[DF] Summoned allies questions:

[Darieltis]

Originally Posted by sir_pudding

Yeah, that's a really good point! If Conjurable allows replacement of dead allies after 24 hours, it really makes no sense that it can't allow you to replace a dismissed one.

Similar logic ought to apply to Summonable, really.

I think the difference may be that a Summonable one is your loyal ally and is truly lost of killed. A conjured one is expendable, but requires a reaction roll to see if it will do what you want - that's the trade off. Of course, you could have a conjured Minion, but you'll pay +150% for it.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Darieltis

From Basic Set

Ally:
Many fictional heroes have part-ners – loyal comrades, faithful side-kicks, trusted retainers, or lifelong friends – who accompany them on adventures. These partners are “Allies.”...The two of you trust each other implicitly. You travel together, fight back-to-back, share rations in hard times, and trade watches through the night.

Contact:
You have an associate who provides you with useful information, or who does small (pick any two of “quick,” “nonhazardous,” and “inexpensive”) favors for you.

You want him to do leg work/scout - i.e. get info or do a favour - this is a contact, not an ally. Allies accompany you on your adventures as described above. You lump the two advantages into one and want your ally to function as essentially a contact as well...these are two, separate advantages.

So yes, he can do the leg work and then meet up with you...if he's both a contact and an ally...you roll for each advantage. You could have a summonable contact as well, I'd just add Highly Accessible +50% from patron to cover it.

More trait-gimping. This is getting to be a dangerous trend.

[Figleaf23]

Powers:

... the GM wishes to permit it, use a different +100% enhancement in place of Summonable, called Conjured. This works exactly like Summonable, and any rules or notes applying to that enhancement also apply to Conjured, except that each time the advantage is used, instead of summoning the same beings, it produces different ones. The GM must make a reaction roll whenever new Allies appear, to determine their willingness to obey orders. If they're killed, the summoner must wait a full day to call replacements.

So, with Conjured the clear implication is that if the allies are NOT killed, the summoner NEED NOT wait a full day to call on them again, and if they ARE killed they can be re-summoned on a daily basis.

So either Summonable should work 'exactly' like that, or Summonable gives you astonishingly functionality than Conjured.

Makes no sense.

[Bruno]

Not "To call on them again", but for replacements. Replacing a dead ally is totally not the same as teleporting them in from whatever safe place they go to when you dismiss them.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not "To call on them again", but for replacements. Replacing a dead ally is totally not the same as teleporting them in from whatever safe place they go to when you dismiss them.

Yes, there's a difference, but in what way is it different that matters to the logical construction or value placed of the trait?

[Refplace]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

Yes, there's a difference, but in what way is it different that matters to the logical construction or value placed of the trait?

I'm with Bruno on this.
It seems to call it out specifically because many people would argue that since there different Allies you can summon them again immediately.
It merely reinforces the existing idea that you cant use Summonable more often if its countered.

[gjc8]

Originally Posted by Bruno

Not "To call on them again", but for replacements. Replacing a dead ally is totally not the same as teleporting them in from whatever safe place they go to when you dismiss them.

You never call on a Conjured Ally "again". You get a new version, a replacement, each time you use the ability, whether the previous one was killed or dismissed. Is your position that it's faster to get the next version if the current one is killed, rather than dismissed?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by gjc8

You never call on a Conjured Ally "again". You get a new version, a replacement, each time you use the ability, whether the previous one was killed or dismissed. Is your position that it's faster to get the next version if the current one is killed, rather than dismissed?

By the rules as written "Classical" interpretation, it certainly appears to be that way to me.

Conjuration changes the conditions of Ally Death and Ally Replacement, along with Ally friendlyness. Otherwise it is as per Summonable, and doesn't further modify getting the Ally to your location and sending it away.

----

I think we need to separate two different conversations here, because it's getting a little muddled.

One conversation is about what the books actually say, and the official rulings.

The other conversation is about "Hang what the books actually say or don't say, this is what we figure it should be."

There seems to be a lot of people that think they're having conversation B arguing with the people discussing A, and people discussing A getting crosswired with B conversations.

Since the threadsurrection, I haven't talked about B at all. I already made houserules about Summonable the first time around, and the game I'm in are also using houserules. I'm talking about A because exploring the technicalities is interesting to me.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Refplace

I'm with Bruno on this.
It seems to call it out specifically because many people would argue that since there different Allies you can summon them again immediately.
It merely reinforces the existing idea that you cant use Summonable more often if its countered.

Q: How does it make sense to charge =100% for Conjuring which (a) replaces dead allies, and (b) allows you to summon them at will, while also purporting to charge +100% for Summonable in which (a) you lose an ally who dies and (b) can only be summoned once per adventure?

A: It does not make sense. The interpretation given by Kromm on this thread makes no sense in the context of what already exists.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Bruno

By the rules as written "Classical" interpretation, it certainly appears to be that way to me.

The new Kromm interpretation is not in the Rules as Written.

I think we need to separate two different conversations here, because it's getting a little muddled.

One conversation is about what the books actually say, and the official rulings.

The other conversation is about "Hang what the books actually say or don't say, this is what we figure it should be."

Since the subject at issue is a novel interpretation of the rules, it is perfectly reasonable to test the correctness of that novel interpretation with an assessment of its reasonability.