Refinement

[sinker]

Why on earth would you take Ritual (Crafting)? Why not just take Ritual (thematic) and fluff out all your enchanted items as being based off that theme? That's what I'd do, if I wanted to power-grub. Ritual (Demonology) would give me access to damn near any effect I wanted, provided I gave it an infernal skin.

"Pure Refinement" is only free refresh for the players who are unimaginative enough to miss out on the potential of a thematic Ritual. For everyone else, it's less optimal than taking Ritual.

This really isn't a good rules argument. Whether or not you like ritual crafting or not, it is a RAW power, and it does everything you are proposing refinement does. Since it is exactly what you want, RAW, and costs 1 refresh more it kinda pulls some credence from your argument.

I would assume that Evocators can have enchanted items using this very logic.

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.

However like he says no changing it in play.

[Revlid]

Yes, the lady on YS387 has Ritual (Crafting). She's chosen a functional limitation on her Thaumaturgy, like Ritual (Summoning) or Ritual (Veils). She's also missing two enchanted item slots, but whatever.

Using a thematic limitation will still allow you to craft (if crafting were a thing that happened anywhere but off-screen or as fluff). This is noted right at the start of the "Thematic Thaumaturgy".

"All the types of thaumaturgy listed so far are divided along functional lines. Plenty of spellcasters focus their specializations by function—you have divinators, wardsmen, crafters, summoners, and the like. But just as often, thaumaturgists specialize not along functional lines, but instead along thematic lines. A thematic specialization looks at the subject matter in which all the various functions of thaumaturgy are applied—an ectomancer will be particularly effective with summoning, binding, divining, veiling, warding, crafting, transforming, disrupting, and transporting ghosts and other non-demonic spirits, for example."

Diabolism refers to spellcraft that uses a demonic component. Therefore, my craft involves using demonic ichor to etch out runes, heating metal in hellfire, binding minor demons inside the fabric of an object, and using ancient infernal recipes bargained away from bound devils to create potions. I'm going to be stinking of demons, which should lead to decent compels, and I can still craft for pretty much any suitably demonic effect I want... While also being able to summon demons or place demonic curses or set up wards against demons or the holy.

RAW, you don't need any other spellcasting abilities to make an enchanted item, thanks to everything happening off-screen and thaumaturgy not being actually necessary.

I'm going to see what the GM says, anyway. This isn't even for my character; it's for someone who wants to play a twitchy, drug-blasted alchemist. I'm going to be playing a demonologist spirit eater (Ritual: Diabolism with the Mimic Abilities power - bind 'em and chow down, cue the crazy).

[NicholasQuinn]

Diabolism ... can still craft for pretty much any suitably demonic effect I want... While also being able to summon demons or place demonic curses or set up wards against demons or the holy.

That right there is the limitation imposed by taking a themed power, as opposed to a functional. Like to see you whip out a handkerchief full of sunlight, or brew anything remotely remedial. Or even half the possibilities for a focused enchanter, or full spectrum Wizard (who aren't just better [subjective, I know], but are far more stylish). Rarely is one form of Ritual or Channeling out right better than the other, which is sort of the point; it is all priced the same for a reason.

RAW, you don't need any other spellcasting abilities to make an enchanted item, thanks to everything happening off-screen and thaumaturgy not being actually necessary.

Because carving out a piece of wood and engraving it with runes is oh-so fun for all the table. Enchanted/Focus items are rarely made on screen for anything short of a solo game, for practical reasons. This doesn't mean you can use that to get around the fact it is a role-playing game.

I'm not quite sure what this comment was aimed at, and for fear of taking it out of context I'll leave it at that. I think the above is both vague enough, and thus generally applicable enough, to help out. Especially in relation to the original topic; about whether or not refinement should be enough justification to own enchanted items, (it isn't in my opinion).

I'm going to see what the GM says,

Ultimately that is what it'll come down to. Those on these forums can only offer their opinions, advice and RAW, which is well worth heeding. However at the end of the day it is down to each individual group to play it how they wish. So long as everyone at the table is having fun there isn't a problem.

I'm going to be playing a demonologist spirit eater (Ritual: Diabolism with the Mimic Abilities power - bind 'em and chow down, cue the crazy).

Nice character idea. Ripe with compel ideas. Best hope you don't summon something out of your league accidently. Well, you might hope to do so if you're particularly fond of fate points. Good luck.

[Dravokian]

I would allow someone to take refinement for crafting if the type of crafting they were doing wasn't magical... like you make healing salves through herbal medicine. Or you built gun parts and upgrades. Id have you gain Non-Enchanted item slots that can up a weapon or be used as a herbal remedy ect. Also the roles required wouldn't be discipline, conviction,  and lore. Probably Discipline, Construction, and Scholarship. I'd allow it in my game as a house rule but I'd watch the person doing it like a hawk to make sure there was no magical things going on. Otherwise you'd have to take a form of magic to get it done. But that of course is just me.

[The Mighty Buzzard]

I would allow someone to take refinement for crafting if the type of crafting they were doing wasn't magical... like you make healing salves through herbal medicine. Or you built gun parts and upgrades. Id have you gain Non-Enchanted item slots that can up a weapon or be used as a herbal remedy ect. Also the roles required wouldn't be discipline, conviction,  and lore. Probably Discipline, Construction, and Scholarship. I'd allow it in my game as a house rule but I'd watch the person doing it like a hawk to make sure there was no magical things going on. Otherwise you'd have to take a form of magic to get it done. But that of course is just me.

You can do all of that through stunts without ever breaking a PM template, without having a slot limit imposed, and without using a power in a way it was not intended to work.

[toturi]

That right there is the limitation imposed by taking a themed power, as opposed to a functional. Like to see you whip out a handkerchief full of sunlight, or brew anything remotely remedial.

Actually I do not see why not. Themetically it may not be similar, but it can be functionally remedial.

[Sanctaphrax]

Tired of arguing, going to try to stick to inarguable facts now.

1. The limits of thematic specializations are highly variable depending on the table. As such, Ritual (Diabolism) might be vastly better than Ritual (Crafting) or vastly worse. It depends.

2. The RAW are ambiguous here. You can rule that Channellers cannot craft foci without contradicting them.

Channeling gives focus slots. But it doesn't explicitly say that you can use them without Thaumaturgy. The rules for using them are listed under Thaumaturgy. So one can make an argument that the focus slots from Channelling/Evocation are entirely worthless without some level of thaumaturgy.

I'd rather not make that argument, but it is make-able.

3. You yourself called this a loophole in the first post. Some people, including myself, dislike loopholes and don't want to have them around.

I would further contend that loopholes are generally not very interesting in a system like this. They're a lot of fun in Magic: The Gathering, but this is a different game in many ways. But I'm moving into opinion again now, so I'm going to stop talking.

[UmbraLux]

As Sanctaphrax noted, crafting is specifically a form of thaumaturgy (see the first sentence under Crafting on YS278). 

Since it also goes on to state takes repetitive attuning, I'm generally will to allow Channellers to create items for spells they can cast.  I'm also willing to be talked into one PC attuning items (with spells he can cast) for another with the second PC paying the refresh cost.  (I'll also compel a lack of access to the item(s) if / when I think appropriate.)  But neither of these are technically RAW. 

Getting enchanted items without someone being capable and willing to cast the spell is a bit much for me to swallow.   

[Becq]

Regarding the discussion of Crafting, the RAW does explicitly grant all of the 'basic' spellcasting powers access to Crafting.  Those powers grant slots, and states that you can fill those slots with the stuff described in the Crafting section.  In mechanics terms, each of these powers in effect comes with a 'Crafting' trapping that allows you to use a limited version of Thaumaturgy in exactly the same way that buying certain stunts allows you to make use of the trappings of skills that you might have no training in.  I don't think this is a loophole at all, I think it was deliberately written into the rules.  If the game designers had intended to only allow those with the Crafting specialization of Thaumaturgy to possess enchanted items and focii, then they would have only granted item slots to that single power.

Yes, you could create a house rule that strips this ability, however given that the cost of those abilities includes a Refinement worth of focii, I believe you would need to adjust the price of those abilities.  It isn't reasonable or fair (in my opinion) that someone who has Ritual(Crafting) or Thaumaturgy gains an extra -1 refresh worth of benefit from the purchase of Channeling or Evocation than someone who doesn't have any form of Thaumaturgy.  It would be rather like saying that someone with Strength powers can't use their bonuses without also possessing an equivalent Toughness power, because otherwise they'd break their own fists.  My assumption is that Strength includes just enough 'Toughness' trapping to ignore that.

Note that there is also nothing in the RAW that prevents you from spending some of your slots on Crafting focus items that improve the strength of the enchanted items you possess through your item slots ... though I would certainly support a house rule that restricted focus items to elements/functions/themes you have 'full' training in.  One thing you can't do without 'full' training in Crafting is have specializations from Refinement applied to Crafting.  (I have argued elsewhere that you can't buy Refinements without having at least Sorceror-level magic, but that's a seperate discussion.)

Moving back to the OP, what keeps you from taking 'naked' Refinements (ie, without taking one of the basic Spellcraft powers first) is that you are limited to buying powers appropriate to your template and High Concept.  While you are not in theory prohibited from creating a custom template that allows you to do this, I would throw my support behind a GM who vetoed such a template because it does not mesh with the spirit of the game (in my opinion).

[Sanctaphrax]

Regarding the discussion of Crafting, the RAW does explicitly grant all of the 'basic' spellcasting powers access to Crafting.

This is factually incorrect.

Your post contains good arguments that it should be the case, and pretty well sums up the reasons that I allow foci without any form of Thaumaturgy.

Nonetheless, there is ambiguity in the rules. There is no explicit statement either way. It is possible that the focus slots that a Channeler has are totally worthless. Not desirable, I think, but possible.

PS: Writing about the rules without my books on hand is surprisingly stressful. I always feel as though I'm going to make a mistake...

[sinker]

Between the books and the words of Fred it is clear that any of the casting powers grant you crafted items. The ability to craft said items is specifically a branch of thaumaturgy though. What this means is that any character who has casting abilities has foci (and I would argue enchanted items as well, but that's my logic, not specifically RAW) but does not have the ability to change, create, or refine these items without justification to the table, and GM permission.

[Watson]

I would not allow a player choosing Refinement, without first selecting any other suitable Spellcraft (just based on that is not how I see that the power should be used).

Even though there are no "musts" in the text, I do see that it states that the character gets additional items - that implies that he has to have some to begin with when taking the power.

...
Or, gain two additional Focus Item Slots (or
four additional Enchanted Item Slots). For
more details on focus items and enchanted
items, see page 278.

[Becq]

This is factually incorrect.

I disagree.  To be specific, anyone who spends -3 refresh on Evocation gets:

"Item Slots. Evocation comes with two free Focus Item Slots (page 278). You can design the items that fit into these slots now, or later on during play. A single Focus Item Slot may be traded in for two Enchanted Item Slots (page 279). You may gain more Item Slots as one of the options on the Refinement ability (page 182)."

The other powers (Channeling and Ritual) grant this same capability.  Let's break it down:
1) You get two slots.
2) You can fit items into these slots, using the Crafting rules on page 279.
3) You can do this at any time, including during play.

Note the complete absence of the words even implying that any other power is needed to make use of this capability, or that you must know a Wizard who can make the items, or anything else.  The slots and the ability to fill them are granted right there as one of the basic capabilities of the power.

Further, if you read the section on Crafting, you will find that it says the following:
"While crafting things like focus items and potions is considered a type of thaumaturgy, it isn’t something that has a very active presence in these game mechanics."
And
"To avoid that boring repetition, the game handles crafting through the application of stunts. Wizard characters get a number of “slots” for different kinds of items"
See that bit about crafting being handled as a function of stunts?  The 'stunts' they are talking about are those granted as part of each of the basic spellcasting powers; it even mentions the slots granted by those powers in that context.

So the Spellcasting powers state that you can create items as part of the power, and the Crafting rules state that crafting is a function of stunts that grant items via slots.  How is this ambiguous?

[Becq]

I would not allow a player choosing Refinement, without first selecting any other suitable Spellcraft (just based on that is not how I see that the power should be used).

Agreed.  This is easily dealt with by not allowing any custom templates that grant access to Refinement without also requiring Spellcraft.

[sinker]

The one thing that confuses me is the game designer's statements, particularly the one I mentioned above. If the intent was that taking any spellcasting abilities grants you the ability to craft items then why would Fred say that he's not sure that he'd allow a channeler to change their items after they created them?