Focused Practitioner vs Wizard

[Sitrein]

Just pointing out, right now they can use refinement for enchanted items/foci. Are you saying you disagree with that part as well?

Just read back over everything involved to make sure I didn't miss anything and it turns out I did. Sorry about that. Right so they can use refinement for focus items and enchanted items. There's currently an argument over if you can even have FI/EI without channeling/thaumaturgy but I'd just say yes. As a DM, saying no would be kind of a dick move, imo. But still, my point about them taking it to boost their ability in that 1 area stands. Obviously not everyone would but their's no real reason why one couldn't.

[Drashna]

The book isn't exactly clear about it, but specifically, you can have focus items and enchanted as long as they are "in theme" with your high concept/ritual/channeling.  Like, if you're a pyromancer, a "force ring" doesn't make sense, but change it to fire and it's fine. Stuff like that.

[Quazar]

Hey, check out the new Case File, Neutral Grounds.  Maria Emana has a refinement that boosts her power and control.

[Sitrein]

Hey, check out the new Case File, Neutral Grounds.  Maria Emana has a refinement that boosts her power and control.

Yes but Fred also commented that that may have been a mistake. At least he did the other night in a thread, I don't know if he's said anything more in regards to that yet.

[bitterpill]

Could Hydromancers use blood with their magic could they say cause all of the water in a person to suddenly deside to move outwards and explode a person internally or is there an internal thershold value to stop such spells . I know it would break the first rule but I'm curious as to the possibility?

[Drachasor]

Could Hydromancers use blood with their magic could they say cause all of the water in a person to suddenly deside to move outwards and explode a person internally or is there an internal thershold value to stop such spells . I know it would break the first rule but I'm curious as to the possibility?

No reason why they couldn't.  It would work like any other kind of attack more or less.  You'd make a roll, they'd try to resist, and if you happen to roll high enough to take them out it would make a horrible mess.  Also, you'd be a jerk.

[bibliophile20]

Bloodbending!

[MijRai]

In the Casefiles Thread, Fred says that Focus Items are fine, but you need to have a very, very good reason for enchanted items.

YS, IIRC, stipulates that Channeling/Evocation allows you to have focus items. Ergo, it's possible to have a focus item, no? That's not connecting A to B, that's A to A. I'm not sure I'd allow you to change it once you establish it, tho. Regardless, the point is, with the item slot comes the item, as it were. No point in getting you a slot that you can't ever fill.

To sinker's question of:

On a related note there has been some discussion as to whether they (channelers) can create enchanted items too. A quick Yea/nay?

Fred replied:

I would go with nay on those, unless a good concept is advanced that seems to play inside the bailiwick of their focused spell work, and even then that's a real outlier. But a, so to speak, "natural" focus item doesn't feel so off.

[toturi]

In the Casefiles Thread, Fred says that Focus Items are fine, but you need to have a very, very good reason for enchanted items.

Did he mean that channelers cannot have enchanted items or was he simply answering to the question and thus they cannot create enchanted items?

If Harry gave his kinetomancer friend a force ring, could that kinetomancer have that ring in one of his item slots, even though the kinetomancer can't create one on his own?

[sinker]

If Harry gave his kinetomancer friend a force ring, could that kinetomancer have that ring in one of his item slots, even though the kinetomancer can't create one on his own?

There are already rules for lending someone your own enchanted items (reduce the power by one and you're free to do so), I'd say use the existing rules. Just because someone gives it to you does not make it yours, nor does it give you the ability to maintain it (physically or magically).

The way the whole thing reads to me (part based on fred, part the current rules, and part playtester rules) is that foci are tools of the trade for all spellcasters. By nature someone is going to pick up a tool and use it, refining it as they feel they need or when they realize that it could work that much better. That's fairly simple. But an enchanted item is a specific spell, encased in something, with it's own unique methods for triggering and recharging. They're much more complex. Maybe a little of that is just my bias too, but I'm hoping some of that helps a bit.

[toturi]

Actually I was thinking somewhat along the lines of Luccio giving a new warden one of the silver swords. As long as the warden has the necessary slots, the sword then becomes his. Could a channeler get an enchanted item in a similar manner? Or would his lack of artificing ability stop him from having such an item?

[devonapple]

Actually I was thinking somewhat along the lines of Luccio giving a new warden one of the silver swords. As long as the warden has the necessary slots, the sword then becomes his. Could a channeler get an enchanted item in a similar manner? Or would his lack of artificing ability stop him from having such an item?

I see what you're saying now.

1) I wonder if Warden Swords may have been handled better as Items of Power (YS 167) but because their intended recipients - Combat-focused Wizards - are critically low on Refresh Points to spend, they were worked in as Enchanted Items instead so that any Wizard would be able to have one if they were supposed to. It does become a precedent in the RPG rules, though.

2) Because it takes up the Wizard's Enchanted Item slots, the normal "lending" rules don't apply. The "lending" is a part of its backstory, as Warden Swords are intentionally rare Plot-related Items that a character either should or shouldn't have, based on his background, and people aren't building comparable new ones per the fiction. And while the backstory indicates one person makes these, full Wizards would be able to come close to making their own. I haven't broken down the build for the Warden Sword, but there may be some rules-bending to allow them the way they are handled in the fiction.

So if a GM agrees that belonging to a group (similar to the Wardens) would come with a particular Enchanted Item used by all its members, regardless of their own abilities, and presumably created by some central artificer like Luccio, then I can see a justification for a Focused Practitioner having an Enchanted Item he could never have himself built. But I'd imagine a GM would have issues with "I met a Wizard Artificer and saved his daughter from Ghouls, so he made me these Enchanted Goggles that fry peoples' souls, despite me being an Earthbender and having no experience with the Spirit element."

[sinker]

Also Luccio was making specific swords for specific recipients, so there's some implication that an artificer would have to make it specifically for you, and there's some implication that that requires a lot of skill. You couldn't just find a wizard and go "Hey, I like your Item, can I take it?"

But really I could see this all falling under "a good concept", I.E. a decent reason for you to have it, provided that it still falls within your particular area of expertise.