Template Balance

[UmbraLux]

It isn't so much that Wizards are stronger than mortals as it is that they have a higher ceiling.

Mortals can only invest about 3 or 4 Refresh into combat before diminishing returns ensue. Wizards can invest about 7. But both end up with a (very roughly) comparable amount of power for the Refresh invested.

So mortals are forced to diversify earlier than wizards.

You're contradicting yourself.  They're either comparable or one hits diminishing returns early and (by definition) doesn't get the same bang for the buck (or refresh) as the other. 

I also fail to see the difference between higher ceiling and stronger.  If you still think there is a difference, can you explain?

[Sanctaphrax]

An optimized Wizard with 3 Refresh worth of combat stuff is not much stronger than an optimized mortal with 3 Refresh of combat stuff. (Though the mortal will be subject to the restrictions of his stunts, and will have a +2 Refresh bonus. Whatever. It's a rough comparison.)

Evocation alone gives weapon 5 accuracy 8 if all you want is to attack as hard as possible. An assault rifle with stunts giving +1 accuracy +2 stress is weapon 6 accuracy 6. Then the mortal can pick up a +2 to dodge stunt. This will make neither combatant clearly stronger.

But an optimized mortal with 8 Refresh of combat stuff basically isn't possible.

Evocation with 5 Refinements gives weapon 10 accuracy 12. A mortal is not allowed to invest enough to match that.

Does that make sense?

I think I misspoke earlier...mortals don't get the same bang for their buck after a certain point. But up to then, they do.

[UmbraLux]

Does that make sense?

I think I misspoke earlier...mortals don't get the same bang for their buck after a certain point. But up to then, they do.

Yes...and I agree.  I simply don't see how you can say the above and still say "wizards are not more powerful".  Granted, you could design a wizard to be incapable of feats a pure human couldn't match...but I don't think that's the norm.

[Sanctaphrax]

You've got to compare at an equal level of investment. Since a mortal cannot invest much, that means you won't be comparing at a very high level of investment.

But at that low level they are roughly equal.

Since Wizards are playable at Chest Deep and cannot buy any Refinement then, they will not be significantly stronger than mortal combatants in many games.

[CottbusFiles]

Let's say a supmerged mortal starts with a 5 gun skill and carries arround a weapon 3 assault rifle. He has 12 Fatepoints to play with. Let's say he has 2 appropriate aspects. That's a +4. There are still 10 Fatepoints he can invest in rerolls/+1 so he can attack with a +18 or something. First round. He could go with +17 and compel the wizard to not have his defense up.

Case rested.

[Tallyrand]

Let's say a supmerged mortal starts with a 5 gun skill and carries arround a weapon 3 assault rifle. He has 12 Fatepoints to play with. Let's say he has 2 appropriate aspects. That's a +4. There are still 10 Fatepoints he can invest in rerolls/+1 so he can attack with a +18 or something. First round. He could go with +17 and compel the wizard to not have his defense up.

Case rested.

Right, but then of course the wizard win initiative, makes an easy hex, and then eats the mortal for breakfast.  Or the Wizard tags CRATES or LOT FULL OF CARS or something similar to say the attack misses completely.  Or the Wizard spends a fate to invoke his high concept to have the gun auto hexed.  Or......

That being said, I'm cool with Wizards being 'better' than the other templates, and I think that if it is a problem in your game it is better solved narratively than with a mechanics change.

[Sanctaphrax]

Power isn't the same as nova potential.

Power comes from being able to win conflicts and solve problems.

So Beast Change is actually quite a powerful power, though it does nothing for one's nova potential.

[Mr. Death]

Wizards =/= spellcasters. In fact, I'd argue that Wizards aren't even the best spellcasters.

Maybe, maybe not. But the point is, there's a lot of the book that deals directly with what Wizards do, is written based on the notes and experiences of a Wizard, and the White Council's laws about wizardry are important enough to warrant their own big section. I don't see the game adding a whole extra chapter on telling you how to be a werewolf.

Refinement does little for your defences unless you are a Crafter. And even if you are a Crafter, mooks can chew through the uses of your items pretty quick.

You don't have to be exclusively a crafter to put Specializations or Focus Slots into crafting items.

Look at the Merlin, either in OW or in Deadmanwalking's writeup. A few gunshots will rip him apart. In fact, the OW version could be killed pretty effortlessly by a few dudes with Good Alertness, Good Guns, and Fair Athletics unless you give him an enchanted item defence.

If I remember correctly, the Merlin's write up comes with a note along the lines of, "We don't really know. This is probably way underpowered." I can't think of any reason the world's most powerful (and probably most paranoid/cautious) Wizard wouldn't have a badass armored item of some kind.

Wait, why am I arguing this point? I agreed with you that wizards could be really fragile.

Actually shield spells are usually a waste of time. You're better off just taking out your opponents. What you really need to do to drop a powerful wizard is attack him while he's away from his Enchanted Items.

Well, depends on the dynamics of a fight. If the wizard's alone against several people, yeah, a shield isn't worth the time when you can attack. But if the wizard has some friends, I've seen people get significant mileage out of throwing up a solid block while his buddies took care of offense.

Those would be compels. Which is good, because otherwise a character becomes vastly more tough simply by being labelled mortal.

That's why you compel him. Your sig is very accurate in this case.

Agreed. This bit started with me suggesting they be compels, in fact

Most Wizards have 1 Refresh. Which means that one broken Law will render them unplayable unless something weird happens.

Breaking a Law as a source of drama and tension doesn't really work unless you either use different Lawbreaker rules or deliberately build the character for the story.

Fair enough on most wizards, but I know several players who've deliberately held to at least 2 refresh just to have the points available when they need them.

I suppose it depends on what you define as 'balanced' (Overall vs. combat, etc.). I'd say a versatile wizard is more versatile than a versatile Pure Mortal, though.

[Sanctaphrax]

The stuff about magic does not pertain only or even mostly to wizards. The Laws of the Council are not wizard-only. Magic has so much page-space because it's both complex and common. That doesn't prove that the game is about wizards.

Anyone who crafts is a Crafter, right?

Even in a team fight, I find shields are rarely useful. If you can be confident that your shield will hold, the fight is probably not going to be hard at all anyway.

It's not impossible for a wizard to have free Refresh, but it's suboptimal and most people don't do it.

Pretty sure that a versatile wizard is a contradiction in terms. A wizard, by definition, must invest 7 Refresh and 3 skills into a single area. That more or less precludes versatility at or below Submerged. My experience building Wardens taught me that making Wizards don't have much room for non-spellcasting capabilities.

[Tedronai]

When a single area of focus is hypothetically capable of performing most of the functions of all other skills combined, and then some, that single area of focus would seem to be rather impressively versatile.

[crusher_bob]

I think the real weakness for wizards is in their skill selection.  Combine this with the fact that they generally don't have the spare fate points to boost their skill rolls means that there is a lot of stuff that they aren't good at.

So, one way of highlighting this is putting the wizard into situations that he has to use his skills. Don't always let the member of the party who is good at something do it.

Beast change is one of the most powerful abilities in the game, in that I can make a character that looks something like:

Superb: Rapport, Empathy
Great: Investigation, Burglary
Good: Stealth, Presence
Fair: Athletics, Fists
...

Superb: Fists, athletics
Great: alertness, stealth
Good: endurance, investigation
fair: empathy, rapport
...

-1 echoes of the beast
-1 beast change
-2 inhuman recovery
+3 the catch: silver (common, researchable)

+1 human form, covering:
-2 inhuman strength
-2 inhuman toughness
-2 inhuman speed
-2 inhuman toughness
-1 claws

(-9 total)

Attack (targeting 5, weapon 4)
defense (6, + armor 1, + stress boxes, + recovery)

And I have the skills to cover talking, sneaking, breaking into places, beating people up, etc.  I can come pretty close to stealing the whole show like that, because I have great skills at everything.

Of course, for optimization, probably want to fit some discipline in there somewhere...

[Richard_Chilton]

Umm, you've got inhuman toughness listed twice.

Richard

[Sanctaphrax]

That aside, bob is totally right.

[Mr. Death]

The stuff about magic does not pertain only or even mostly to wizards. The Laws of the Council are not wizard-only. Magic has so much page-space because it's both complex and common. That doesn't prove that the game is about wizards.

Fair enough, but you can't deny the prominence of magic, magical practitioners, and wizards to the setting. The White Council is arguably the most important organization, since chances are most games will involve the laws of magic, the Red Court War, or other things related to their jurisdiction. Wizardry and spellcraft in general (which, while not exclusive to wizards, is kind of the wizards' domain anyway) are central to the setting.

Anyone who crafts is a Crafter, right?

Well, yeah. That was kind of my point, that a wizard is part crafter, and part other things. And so is, technically, anyone with a spellcasting power, since they get item slots.

Even in a team fight, I find shields are rarely useful. If you can be confident that your shield will hold, the fight is probably not going to be hard at all anyway.

Even if the shield buckles after three maneuvers and an overwhelming attack, it's still done its part: The enemy has used up several of its turns and actions just to get around your shield, which means they haven't been directly attacking someone on your team.

Though it is, admittedly, situational, shields help a lot when a party member's got a relatively low dodging skill.

It's not impossible for a wizard to have free Refresh, but it's suboptimal and most people don't do it.

You don't have to break a law, though, for the law to bring drama and tension to the game. A wizard having to scrap tooth and nail against three or four thugs because he's concerned about the Laws of Magic is dramatic and tense, more than if the wizard could've non-lethally blasted them into submission without concern for the laws.

Pretty sure that a versatile wizard is a contradiction in terms. A wizard, by definition, must invest 7 Refresh and 3 skills into a single area. That more or less precludes versatility at or below Submerged. My experience building Wardens taught me that making Wizards don't have much room for non-spellcasting capabilities.

A versatile wizard is one that has Conviction, Discipline, and Lore all somewhere in the 4-5 range. That means, as Tedronai pointed out, they can effectively replace almost any skill roll with a 4 or a 5. With Thaumaturgy, they can--with some time and effort--replace almost any skill roll with something in the double digits.

That sounds pretty versatile to me.

[Sanctaphrax]

What skills can Evocation replace? It's good for attacks and for some trappings of Might, but that's about it.

As for Thaumaturgy, that's not as broad as you present it as. What you can do with Thaumaturgy and what it takes is largely dependent on GM fiat. Would you let someone use Thaumaturgy to win an argument? To own an airplane? It's up to you. And a teen-level ritual is kind of a big deal, it's not something that you're supposed to toss out casually.

If your shield requires even a single boosting maneuver to break, you probably outclass your opponents quite badly.

A zone shield's strength is two less than the power of the spell minus any shifts of duration. And ties go to the attacker, if I recall correctly. Assuming no duration, you need to beat the opponent's attack by 3. If you can do that reliably, why not just take your opponents out?

Worse, it's possible to ignore a block entirely without sacrificing anything. Spending a round maneuvering is often a good idea even when there's no block in the way, the baddies can just do that.

Shields aren't totally useless, but the cases where they are useful are extremely rare.

(Unless you frequently have the chance to prep for combat ahead of time. In that case, shield away.)

Magic is prominent in the setting =/= wizards are the game's protagonists and power players. It's an undeniable fact that Evil Hat intentionally erred on the side of power for wizards, but it seems strange to me that people think they were meant to be the best things in the game.

Maybe it's residual expectations from other RPGs...in D&D, non-casters kinda suck by comparison with full casters. And in some White Wolf games, mortals are by design quite pathetic.