Taking the same power twice?

[John Galt]

Gruffs idea is at odds with the rules and balance.  Elements as written are just flavor.  Taking specs instead of second and third elements is obviously the smarter choice (would be).  If it were allowed You could take spec refinements for channelling.

[Kordeth]

Gruffs idea is at odds with the rules and balance.  Elements as written are just flavor.  Taking specs instead of second and third elements is obviously the smarter choice (would be).  If it were allowed You could take spec refinements for channelling.

And yet the Refinement power lets you choose between a new element and two specialization bonuses for the exact same cost.

[Myrddhin]

And yet the Refinement power lets you choose between a new element and two specialization bonuses for the exact same cost.

It lets you choose a new element and a specialization in that element, so if your GM is allowing the mix-and-match approach you could take two elements. Though I can't see any reason to take an additional element instead of a specialization.

[Kordeth]

It lets you choose a new element and a specialization in that element, so if your GM is allowing the mix-and-match approach you could take two elements. Though I can't see any reason to take an additional element instead of a specialization.

Try telling a wizard who only knows water evocations that different elements are just flavor when a slavering pack of Red Court vampires is charging him.

[Deadmanwalking]

Try telling a wizard who only knows water evocations that different elements are just flavor when a slavering pack of Red Court vampires is charging him.

And he casually disintegrates them? I'm...not really sure what you're getting at here.

Personally, I wouldn't allow anyone to rearrange the basic Evocation setup (and there's no evidence that doing so is legal), though I certainly would on levels of Refinement.

[GruffAndTumble]

I heartily disagree that elements are just flavor. Certainly, you're very unlikely to need all five, and four is often overkill, but between the need to satisfy Catches and the need not to bog down a session for ten minutes trying to justify the action you want to take with your available elements, they are very handy.

That being said, I prefaced my suggestion by stating that it was not intended as a "go to" interpretation on the default rules. I could have been a little more clear, I guess. So, here goes clarity: That suggestion was made purely to illuminate an alternate viewpoint. In no way do I consider it canon or RAW. I just wanted to showcase an interesting idea from a viewpoint I had not seen previously.

[Korwin]

Well, I haven't had a chance to sit down and read the rules, but here's the reason why I wasn't sure if you could just take evocation and no other power because of the templates. I mean I couldn't see just the evoker template.

Look at the Focused Practioner Template, voila Evoker Template.

Ups.
If I were limited to the printed Templates and wanted to play an Evoker only. I would look at:

• Emissary of Power or
• Changeling

[John Galt]

Elements are flavor.  All they do are satisfy catches.  As written.  It would take me 10 sec to think of any effect you could want with earth or spirit, 15 sec for water or air, 20 for fire.  That's hardly bogging down a session.

[GruffAndTumble]

Elements are flavor.  All they do are satisfy catches. 

Nine words containing two mutually exclusive points. That's some impressive brevity right there. Or maybe you are using a definition of "flavor" that means "uncommonly occurring but still tremendously advantageous mechanical benefit"? Should we alert Webster's?

As written.  It would take me 10 sec to think of any effect you could want with earth or spirit, 15 sec for water or air, 20 for fire.  That's hardly bogging down a session.

I'm very happy for you. Not everyone thinks this fast. My "ten minutes" was intended as hyperbole, but I have yet to meet a gamer who enjoys spending excess time so the guy with special circumstances can resolve his fancy action.

Final point--spells are not solely defined by the effect they create, but also by the situation they affect. If a pyromancer wants to throw up a shield spell in a dry wooden building, you can bet your ass that I'm compelling the "Highly Flammable" aspect on the walls. Many forms of Earth magic manipulating actual dirt or stone is ripe for compels, where simple kinetomancy creating stony force barriers would be less so.

[John Galt]

No.  I mean they might as well not satisfy catches.  If I'm a pyromancer fighting a fire demon, I'll steal heat from him.   If I'm a biomancer fighting an ent,  I'll hit him with a laser.  Everything is Just shifts of power.  I decide the effect.

If you tag highly flammable I'll tag smoke cover.  You have to be twice as creative as your players or a bad GM to make diversifying worth his time.  As written.

[GruffAndTumble]

No.  I mean they might as well not satisfy catches.  If I'm a pyromancer fighting a fire demon, I'll steal heat from him.   If I'm a biomancer fighting an ent,  I'll hit him with a laser.  Everything is Just shifts of power.  I decide the effect.

If that's how your group runs it, that's dandy. Not everyone is going to agree that the heat-stealing trick works on a fire demon--I prioritize symbolic associations way over scientific rigor in this kind of situation, and wouldn't let it fly.

If you tag highly flammable I'll tag smoke cover.  You have to be twice as creative as your players or a bad GM to make diversifying worth his time.  As written.

I'm not talking about tags for a direct bonus. I mentioned "compels." If you don't pay the GM a fate point to buy off the compel, the building will collapse on you, and all the smoke cover in the world won't save you from flaming boards falling on your head. Some groups might not offer that compel, sure. That's their prerogative. It is not your prerogative to tell them they are doing it wrong.

[Doc Nova]

Personally, I think the differing elements are very important and not just window dressing.  Whether it would be through justifications, satisfying catches, or the simple "BS" rule, some elements are simply going to be better at "their thing" than others.  I agree with Gruff on the fact that if a game group decides to run it where the elements are meaningless, that's fine...for that group.  But for mine, they are important.  They're important because Harry sets buildings on fire.  They're important because fire is different from air which is different from spirit which is different from earth which is different from water.  If they were all the same then the notion of picking a specialty would be a small sidebar talking about thematic use only, not something that is meant to be "learned" via Refinement.

[John Galt]

Heat stealing is Canon and an example in YS. 

You can't compel my death.  When I Dodge with athletics I'll make a declaration for the new temporary aspect smoke cover and make a more powerful block.

If you want to bend the rules to make diversity relevant, that's nice.  But you're not playing the game as written.

Personally I'd love to house rule elemental differences, but at least I know it's a house rule.

[Doc Nova]

If you want to bend the rules to make diversity relevant, that's nice.  But you're not playing the game as written.

Personally I'd love to house rule elemental differences, but at least I know it's a house rule.

What rule book are you reading?  When I read pages 254-255 of YS, where it goes on about the different uses for the different elements, they clearly delineate differing uses for each, where they are better at some things than other elements.  No where do I see anything that removes that.  No one is house ruling a thing when it comes to different elements satisfying catches or enabling certain aspects.

Veils, as one example, are the "special province of spirit magic.". That's not a house rule...that's "as written".  You certainly aren't going to hit me with a "Drenched" aspect with fire or earth.  I can see some correlation between earth's gravity effects and air "pushes" or pressure, but it won't look the same, feel the same, or have the same scene effects.

If you want to disagree and run it your way, believe me I'd be the last to tell you you can't, but the idea that elemental differences are "house ruling" is just plain wrong, as is telling me I'm not playing the game "as written".

Now, if you are referring to the sidebar where it talks about justifying electricity via earth or air, sure it opens the door for varying justifications, but no where does it invalidate different elements...at least not that I can find.

[GruffAndTumble]

Heat stealing is Canon and an example in YS. 

You can't compel my death.  When I Dodge with athletics I'll make a declaration for the new temporary aspect smoke cover and make a more powerful block.

If you want to bend the rules to make diversity relevant, that's nice.  But you're not playing the game as written.

Personally I'd love to house rule elemental differences, but at least I know it's a house rule.

I'm not saying Heat Stealing isn't possible, but I'd need a page citation before I buy that it is specifically applicable to the exact situation I am referring to.

I'm not compelling "death." Don't put words into my mouth. Attacks and damage can come in the form of compels--that's how True Love is stated to be able to damage WCVs despite not harming any other form of creature.

I'm not bending the rules. I'm interpreting them. If you want to go rules-fundamentalist on me and declare you know the One True Way, I will be happy to add you to my mental list of Internet Crazies. If you are willing to accept that not everyone is your identical psychic clone, then we can continue talking.