Sponsored Magic and Refinement

[Deadmanwalking]

There are rules for different Evocation elements, including a specific direction to make your own.

Agreed entirely.

There are rules for Sponsored-Magic enhanced Evocation, which explicitly describes the standard Evocation elements enhanced by a sponsor.

Again, agreed.

I composite these as "Sponsored Magic lets you use that magic as a Thematic Thaumaturgy and an Evocation Element.". ^{i can capitalise whatever i want, colonial heathen}

Sort of agreed. I think that Sponsored Magic gives you a Thematic Thaumaturgy Area and likewise a Thematic Evocation Area, which, while usable like an element when on it's own, is no more an actual Element than Biomancy is a Functional Thaumaturgy Specialty. Barring you actually arranging an Elemental system where it is anyway.

Just the way I've always seen that as working.

[Lavecki121]

So...what If you only have sponsored magic?

[Deadmanwalking]

So...what If you only have sponsored magic?

Like I said, you can use it like an Element, and you can certainly get Focus Items for it...but none of that actually makes it an element, IMO.

[Lavecki121]

I always thought of it as an element in its own right, it just had the ability to augment your own elements. But that said, I don't believe you should be able to get specializations in it. You can't get better at something that's not coming from you.

[Tedronai]

There are no 'functional evocation areas', so even elements are 'thematic'.  If a Sponsored Magic's evocation effects are a 'thematic evocation area', then it falls under the same category as the elements, even if it is not an element itself.

I don't believe your stance regarding specialisations has any basis in the rules.  That may be because I'm misunderstanding what you've said, or it may be that I'm misremembering the rules, but I can think of no reason that Sponsored Magic, 'as an extra area of focus', should not be able to benefit from specialisation.
I believe you are projecting your own biases onto the rules, and then interpreting those rules to support your biases

[Mrmdubois]

You can become better capable of utilizing things that come from outside of yourself.  So I don't think of that as a reason to restrict specialization in sponsored magic.  Personally I'd allow it.

[Deadmanwalking]

There are no 'functional evocation areas', so even elements are 'thematic'.  If a Sponsored Magic's evocation effects are a 'thematic evocation area', then it falls under the same category as the elements, even if it is not an element itself.

Elements are pretty much functional Evocation areas. They're very concrete, not thematic per se. Thematic Evocation areas just aren't really allowed sans Sponsored Magic, which makes the distinction confusing.

I don't believe your stance regarding specialisations has any basis in the rules.  That may be because I'm misunderstanding what you've said, or it may be that I'm misremembering the rules, but I can think of no reason that Sponsored Magic, 'as an extra area of focus', should not be able to benefit from specialisation.

It has as much as yours. What with the rules not actually saying it gives you another Element, and that being a pretty vital and important thing to leave out.

I believe you are projecting your own biases onto the rules, and then interpreting those rules to support your biases

No more than you. The rules are unclear on this one.

[Tedronai]

Veils (and potentially mental effects) are the only functions of evocation I can think of that are actually called out as being specific to any particular element.  Aside from those special cases (which are called out as such in the rules), elements differ from one another almost exclusively in their 'flavourings', ie. themes.
ie. they are thematic groupings.


I see no other way to interpret the statement, "the source gets “tacked on” to his existing spellcasting abilities as an extra area of focus" (YS287; in fact, that whole paragraph leads me to this conclusion, but this statement is the most telling for me), in a way that retains meaning within the structure of the rules, than to interpret it as liscence to purchase Refinement for the purposes of Specialisation in the [thematic grouping] of Sponsored Magic as applied to either Evocation or Thaumaturgy.

If you can provide otherwise, I'd be open to hearing you out.  As I admitted earlier, I may in fact be misinterpreting either you or these rules.  I do not believe that I am, obviously, but I do admit the possibility, and would be open to substantive rebuttal.

[Hick Jr]

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but you can't buy Specializations with Sponsored Magic. You can get foci, but not specializations, because it's mechanically Channeling and Ritual along with whatever other trappings it comes with, like Evothaum and the Agenda.

[Deadmanwalking]

I consider the fact that 'the source gets “tacked on” to his existing spellcasting abilities as an extra area of focus' bears absolutely no resemblance to 'this counts as a new Element of Evocation, which he gets for free and which can violate the normal rules on not mixing elemental systems', and that I've read that sentence before without getting that message out of it to be a substantive rebuttal.

You're taking a piece of text that doesn't specify a major mechanical advantage and saying it does precisely that. Major mechanical advantages of that sort are spelled out in the system, not vaguely implied, at least as a general rule.

But if you want something more specific, I'l give you Grevane, I believe the only listed character with Sponsored Magic and Evocation both. He does not have Kemmlerian Necromancy listed under his list of Evocation Elements...which, if what you were saying was true, he most certainly should. This could theoretically be an oversight...but it seems more likely your interpretation is off.

[Deadmanwalking]

Correct me if i'm wrong here, but you can't buy Specializations with Sponsored Magic. You can get foci, but not specializations, because it's mechanically Channeling and Ritual along with whatever other trappings it comes with, like Evothaum and the Agenda.

You are correct, but we're talking specifically about what happens when you have Evocation + Sponsored Magic, here, and whether it effectively gives you your Sponsored Magic as an extra Element you can buy specialties for.

I say no, Tedronai says yes. I can see where he's coming from but don't think his is the unambiguous truth. He appears to think I'm warping the book's message to my own ends. It's a whole thing.

[Theonlyspiral]

So it's another case where I should just see what the table thinks?

[Deadmanwalking]

So it's another case where I should just see what the table thinks?

Yeah, pretty definitely. It's a shaky enough area rules-wise that there's no real, definitive, answer.

[Tedronai]

I consider the fact that 'the source gets “tacked on” to his existing spellcasting abilities as an extra area of focus' bears absolutely no resemblance to 'this counts as a new Element of Evocation, which he gets for free and which can violate the normal rules on not mixing elemental systems', and that I've read that sentence before without getting that message out of it to be a substantive rebuttal.

You're taking a piece of text that doesn't specify a major mechanical advantage and saying it does precisely that. Major mechanical advantages of that sort are spelled out in the system, not vaguely implied, at least as a general rule.

So, as I asked, then, just what do you believe that passage means that retains relevance within the framework of the system's rules? (ie. that is does not render a substantial portion of that paragraph nonsensical gibberish within the rules)  Because that is not a paragraph dealing significantly with the 'fluff' of the setting.  It addresses rules.  So what is that rule saying? (in your interpretation)

But if you want something more specific, I'l give you Grevane, I believe the only listed character with Sponsored Magic and Evocation both. He does not have Kemmlerian Necromancy listed under his list of Evocation Elements...which, if what you were saying was true, he most certainly should. This could theoretically be an oversight...but it seems more likely your interpretation is off.

I believe it is well established that the example material for this game frequently makes what can be generously described as 'controversial' rules interpretations, and do not make for sound bases of an argument in discussions such as these.

So it's another case where I should just see what the table thinks?

This is ALWAYS what you should do, but especially in cases such as this one, where there is some controversy.

[Deadmanwalking]

So, as I asked, then, just what do you believe that passage means that retains relevance within the framework of the system's rules? (ie. that is does not render a substantial portion of that paragraph nonsensical gibberish within the rules)  Because that is not a paragraph dealing significantly with the 'fluff' of the setting.  It addresses rules.  So what is that rule saying? (in your interpretation)

Honestly, 'the source gets “tacked on” to his existing spellcasting abilities as an extra area of focus' seems, in context, to just refer to getting the abilities of Sponsored Magic, ie: Evothaum, the ability to take Sponsor Debt, etc. All the stuff the rules go on to actually state it adds. That's how I always interpretted it, and makes perfect logical and rules sense without getting...weird.

I believe it is well established that the example material for this game frequently makes what can be generously described as 'controversial' rules interpretations, and do not make for sound bases of an argument in discussions such as these.

True enough, but really, I feel like you're the one with burden of proof here: All I'm saying is that a power doesn't grant a thing it never says it grants, you're saying it grants something it's never directly stated as granting. That...certainly sounds like you're the one making the claim in need of support.