No, no, no, no, no.
No.
No.
We've had this rough conversation plenty of times before. I've explained over and over that that's not what I'm saying.
I've done so in this very thread.
So can you please do me a favour?
Re-read my posts. Try to think of other ways to interpret my position. Try to rephrase my position in one of your own posts.
I've read your posts, and they all seem to boil down to the idea that players are most interested in what gives them the most "optimal" build, to the point where this will override any character concept they had in mind. That anything that's less than optimal won't be taken, and therefore anything with the slightest advantage becomes "mandatory."
In previous threads, as well as this one, you've expressed exactly that--that if Rune Magic is
slightly better than Ritual (Crafting) with two Refinements for focus items, then nobody will ever take Ritual (Crafting), regardless of character concept. In this thread, that if AFSA isn't modified, then
everyone who can will become fortunetellers.
I've read your posts. Perhaps you're not making your point as well as you think you are. There's different ways of playing the game, and you seem to be discounting a large chunk of them.
And while we're at it, maybe you can help me understand your argument. So far as I can tell you have two main lines of argument here.
The first is that AFSA isn't too strong because people who want it probably have enchanted defence items.
The second is that it doesn't matter if it's too strong because real roleplayers don't care.
Is that a fair summary?
Not exactly. The first line of the argument is that AFSA isn't too strong because it's only going to be a major advantage on builds that either are A. so physically/socially handicapped already that even with a massive boost in defense, they're still going to lag behind because they're largely incapable of offense, or B. already have access to better ways of defending. I see it as not being overly strong because it's a power whose utility is fairly niche.
The second line isn't accurate. I'm not saying, "Real roleplayers don't care." I'm saying that a lot of players are going to base their character design decisions more on, "This is what I want to play" than "What will give me the most efficient advantages?"
Admittedly, players will gravitate toward more powerful builds--Wizards seem to be a lot more plentiful in games than other builds, but I just don't see AFSA as so significant of an advantage that it's going to change someone's mind on the character build. It's something that, even from a mechanical perspective, only provides an advantage to a build in situations that build is just not made for. It'll help a librarian not get instantly eviscerated by a ghoul, but if Lore is so much higher than the other logical defense/attack skills, that's about all it's going to do.
Perhaps the best way I can put it is...I see an inherent disconnect in your objections to AFSA. You say that the power is "mandatory" because it's so powerful. I take that to mean you see players as always wanting a mechanical advantage, in this case in physical conflict. But the character types that benefit most from AFSA are ones that are inherently disadvantaged in physical conflict. So if the player is so focused on getting every advantage in conflict, why are they playing a character who's build is inherently bad at those conflicts?
The way I see it, if the player is so focused on mechanical advantage in conflict that he's going to completely discount a build that doesn't let him use AFSA, then why isn't he playing something that's just already good at conflict, so he could spend his refresh
improving at conflict instead of just making himself barely passable?
I see the players who AFSA would most help--the ones with most mechanical incentive to take it--as not caring about AFSA because they're already deciding to play a character that isn't focused on those conflicts. A player who's decided to play a librarian probably didn't do so with "And he'll be awesome in a fight!" as the priority.
