Refinements for Focused Practitioners

[Sanctaphrax]

If people feel so strongly about Mort's stats, then why did I get so little commentary when I wrote him up on the Resources Board?

Anyway, I have a serious question for y'all. Why give Mort Sponsored Magic? How does it fit his character?

@InferrumVeritas: Channelling with pyramid-less specializations and no foci is not necessarily stronger than the default option. Giving up those two free focus slots hurts. Analysis here.

[UmbraLux]

Channelling with pyramid-less specializations and no foci is not necessarily stronger than the default option. Giving up those two free focus slots hurts. Analysis here.

Your statement doesn't seem to match the numbers on your linked post.  You don't think a +3 to +5 shift advantage on defensive casting is significant?  I do. 

I agree with you on the sponsored casting question.  There are several ways to accomplish a Mort build.  That's the norm for DF though. 

[Sanctaphrax]

It can give a significant advantage, but it doesn't necessarily.

Sure, it lets you boost both offence and defence at the same time. And it removes the whole disarming worry.

But if all you want is as much firepower as you can get, it's actually worse. And if you don't have Refinements, it's strictly worse.

So there's still a reason to pick normal Channelling.

[Quazar]

The point is that FPS should be MORE powerful than wizards in their chosen element.  Wizards don't get as strong in that element as fast because they branch out into others.

People seem to be approaching the templates like their are ranked or something.  Like any given FP needs to be equal to or worse than any given wizard in a particular element.

[UmbraLux]

The point is that FPS should be MORE powerful than wizards in their chosen element. 

Why?

I certainly think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be very powerful, even more power than a generalist - at least within their specialty.  But "should" be more powerful?  Don't see why.  It's certainly not true of spell casters in DF.

[Tedronai]

It's certainly not true of spell casters in DF.

It certainly IS true of a comparison of the top single representatives of each group (based on 'page time'), Harry and Mort.

[UmbraLux]

It certainly IS true of a comparison of the top single representatives of each group (based on 'page time'), Harry and Mort.

So you're going to extrapolate from a single instance to "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists"?  Doing so requires fallacious logic. 

I'm not going to count pages for a rebuttal but Cowl makes Mort look like the scared one trick practitioner he is...even in his own specialty. 

Beyond that, the books repeatedly call the WC wizards strong compared to others.  Against that it makes one statement (that I can recall) about Mort being better than Harry at Mort's specialty.  Don't think it compared him to a wizard who might have studied Ectomancy and related fields at all.

So no, I don't think it is necessarily true.  As noted before, I think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be more powerful in her specialty than a given generalist wizard.  I simply think that's a rare event, not a general rule of "should be more powerful in their focus".

[InFerrumVeritas]

It can give a significant advantage, but it doesn't necessarily.

Sure, it lets you boost both offence and defence at the same time. And it removes the whole disarming worry.

But if all you want is as much firepower as you can get, it's actually worse. And if you don't have Refinements, it's strictly worse.

So there's still a reason to pick normal Channelling.

Equal Refresh Comparison:

Charlie
Channeling (No focus item slots, can take refinement for pyramid-less specializations), Refinement x5
Superb Lore, Great Discipline/Conviction
+5 Control Specialization, +5 Power Specialization

+9 Control
+9 Power

Chip
Channeling, Refinement x5
Superb Lore, Great Discipline/Conviction
Focus Item 1: +5 Offensive Control
Focus Item 2: +5 Offensive Power
Focus Item 3: +1 Defensive Control
Focus Item 4: +1 Defensive Power

+9 Offensive Control/Offensive Power
+5 Defensive Control/Defensive Power

How is it worse at all, at equal refresh, when you have the ability to take refinements?  It's bad game design, because it's you sacrifice power now for power later, which causes imbalance at all levels of the game (at low level, you are unable to contribute as much, at high levels you're better than everyone else).  Oh, and not only is a regular Channeler less powerful all around, but that power can be taken away with one or two actions (that would require fate points or perfect rolls for Chip in order to resist of Charlie tried them).

Granted, Evokers are balanced against this (as the +1 refresh gains them more elements, specialization, and foci, which slightly more than taking refinement twice could do).  But their extra offensive power is subject to disarming (a disarm of their foci actually makes them worse than Charlie, and Charlie's better at offense than they are at defending against the disarm maneuver).

Elvira
Evocation, Refinement x4
Superb Lore, Great Discipline/Conviction
+3 Primary Control Specialization, +2 Primary Power Specialization, +1 Secondary Power Specialization
Focus Item 1: +4 Offensive Control Primary
Focus Item 2: +3 Offensive Control Secondary

+11 Offensive Control
+9 Offensive Power
+7 Defensive Control
+6 Defensive Power

So the channeler with spec's is arguably the most powerful of the three (although the Evoker is probably still the best in actual play rather than a head to head).  At this refresh, you'd look stupid playing a regular channeler.  Channeling is only viable when saving Refresh then. 

So you're going to extrapolate from a single instance to "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists"?  Doing so requires fallacious logic. 

I'm not going to count pages for a rebuttal but Cowl makes Mort look like the scared one trick practitioner he is...even in his own specialty. 

Beyond that, the books repeatedly call the WC wizards strong compared to others.  Against that it makes one statement (that I can recall) about Mort being better than Harry at Mort's specialty.  Don't think it compared him to a wizard who might have studied Ectomancy and related fields at all.

So no, I don't think it is necessarily true.  As noted before, I think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be more powerful in her specialty than a given generalist wizard.  I simply think that's a rare event, not a general rule of "should be more powerful in their focus".

This.  I think an equally powerful (in game terms, equal refresh to Mort post GS) wizard who has studied Ectomancy would be just as capable, if not more powerful,  as Mort. 

Just like I don't think a gifted fire or force focused channeler would be more powerful than Harry or Luccio (depending on whether we're talking power or control) at using fire in combat.  Possibly able to be more versatile with their fire due to the inability to use other elements, but not more powerful or better at controlling it.

[Tedronai]

So you're going to extrapolate from a single instance to "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists"?  Doing so requires fallacious logic. 

I'm not going to count pages for a rebuttal but Cowl makes Mort look like the scared one trick practitioner he is...even in his own specialty. 

Beyond that, the books repeatedly call the WC wizards strong compared to others.  Against that it makes one statement (that I can recall) about Mort being better than Harry at Mort's specialty.  Don't think it compared him to a wizard who might have studied Ectomancy and related fields at all.

So no, I don't think it is necessarily true.  As noted before, I think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be more powerful in her specialty than a given generalist wizard.  I simply think that's a rare event, not a general rule of "should be more powerful in their focus".

No, I don't think we have enough information to form a solid argument as to which 'should' be more powerful.
My rebuttal was intended only for the categorical dismissal of the claim, not as the foundation for a logical argument in favour.

What we DO have sufficient evidence of is that the biased-in-Wizards'-favour-narrator, who for the majority of the novels believed all FPs, and Mort in particular, were pathetically weak in comparison to folks on his level, even in their specialties, and even as compared to generalists like himself, was thoroughly shocked and impressed by the scope and power of feats accomplished by Mort, and convinced that he could likely not accomplish the same.

[UmbraLux]

No, I don't think we have enough information to form a solid argument as to which 'should' be more powerful.
My rebuttal was intended only for the categorical dismissal of the claim, not as the foundation for a logical argument in favour.

Err, ok.  You did cherry pick a quote from a paragraph which also stated "I certainly think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be very powerful, even more power than a generalist - at least within their specialty." and then made a flat statement denying my rejection of "should be more powerful".  Yet it sounds now as if our opinions aren't all that far apart.   

I still reject the claim that "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists in their specialty".  There's no evidence for such a statement.  Replace "should" with "may" and I'd allow the possibility...as I've already stated.

What we DO have sufficient evidence of is that the biased-in-Wizards'-favour-narrator, who for the majority of the novels believed all FPs, and Mort in particular, were pathetically weak in comparison to folks on his level, even in their specialties, and even as compared to generalists like himself, was thoroughly shocked and impressed by the scope and power of feats accomplished by Mort, and convinced that he could likely not accomplish the same.

Perhaps.  (I don't remember shock or a conviction of being unable to reproduce - but I'll buy it for sake of discussion.)  That same wizard narrator was very wary of a certain heart exploding spell and conscious of how outclassed he was by senior wizards.  He also notes he has more power than finesse.  So I don't find it surprising he can raise a dinosaur but might not be able to use ghosts effectively.  That doesn't preclude other wizards from being better at such things than Harry.

[InFerrumVeritas]

The more I read threads on here, the more I hate Harry's GM for letting him get away with so much.

[UmbraLux]

The more I read threads on here, the more I hate Harry's GM for letting him get away with so much.

Hehe, can't argue!

[Tedronai]

Err, ok.  You did cherry pick a quote from a paragraph which also stated "I certainly think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be very powerful, even more power than a generalist - at least within their specialty." and then made a flat statement denying my rejection of "should be more powerful".  Yet it sounds now as if our opinions aren't all that far apart.   

That might have been my mistake.  I understood your statement as a claim in itself that FPs were not as powerful as wizards in the novels.

I still reject the claim that "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists in their specialty".  There's no evidence for such a statement.  Replace "should" with "may" and I'd allow the possibility...as I've already stated.

Replace 'generalists' with 'wizards, even specialists' and add in a qualifier addressing the rarity of such an event, and I'd agree with you.

Perhaps.  (I don't remember shock or a conviction of being unable to reproduce - but I'll buy it for sake of discussion.)  That same wizard narrator was very wary of a certain heart exploding spell and conscious of how outclassed he was by senior wizards.  He also notes he has more power than finesse.  So I don't find it surprising he can raise a dinosaur but might not be able to use ghosts effectively.  That doesn't preclude other wizards from being better at such things than Harry.

The limits on FP power in the rpg are based on Harry's observations, assumptions, and biases from the early novels.

[Sanctaphrax]

Channelling is already only good when saving Refresh or when focusing purely on offence/defence. Evocation utterly trumps it in all other cases.

Which is why it doesn't bother me to make a version of it that trumps it except when saving Refresh or when focusing purely on offence/defence.

It would bother me to make a specialized power stronger than Evocation, though. Evocation is very strong, and making something stronger seems unwise.

PS: Focused Practitioners are actually generally better than Wizards at their speciality. Unless, of course, the Wizard chooses to specialize in the same thing as the Focused Practitioner.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Channelling is already only good when saving Refresh or when focusing purely on offence/defence. Evocation utterly trumps it in all other cases.

Which is why it doesn't bother me to make a version of it that trumps it except when saving Refresh or when focusing purely on offence/defence.

It would bother me to make a specialized power stronger than Evocation, though. Evocation is very strong, and making something stronger seems unwise.

PS: Focused Practitioners are actually generally better than Wizards at their speciality. Unless, of course, the Wizard chooses to specialize in the same thing as the Focused Practitioner.

Right, but your custom channeling beats Channeling in basically every way when you have access to refinement.  You can focus on offense and still be better at defense than a regular channeler focusing on offense, and can't have that bonus disarmed, for the exact same cost. Hell, I showed that in some ways you can be better than a full evoker at equal refresh.