WC & Focused Practitioners? *Updated Enchanted Item Question*

[Korwin]

Which would result in an max. +4 Bonus at Char. Generation.
If thats possible, I would be - as an player - thinking about layering that +4 Armor Bonus.
One Item against Metall Weapon.
One Item against Death vegetable Matter. (like Wood)
One Item against NeverNever Goo

But even without this, for an Changeling with Supernatural Recovery: Catch Iron...
An +4 Armor against Metall Weapons would be a must have. (+3 is still very nice).

If the Char. in question doesnt have X Recovery or X Thoughness, then its not as big a problem.
But the moment you have such a Char...

[Mal_Luck]

Sadly, no. Armor is equal to half the shifts you get...so 1 in this case.

Armor wearable by everyone.

p279, "The strength of an enchanted item may be reduced by one to make it usable by someone other than the caster, such as a magically armored coat that anyone can wear."

From my understanding, that means you'd only halve it if others could use it. I suppose the item in question could only be powered by being in contact with it's creator's magical aura, so those other than the creator who try to wear it would get none of the benefits.

I'm considering just metal and maybe electricity(Air or Earth-based) and spirit(the electromagnetism would be magical in nature after, but I see no reason it would deflect/impede a direct Earth, Wind, Fire, or Air attack). And since it would only work for the creator when using it, maybe only work while he was wearing it (to counter the effect it would have on other things nearby) maybe even require a charge time (like at least 5 minutes after putting on)?

Maybe I should just downgrade it to a multi-use item, I could get rid of my extra Enchanted Items slots that way... Enchanted shield/armor type items are giving me a headache.

[Deadmanwalking]

No. Check out p. 252 for how to calculate spell based armor, and p. 279 for the following:

"The uses-per-session limitation may be removed by halving the base strength, rounded down; so if you have Good (+3) Lore, you could create a one-use-per-session item with an effect strength of Good (+3), or an always-on item with an effect strength of Average (+1).

The strength of an enchanted item may be reduced by one to make it usable by someone other than the caster, such as a magically armored coat that anyone can wear."

These are seperate and cumulative. So a coat that provides armor 1 and anyone can wear requires Superb Lore to get in one Enchanted Item Slot. To provide Armor 2 you'd need the equivalent of Lore 8 (9 if other people can wear it).

[Korwin]

Not Lore 12?

I thought that -1 is at the end?

(12 / 2 = 6 / 2 = 3 -1 = 2)

[Deadmanwalking]

I think it's before the halving. Raising via extra item slots is before, I'd assume this is, too.

[Mal_Luck]

What's the difference between a Block and Armor? For a defensive item that's always on, I'd use Armor.... For a spell I'd use Block.... correct?

Can you even make an always-on Block enchanted item?

[Odd Man Out]

A block is more binary. It stops an effect cold or it breaks.

Armor always absorbs some impact.

[Jared]

Why can't a Focused Practitioner use Refinement to increase the power/control/complexity of their Channeling/Rituals?

If I'm doing the math right, IF a Focused Practitioner were able to use the Refinement Ability to increase power/control/complexity he could only use it a maximum of 3 times in that way. +1/+2 Power/Control(or vice versa) for the chosen type of elemental Channeling and +1/+2 for Complexity/Control(or vice versa) for chosen type of Ritual.

Even though I'm still learning rules for the Dresden RPG, that doesn't look to overpowered.

I suspect that the reason has to do with sorcerers, not focused practitioners. If FPs could get Refinement x2, why couldn't sorcerers get more (not that I would necessarily make that argument)? But if sorcerers can get more than Refinement x2, what separates them from a wizard?

I do agree that letting FPs would not, from what I've absorbed, be overpowering. I would think that, in fact, it would go along with Harry's comments that they're not featherweights and can do things in their fields that he can't figure out. I wouldn't mind seeing an Evil Hat dev give an explanation for this rule (if they have, I haven't seen it; would appreciate a link).

[iago]

The rhetoric in the series certainly points at the FP and Sorcerer as being impressive, but not necessarily being very *deep* in their practice. Refinement is, as you've sussed, meant to be the way this is distinguished. If a FP is looking to spend another couple refresh on spellcraft, the expectation is that the advancement path is FP -> Sorcerer -> Wizard, rather than FP -> FP with more Refinement. (There are alternative paths, of course, where the FP ability sets evolve into something more like Sponsored Magic, but I'm talking main sequence here.)

That said, you won't *break* things (much, at least) by allowing greater amounts of refinement, for the "lesser" practitioners, but you'll also muddy the waters of those distinctions. If muddying those waters is attractive to you, do it! Harry's speaking from the perspective of the White Council; even if he thinks they're a bunch of fuddy-duddies, that doesn't mean he hasn't been soaking in the rhetoric, and maybe the rhetoric is wrong.  On the other hand, series reality so far points strongly (if not 100% consistently) at the wizards as at least one weight class above the other kinds of practitioners, so keeping those distinctions unmuddied may give you an experience closer to what you get in the books.