Specialization vs Foci

[ARedthorn]

I've been running a game for a while in Dresden, and a player recently brought something up that had been bothering me for quite some time, but had been ignoring...

namely, when a wizard picks up a rank of Refinement, you have a couple options- 1 new element + 1 specialization, 2 specializations, or 2 focus items (which can, of course, be swapped for enchanted items 2:1).

This implies, very strongly, that a new element is about equivalent to a specialization... which I have no problem with.
2 enchanted items are worth 1 focus... that I also have no problem with.

But my player asked me why they would ever opt to take 2 focus item slots when they can have 2 specializations for the same price... after all, 2 specializations apply to the element... 2 focus slots apply to the element only offensively or defensively. In order to get the same value out of the focus items I'd get out of 2 specs, I'd need 4 slots, and even then, foci can be lost.

So I'm very strongly considering a house rule that allows refinement to do the following:
New element + spec
2 specs
3 foci
4 enchanted items
1 spec + 1 foci + 1 enchanted item.

Still not completely balanced, but a lot more manageable.

Is anyone else out there doing anything similar?

[NicholasQuinn]

Beyond the point in which a Wizard has +1 Control/Power [Element], +2 Power/Control [Element], a refinement for specialisation cannot up the shift-band a Wizard performs at, whereas Foci can; albeit only for offense or defense.

Say a Wizard has Great (+4) Discipline and Conviction. He chooses to focus on Fire, gaining a +1 Control specialisation. As a Wizard in a submerged (for the purpose of this exercise) game, the Wizard spends the first of his two unspent refresh on a Refinement. He now has +2 Fire Control, and +1 Fire Power. Lets say he dedicates two of his four Foci to defensive and offensive Fire Power (two seperate items).

He is now a 6 shift Fire Evocator. Another point of refinement on specialisation cannot up that to 7 shifts, the math just doesn't work; because Specialisations must follow a pyramid. Foci however, do not. Thus, a point of refinement could increase the strength of either his offensive, or defensive, foci by +1 fire power and +1 fire control. Thus giving him 7 shifts in either offensive Fire spells, or defensive fire spells.
The two free Foci he has could up him to 7 shifts in both offensive and defensive, however they're irrelevant to this point.

[Edit:] Completely forgot to actually get to my response to your idea. I think it is unnecessary personally, as both Foci and Specialisations have strengths and weaknesses; and have their place in the setting.

[bibliophile20]

Foci are nice because you need to stack specializations: you can't have a +4 Fire Power bonus without a +3 elemental bonus, a +2 elemental bonus and a +1 elemental bonus.  That's 10 points of specialization bonus, or 5 points of refinement.  

A +4 offensive focus, on the other hand, only costs 2 points of refinement.  

[Rubycon]

my simple answer: because it is consistent with the character. I always give this answer ( ), but especially in  the HDRPG because of the way ist is played. When e player stucks to his stora and his character, he will find the answer what to take pretty easily.

By the way: I thought about playing with a group in Dresden myself (what better place in a dresdenfiles-rpg...? ). Maybe you want to share some ideas here..?

[braincraft]

The two main uses for foci are:

a) Evening out disparities between Conviction and Discipline, and

b) Stacking past the pyramid.

There's also:

c) You get some free with your purchase of spellcasting anyway.

[ARedthorn]

I know foci can bypass the pyramid- I left that out in my first post... for really, no readily apparent reason. It is a plus, but I don't think enough of one- it's one of the reasons why I made foci 3:2 vs spec, instead of 2:1.
And I suppose that in the hands of a focused practitioner who only wants to ever have 1 element that they work with, they'd become necessary in a hurry, per the example earlier... but in the hands of anyone else, anyone with more than one element... they still seem a waste, because keeping the pyramid isn't hard at all.
My game started fully submerged, and they've since earned a refresh. My mage primarily uses spirit and air, and has yet to move beyond her initial free foci... all her refinement so far has gone into specialization.

Conviction 5/Discipline 4, progressed as follows:
Spirit/Earth/Fire Elements (Evocation)
1 Spirit Power (from Evocation)
1 Spirit Power, 1 Air Power (added Air, through 1st level of refinement, still at character creation)
2 Spirit Power, 1 Spirit Control, 1 Air Power (2nd level of refinement, from a spare refresh she saved at character creation).

She recently decided she needed to improve her control a lot- she's been kinda sloppy with her evocation (and duh, with the original build)... so she increased her discipline to 5, and used another refresh on refinement (earned in play a couple sessions before this point), when she asked me why she'd ever bother with foci. Given the givens, she could use her refinement to add to her spirit offensive control and her air defensive control... OR she could just gain a generic point of control in each, and maintain more versatility, and less dependence on carried items. I couldn't argue.

2 Spirit Power, 2 Spirit Control, 1 Air Power, 1 Air Control.

Further, she said, her next point would be wasted if she took foci... because to increase her effectiveness with both forms of magic, she could spend 2 refinement to get the following:
4 Spirit Power, 3 Spirit Control, 2 Air Power, 1 Air Control
All she'd have to do is wait until she had 2 refresh to spend at once- something she has no problem with. Still couldn't argue.

After that, she said anything more, and she'd want to pick up water magic anyway, just to round the character's options out, and a +1 bonus on that would let her take her pyramid even further.
(For that matter, if she didn't feel like waiting to spend her refresh, she could do this first, and then be able to spend as she went without upsetting the pyramid, to the same final result).

She's planned her wizard out for the next 3 or 4 refresh points past fully submerged (and in 4 months of gaming spanning about 3 years in-game, my players have only earned 1, though they're soon to earn a 2nd)... and without ever increasing her foci past the initial free ones.

Furthermore, one of my other players built a wizard for the hell of it, and a possible cameo role... and did the same thing.

A friend of mine in a different gaming group offered me a seat at his table, for a game he's planning on starting... and the group currently lacks any casters at all... I'm leaning towards playing an evocator with sponsored magic (unseelie), and even I find I'm not interested in foci very much at all. That GM admits to the same concern.

Now... mind, if you go channeling instead of evocation- they're not only necessary, but required by the rules (you can't take spec at all)... but for anyone with evocation.... foci seem like they need a little more help if I've got 4 people (myself included) all asked the same question: "Why would I ever bother?"

[Edit:] I'll grant you, flavor is more important than build- form follow function et al... but that doesn't mean we can't have the builds balanced too. The cons on foci just seem to outweigh the pros, to me... and I'm the sort to try to investigate that more. Sure, my suggestion may be unnecessary in the light of following your character build, but does anyone think it's unreasonable, or has anyone addressed anything similar?

I love Dresden, don't get me wrong- but I've yet to find a table-top system that makes everyone at the table perfectly happy with it in all regards, and couldn't benefit from the occasional house rule. This is all I'm suggesting.... certainly in my game, there's something afoot with so many players who don't see the point of foci relative to what else you can purchase with refinement.

[devonapple]

Quick side question: are folks managing to designate any and all Evocation effects as either Offensive or Defensive? Or are there Evocations (Maneuvers, probably) which you wouldn't consider fitting in either camp? Are there spells for which a Focus Item simply won't help?

[Sanctaphrax]

There is really no good reason, from a mechanical perspective, to use more than one element for evocation.

(Barring deliberate and highly specific attempts by the GM to force you to use or not use a given element.)

So your players' situation is a bit odd.

Also, foci are flexible. You can swap them out for other foci or enchanted items after purchasing them.

[ARedthorn]

I can think of at least one good reason, from a mechanical perspective- spell flavors limit spell function. Sure, for pure damage- dealing or blocking stress outright- it doesn't much matter which element you use, on the fly... but for any other use, it should.

Placed in a scenario where she needs to move a large object out of the way, water and fire will be of little use (unless destroying it works, and for fire, if it's even flammable). Earth might help, if it's metallic... and spirit could work, if you don't mind just golf-balling it (watch out for ricochets)... but air ought to be the go-to.

A maneuver that unbalances a group of enemies so that you can compel them to stumble works well with air or earth, poorly with spirit, and not at all with fire or water.

Also- as a house-rule of ours, some blocks can be ignored at penalty (if I use a gun to lay down a spray of cover-fire blocking a door, it's not as if the door becomes impassible, just dangerous. If someone wants to go through the door, they roll athletics against the block difficulty. Success means they duck through safely. Failure means they have a choice between aborting or forcing their way through the block. Forcing their way through results in stress... from, you know, bullets. This applies as appropriate to the source of the block, as follows). The element used can determine a lot here- like the opposition roll and how a penalty might play out: an earthwall blocking a door might be athletics restricted by might, with failure forcing you to abort. A water block however might be a lot like Ramirez's shield- athletics to slip through some gap, with failure being abort or suffer potentially very lethal dissolution.

Counterspelling with fire or water should be multi-use (fire consumes magic, water is decay), but using earth, spirit or air for countering an existing spell ought to only apply to the same element/effect type.

It seems to me this was the intent of the game- otherwise, why bother with different flavors at all, except to interact in specific, deliberate ways with various available compels, aspects, and functions?

[braincraft]

2 Spirit Power, 2 Spirit Control, 1 Air Power, 1 Air Control.

Further, she said, her next point would be wasted if she took foci... because to increase her effectiveness with both forms of magic, she could spend 2 refinement to get the following:
4 Spirit Power, 3 Spirit Control, 2 Air Power, 1 Air Control
All she'd have to do is wait until she had 2 refresh to spend at once- something she has no problem with. Still couldn't argue.

What's wrong with spending one refresh to get 3/2/2/1, and then going up to 4/3/2/1? What reason is there to sit on that refresh?

[sinker]

A maneuver that unbalances a group of enemies so that you can compel them to stumble works well with air or earth, poorly with spirit, and not at all with fire or water.

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.

Forcing their way through results in stress... from, you know, bullets.

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.

It seems to me this was the intent of the game- otherwise, why bother with different flavors at all, except to interact in specific, deliberate ways with various available compels, aspects, and functions?

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.

[Sanctaphrax]

3/2/2/1 is not a legal pyramid.

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.

[braincraft]

3/2/2/1 is not a legal pyramid.

... that's true. I have no idea what I was looking at, or why it seemed to make sense at the time.

You could go with some other combination of Refinement bonuses and 'retrain' it when you got the second refresh, though.

[EdgeOfDreams]

Exact rules aside, let me just add this: Offering more focus items for refinement is a buff to casters, who already have the greatest potential in the game to boost their own numbers up to ridiculous levels.  Casters don't need a buff.

Secondly to that, so what if specializations and foci aren't exactly perfectly balanced against each other? Does everything NEED to be balanced perfectly?

EDIT: I'd also like to add that the 'offensive' or 'defensive' restriction on focus items is less of problem than you might think.  Many casters I've seen play find themselves casting attack spells far more often than blocks or maneuvers.

A lot depends on what the character's end goal is - if you want to be versatile, then a specialization pyramid is fine and dandy.  If, however, you just want to make your Spirit Evocations HURT as much as possible, then you put all your refinement into a focus item that gives Spirit offense control (and maybe power as well, but control is better if you can only choose one) and go to town.

[Masurao]

Perhaps I have not understood the mechanics right up until now, but aren't foci often an integral part of rote spells? You get more bang for your easy buck, right? I know you don't have to include them, but if you want a rote spell to enjoy the bonus of a focus item, it becomes a requirement for that rote. Or have I somehow misread that part?