Author Topic: Specialization vs Foci  (Read 6586 times)

Offline Discipol

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 800
  • I use this for magical purposes. Honestly!
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #15 on: July 25, 2011, 11:14:40 AM »
Assuming you are talking about Refinement:

Specializations: nobody can take them away, but they are unchangeable once chosen, think hard about this.
Foci: you can switch them around, redefine them, change from enchant to focus and back, but I can sunder them, steal them, if I break your arm I can ask the GM to forbid you on using a wand or staff unless you pay a fate point or make like, dunno, Endurance check vs the pain...

So if you make a one trick pony, like having only Channeling Fire, go nuts with the specializations.
If you go White Wizard, take only foci and get diverse items like Left Sock of +1 Power Air Evocation (lol) and Right Sock of +2 Control Air Evocation.

Keep in mind that the power of the foci has limits in terms of how small the item can be. +2 is fine for a ring, but +4(in total) might require a rod or staff, and those are a pain. I recommend you keep your options open, your items many and small.

If you don't have enough juice, shoot twice, instead of shooting once, big, and miss.
Frank Power: Picture
High Concept: "Emissary of the Crystal Dragon, Crystalax", Trouble: "A debt I will never afford to pay."
Aspects: "Modern-day Gladiator.", "Authority p

Offline computerking

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
    • Into the Dark
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #16 on: July 25, 2011, 01:24:20 PM »

If you go White Wizard, take only foci and get diverse items like Left Sock of +1 Power Air Evocation (lol) and Right Sock of +2 Control Air Evocation.


Great, now I can't stop laughing as I picture a wizard with sock puppet foci.  :D
I'm the ComputerKing, I can Do Anything...
Into the Dark, A Podcast dedicated to Villainy
www.savethevillain.com

PS: %^#@ Orbius. This may or may not be relevant to the discussion, but whatever.

Offline ARedthorn

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #17 on: July 25, 2011, 01:55:51 PM »
I can think of both fire and water spells that would be capable of putting people off balance, and for that matter water could do it many different ways.

Keep in mind that stress does not equal damage or injury at all. As long as you are only taking stress an attack has not hit you, but rather caused you difficulty in avoiding it. Consequences are damage.

I don't really know why the developers chose to include the elements however they repeat the following concept over and over. A block is a block is a block. Same applies to any other concept (attacks, maneuvers, aspects, counterspells). What this means is that every block prevents the thing it was meant to prevent unless broken. Every aspect provides a +2 when invoked. Every attack functions in exactly the same way. There are no "better" aspects, no blocks that are less effective at blocking, no counterspell that is more effective than another. You can surmise the developer's intent all you like but they felt that this concept was important enough to clearly state repeatedly, so I expect they felt it was important to the game core.

pt 1- fair enough, to some degree, with creativity.

pt 2- absolutely fair enough- I've looked around the board some more and thought about it some- and I agree with the ideas bounced around here that ignoring a block outright shouldn't cause stress, but it might be appropriate to allow a player to take a consequence to boost their roll (until it bypasses the block), as stated in another forum.

pt 3- a block is a block etc, etc... yeah... but to be honest, I and my gaming group consider the dresden files series to be, in essence, supplements to the rpg system, much the same way lawyers use precedent to supplement the code of law. If there's a grey area in the rules, and my players can point to an established example in the canon of the series or even simple reason as to why it should go one way or another, I think that's fair. One of the ways this comes into play is the appropriateness of various spells within their elements- especially since it's a recurring theme in the book.

On a related note:
The restrictions you use for what elements are capable of are rather harsh, it seems to me. I would certainly let someone push something around with a jet of water or use spirit to disrupt the emotional energies that hold a spell together. And so on.

My experience suggests that most people do not restrict the elements as heavily as you. And I don't think that the rulebook is on your side either.

In essence, you have changed the rules. It is not surprising that the consistency of the related rules is affected negatively by this.
Water, specifically... hell no. Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.
I also was trying to come up with the most restrictive examples I could, to prove a point about how sometimes the restrictions should matter, and the elements should have an effect in play. There's also a lot of overlap between spell elements too. Spirit can make decent counterspelling material for non-spirit spells, since spirit is the element for all unseen forces (which just about covers magic entirely), but I'd have to hear the player reason through it like you did before I'd outright accept it. Likewise, I'd be ok with using fire to counter an unseelie frost spell as mutually exclusive opposites just as much as I'd allow fire to counter/divert it. (again- speaking of maneuvers and other less direct spells here- for direct damage, just about any block is reasonable, with the right visual).

As for "most people"- well, that may be a difference in area and groups... I have 2 gaming groups both running a dresden campaign right now- I'm the only member those two groups have in common, and I only GM in one of them. This is as much from my players as me- when my wizard comes up with her rote spells, she likes to think about the visual, and how it ties into what she should be capable of, and when my players run up against any kind of magic-wielder, they operate against the caster in different ways based on what they're throwing.
For me- "most people," in point of fact, the only dresden players and GMs I know until I signed on this forum- operate on my wavelength... so this has been something of a curveball for me to find anyone (much less the whole board), operating under completely different assumptions.

So- the whole reason for this rabbit trail is this: versatility.
If elements matter, then versatility in elements matters... making a strong specialization pyramid becomes easy and worthwhile for any wizard, and foci become wasted refresh.
If elements don't matter, and you can do everything with a single element, then versatility in elements is a waste of points, the pyramid gets very small, and foci become the only way to go... but my question is this... in that case, why play a wizard at all? Save yourself a refresh and just take channeling. If a focused practitioner can accomplish just as much versatility as a wizard, then my problem is that wizard is obsolete... at the very least, this should be a world where wizards and f.p.'s would be on equal footing at worst (probably better- the f.p. has extra refresh he can spend on even better foci!)

Edit: (forgot to add this, even though I'd been thinking about it since post #1)
Example- My game is set in Seattle- lots of light showers, all the time (it's a city aspect, so theoretically, my players can even compel it if they want... not that any of them have thought to do so yet). If it rains, it's going to impair all magic some, but fire magic more than anything else (no... there's not really a hard case for this in the system, except that there's no reason not to have a general block against magic, and a slightly stronger one against fire magic come into play... and there's at least twice I can think of in the books where exactly this effect is established).

Hence, elements matter, in our campaigns.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 02:06:04 PM by ARedthorn »

Offline Masurao

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 282
  • Liberate tetemet ex inferis!
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #18 on: July 25, 2011, 02:27:30 PM »
On a related note:Water, specifically... hell no. Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.

So you won't allow Water magic to summon/create water?

Offline KOFFEYKID

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 776
  • Im BLEEDING Caffeine!
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #19 on: July 25, 2011, 03:23:18 PM »
Actually I think I can clear stuff up.

There are five elements, and 10 ways to specialize amongst them.

To get a +5 Control you would do something like:

+5 +4 +3 +2 +1.

Thats 7 Refinements (1 as a Base, and then 14/2=7).

To get a +5 control via Foci you need only spend 3 refresh (and you have one left over focus slot), but its only going to be offensive or defensive. So for the same effect as the specializations you'd have to bring it to 5 refinement on focus items, and even then it is still cheaper.

Now lets imagine we got our lore up to 6, and want to get a +6 control via specialization.

+6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1. Thats 20 specializations, or 10 refinement.

In foci thats 6 refinement. It becomes increasingly hard as you go up in scale to get appreciable bonuses in the areas of specialization you want as your pyramid becomes bigger and bigger. Foci don't have that limitation.

Regarding Elements:

I too think you are too narrow in your application of the elements. That is not to say that focusing in one element is the only way to go, in fact I'm sure it is not. There are monster that are vulnerable to fire and monsters that are vulnerable to water etcetera. This obviously make other elements very useful.

I pick my elements based on versatility within that element, so for example my very favorite element is spirit since it can do Force based attacks (FOZARE!!!) and defenses, it can do veils, and it can affect spirits and such like, and illusions too. It is very versatile.

Another I usually pick is Air, since it is also very versatile. It can do lightning, it can be used to blow hot/cold air as I need it, it can make shields, it can suffocate people, it can (nolethally) knock people over, and this is just off the top of my head.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 03:39:56 PM by KOFFEYKID »

Offline Discipol

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 800
  • I use this for magical purposes. Honestly!
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #20 on: July 25, 2011, 03:24:21 PM »
Great, now I can't stop laughing as I picture a wizard with sock puppet foci.  :D

Lols, think of voo doo priests, what you said is actually canon xD
Frank Power: Picture
High Concept: "Emissary of the Crystal Dragon, Crystalax", Trouble: "A debt I will never afford to pay."
Aspects: "Modern-day Gladiator.", "Authority p

Offline ARedthorn

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #21 on: July 25, 2011, 03:36:24 PM »
maybe on a small scale, water can be moved around (the game references using it to suffocate- although that could be through entropy just as easily, since all you'd need to do something like that is break down someone's lungs a little, and let them fill with water and blood)... but create it outright? no... any significant amount of water shorts magic out- hence why a rainstorm is a hinderance but not an absolute mage-killer.

Course, there are plenty of other fluids that the game also discusses...

again- let me say- this isn't just me- my players are also on the same page here. It's the reason water's the one element my wizard didn't pick up, in fact- because she didn't really grock the feel of it, beyond what we see from ramirez.


Also, Koffeykid- in the long haul, once you get up there, yes- refinement gets a lot stickier and pricier for that max bonus... don't get me wrong, I get that. It just seemed to me that an innate bonus (un-loseable) that applies to offense and defense was a lot more useful than the same amount of restricted (offense OR defense), removable bonus... and that the ability to change foci between stories or break the pyramid wasn't enough of a bonus to make them equivalent in value.

Your 3 refresh focus may be cheaper, but it only offers a +5 bonus to offensive OR defensive control to a single element. If I want offensive AND defensive control +5, I'd need to spend 5 refinement to manage that, and it would have to be a very large focus to pull it off, or a couple big ones (harder to conceal, easier to remove in combat, not always as easily available to you as, say, an innate knack).
For my 7 refresh, I get +5 offensive AND defensive control to that element, on top of which I get +4 offensive AND defensive power to the same element, and I get 2 other elements improved ON TOP of that. 2 extra refresh, and I get at least double the function, if not triple.

Again, assuming of course, that there's any point to having multiple elements... a debate perhaps best suited for another thread, but one I'm not willing to leave to the wayside, since it affects this issue so much.

Offline computerking

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 390
    • View Profile
    • Into the Dark
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #22 on: July 25, 2011, 03:41:31 PM »
Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.

Just a note, on YS256, where the book defines elements, pummeling or slicing with "a Jet of water" is specifically stated.
I'm the ComputerKing, I can Do Anything...
Into the Dark, A Podcast dedicated to Villainy
www.savethevillain.com

PS: %^#@ Orbius. This may or may not be relevant to the discussion, but whatever.

Offline KOFFEYKID

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 776
  • Im BLEEDING Caffeine!
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #23 on: July 25, 2011, 03:48:30 PM »
Noted, and I've actually edited my previous post to expound upon the usefulness of having multiple powerful elemental options, but I'll move back over to the focus item side of things once more.

Focus item sizes are important to keep in mind, but its not nearly as dire as you would imagine. Most people *aren't* going to go for the one trick pony huge focus anyway, just as, when elements are properly versatile (but still within their area of niche protection) jumping up to a +5 specialization wont necessarily be the first thing you do.

Lets remember that the proper wizard is going to have his refinement spread out amongst four things. Evocation Specializations, Thaumaturgy Specializations, Focus Items, and Enchanted Items. Each area is *very* powerful, and while of course you can favor one above all others, it isn't wise to ignore the other three entirely. This is why focus items are nice because they *can* be changed.

When you are making enchanted items, you can switch your focus items to bonuses to crafting, when you are focusing on some thaumaturgy stuff you can get them switched to that, etcetera, of course its not something that changes from scene to scene, but something done between the end of one book and finished at the start of another.

-edit-

Also, just to point out, the most powerful area of focus for a wizard isn't even specializations, or focus items. Enchanted items are far more powerful than they seem at first. Build out a 10 refresh wizard with a focus on Crafting (+2 Strength, +1 Uses, and six enchanted item slots, see what you get).
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 03:51:50 PM by KOFFEYKID »

Offline zenten

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #24 on: July 25, 2011, 03:51:12 PM »
Are you sure you can use slots for Evocation for Thaumaturgy and vice versa?

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #25 on: July 25, 2011, 03:59:17 PM »
You obviously have a very strongly formed opinion. I don't see any argument I could raise that would likely shake that as I've quoted hard RAW and it seems to have no effect. Seems to me that in the position that you hold foci are only going to have that one place in the end game for you. I hope that works out for you, and that you have lots of fun with it.

As a side note, I really do love Devonapple's houserule for taking consequences to add shifts of effect to a mundane roll. It's such an elegant and simple way of dealing with the idea of succeeding but at a cost.

So if you make a one trick pony, like having only Channeling Fire, go nuts with the specializations.
If you go White Wizard, take only foci and get diverse items like Left Sock of +1 Power Air Evocation (lol) and Right Sock of +2 Control Air Evocation.

Of note, if you have channeling fire then you can't ever take a specialization. Channeling gets no initial specialization and can't buy refinements for anything but focus items. Additionally even if they could buy specializations they could never get higher than +2 fire control, +1 fire power (or vice versa) as they don't have any other element to support further bonuses in the pyramid.

Offline ARedthorn

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #26 on: July 25, 2011, 04:01:00 PM »
Just a note, on YS256, where the book defines elements, pummeling or slicing with "a Jet of water" is specifically stated.

So noted... would it be semantics to debate if that's actually water, or ectoplasm taking the shape of water?  ;D

Fair enough on that point, though I'm having a hard time coping with some of the conflicting fluff there... I can live with it, I guess. We'll see if my players can.
Still, one bad example doesn't ruin the rest- I think having the flavors matter is a good idea... and I think those flavors should have a lot of overlap in function, but not complete overlap... and little to no overlap when it comes to visual/side-effects/etc.

Offline ARedthorn

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 278
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #27 on: July 25, 2011, 04:11:54 PM »
You obviously have a very strongly formed opinion. I don't see any argument I could raise that would likely shake that as I've quoted hard RAW and it seems to have no effect. Seems to me that in the position that you hold foci are only going to have that one place in the end game for you. I hope that works out for you, and that you have lots of fun with it.

As a side note, I really do love Devonapple's houserule for taking consequences to add shifts of effect to a mundane roll. It's such an elegant and simple way of dealing with the idea of succeeding but at a cost.

Oh- it's had an effect- and a number of them...

1- I'm pitching Devonapple's houserule to my players in place of the one we've been using... it's far more appropriate.
2- See my last post
3- My opinion was strongly formed for lack of an opposing opinion... which is a bad thing, and I'm trying to hammer some things out here... some of that means rephrasing myself to better communicate, and if that comes across as hard-headedness, apologies. Trying to learn where your ideas come from, and why they do or don't work, beyond simply the RAW being mandate of heaven.
4- The RAW you specifically quoted, I think, can have a slightly different interpretation that makes the elements still valuable... and I really can't imagine them not being valuable. The issue with foci is a consequence of that, that for now, I'm quite happily moving away from. I'm now far more concerned with the function of fluff, as it were. If the RAW make multi-elements pointless, then my game is broken... it's not enough to just be told that, if I'm not given either an alternative or a way to fix it (fix the RAW, or fix my game). I am, in fact:
5- rapidly becoming convinced that I and my players have absolutely no understanding of the game as the majority know it... which might be a problem worth investigating. or:
6- I'm wildly misreading what you guys mean when you're talking about the functional similarity of elements, or you're wildly misreading my intent about their differentiation (since more than one has commented that my group seems abnormally stickly about them, counter to what the rules support).... quite possibly both.
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 04:15:36 PM by ARedthorn »

Offline devonapple

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2165
  • Parkour to YOU!
    • View Profile
    • LiveJournal Account
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #28 on: July 25, 2011, 05:21:24 PM »
So noted... would it be semantics to debate if that's actually water, or ectoplasm taking the shape of water?  ;D

There is always water in the air (and in the human body), so a Wizard could conceivably condense the ambient water into a column. They could also simulate it with ectoplasm. Depends on the flavor.

If someone with water magic was casting "real" water jets in an arid climate, for instance, the GM could easily compel that Aspect against the caster and either make it harder by 2 shifts, or forbid it outright. And the player could, likewise, justify taking Consequences to fuel the spell with their own body fluids.

Likewise, someone using ectoplasm to cast "simulated" water jets would be unable to justify an Aspect reflecting water's natural properties against magic: they could not, for example, place an Evocation Maneuver "Water Everywhere" and Invoke it against a Summoned creature.

And if the GM needs to lock it down, they should probably determine which one the caster is doing, and use that method - ectoplasm or real water - consistently for all of their spells.
"Like a voice, like a crack, like a whispering shriek
That echoes on like it’s carpet-bombing feverish white jungles of thought
That I’m positive are not even mine"

Blackout, The Darkest of the Hillside Thickets

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: Specialization vs Foci
« Reply #29 on: July 25, 2011, 06:18:34 PM »
I didn't mean that this whole thing had no purpose at all, just that while you may have overlooked a few things, you seem to be fairly certain of the answer to your original question. I don't see anything that completely contradicts your answer so it's likely that we can't dissuade you.

And all of that is completely fine.

(or perhaps I simply can't come up with any arguments that I can't shoot down using your viewpoint)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2011, 06:31:13 PM by sinker »