddy Bear's TellTale (and thus know it's a demon)? Does he get one die (because his score is taken to nothing) against the one die the Demon has (because the Demon has no cover), or is there no roll at all, because the penalty due to cloak is greater than the Sorcerer's score?

I'm sure this is in the book somewhere, but I can't seem to find it.

[jburneko]

I'll let Ron give an official answer but I'd like to toss my solution in here since the whole "passive" Cloak and indeed cloak in general screws me up on a regular basis.

1) I think your Teddy Bear is more of a Object Demon than an Inconspicuous demon.

2) My understanding of the "passive cloak" for Inconspicuous demons is that it only applies if the demon is doing absolutely nothing like just sitting still nearby or maybe moving around in the shadows.  However, if it interacts with anyone directly in anyway it's visible.  To remind myself I always write "Passive Cloak" on the demon sheet to distinguish it from the full Cloak ability.

3) Then we come to the VERY common problem of Cloak vs. any perception score.  Most of the time the Demon's Power is MUCH MUCH greater than whatever score the character is using to spot the Demon.

So let's say that the Character's Cover is 3 and the Demon's Power is 7.  The book says that the Demon's Power acts as a penalty on the perception score.  Assuming perception is a problem at all I'd normally just roll Cover vs. 1 die to percieve something that wasn't actively hiding.  So in this case that would be 3 vs 1.  BUT Cloak is in effect giving a seven die penalty.

What I do, and Ron can correct me if I'm wrong, is apply the penalty on the perception score down to 1 die and then apply the balance of the penalty as a bonus to the base opposing dice.  So in the above example the character would end up rolling 1 (3 - 2) die against 6 ( 1 + (7 - 2)).

Does that make sense?

Jesse

[Demada]

I believe that the little girl's demon who looks like a Teddy bear most of the time and springs into horrible action was an example used at some point for an inconspicuous(sp). If it was passive, and never sprung into action, I would say it is an object. However, as it is, I think inconspicuous does it better. Cloack would represent the fact that it's a young girl's toy... Whose going to pay much attention to that?

The rest sounds good. Before I play next I'll look back over the rules for the passive cloak and such.

My rational for her teddy bear is that the architypical Inconspic. Demon is the Sorcerer's shadow, and this girl carries the teddy everywhere. It's as common and as unnoticed as a shadow until it wishes to spring into action.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

The Object vs. Inconspicuous distinction is a red herring. It is perfectly OK to define the teddy bear either way, depending on how you want the demon to interact with the world at large.

For the real question ...

Jesse, you're talking about spotting the demon, right? Just as an object, not as a demon (that would be a Telltale roll, and not affected by Cloak). So yeah, let's just oppose it with one die - say it's sitting right there on top of the table.

To spot the demon, you roll one die (3 minus 2), and the demon rolls (1 plus 5 equals) six dice. You got it, Jesse!

Best,
Ron

[jburneko]

Yes, I was talking about just spotting the demon as an object.  The telltale situation is a different case.  Although I assume that one would need to spot the demon before spotting its telltale.  But the telltale isn't affected by the Cloak individually.

Jesse

[Demada]

Oh... so the cloak doesn't cover up the TellTale? Or is it more like...
Sorcerer rolls ability (relevant) vs. demon's relevant to notice it in the first place, which is effected by Cloak. Then, if the demon is noticed, roll Lore vs Demon's Cover (1 if the demon lacks it), cloak not effecting it, and victories from the first roll rolled over.

That looks time consuming, but seems like it would be best. If it was just Lore vs. Demon Cover automatically, with no cloak, it makes the ability useless. Thanks for your help.

[Ron Edwards]

Hello,

Or is it more like...
Sorcerer rolls ability (relevant) vs. demon's relevant to notice it in the first place, which is effected by Cloak. Then, if the demon is noticed, roll Lore vs Demon's Cover (1 if the demon lacks it), cloak not effecting it, and victories from the first roll rolled over.

Spot on.

a) What teddy bear?
b) Oh look, a teddy bear.
c) Hey, a teddy bear - oh shit, it's a demon!

Best,
Ron