Specialization vs Foci

[ARedthorn]

I think I've sorted most of it out, and I was misreading a couple of earlier posts, in an alarming direction, hence my alarm.

That said... I still think there may be some balance issues between specialization and foci... but the only way to really determine a functional house rule is to test it... not sure I'm willing to. I came here hoping someone already had found a solution that worked well, but in absence of that... I may just have a group that favors mages with little or no focus on foci.

[Sanctaphrax]

Well, "elements matter" is a very reasonable way to play.

I just don't think it's the default.

Because it is not the default, you may have to change other game elements in order to balance things while using it.

For your games, I think it would be very reasonable for foci to benefit both offence and defense. Making elements important makes wizards weaker and foci less attractive. This change would counteract both, at least partially.

I think it'd work pretty well.

In fact, I can see a solid argument that playing your way with this houserule is better than "canon". (Scare quotes there to emphasize ambiguity and lameness of word.)

[crusher_bob]

I think one of the reasons this question comes up so often is that the first point of refinement spent on specializations is such a power boost.  The advantage becomes slightly less clear cut after that, but as almost no one plays beyond the submerged power level, no one ever has enough points to get deeper into the specialization vs foci area.