Are there any advantages to Power over Control?

[Amelia Crane]

What about just saying Control bonuses don't apply to the attack roll?

I have liked this possible house-rule for a long time.  If I were ever to run a DF game again, I would use it.

[bobjob]

I'm not disagreeing, but I think it's kinda funny how the phrasing here implies that reflexive shields make Wizards weaker.

I wouldn't say weaker, per se. Just burns up their potential casting juju that much faster.

[Mr. Death]

I'm not disagreeing, but I think it's kinda funny how the phrasing here implies that reflexive shields make Wizards weaker.

Hah, well, I more meant that it makes them burn through what they have quicker -- a four-round wizard becomes a two-round wizard if he's relying on that for defense.

[Theogony_IX]

I don't think they do and I don't think it does. IIRC all the book says is that it's difficult or impossible to make all three skills very high. Not that you shouldn't be allowed.

And 5/4/4 is often more optimal than 5/5/4, if you ask me. So prohibiting 5/5/4 doesn't do very much to depower spellcasters.

Building a Practitioner
Skills
How an arcane practitioner’s skills are set is a big part of the caster’s flavor and identity as well.  It’s  very  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to build a caster that is very highly rated in all three of the “spellcaster trinity”: Conviction, Discipline, and Lore (though you could choose to build a spellcaster that’s merely medium rated in all three—a true generalist).

No, it doesn't state outright that having all of them highly rated is not allowed, but that's why I said "suggestion" rather than rule.  The last sentence there makes the designer's stance on the issue very clear though.  "You could choose to build a spellcaster that's merely medium rated in all three" implies that choosing a spellcaster that is highly rated in all three isn't really a good option as far they are concerned.  As does the sentence before that.  I doubt they included that box just for the hell of it.  In my opinion, they did it because it addresses some of the problems I commonly see come up regarding spellcasters . . . including this one.

[dragoonbuster]

How many times has Harry obliterated some obstacle, only to learn there's something else he immediately has to deal with while he's still recovering?

I don't see a need to de-power evocators, personally. If you're having an issue with overpowered casters and don't see the above problem come up very often, then in my opinion, you're running the table wrong for a group w/ a blaster in it. A stacked evocator can do serious, serious things in combat...but they also only get 4 spells off at best before they start needing to take consequences (barring enchanted items but that's another discussion).

[Mr. Death]

No, it doesn't state outright that having all of them highly rated is not allowed, but that's why I said "suggestion" rather than rule.  The last sentence there makes the designer's stance on the issue very clear though.  "You could choose to build a spellcaster that's merely medium rated in all three" implies that choosing a spellcaster that is highly rated in all three isn't really a good option as far they are concerned.  As does the sentence before that.  I doubt they included that box just for the hell of it.  In my opinion, they did it because it addresses some of the problems I commonly see come up regarding spellcasters . . . including this one.

That's not making a suggestion or a value judgment at all.

What it's saying is that, if you're building a practitioner, you're not going to be able to have all of them at the top -- a simple statement of fact -- it's impossible to have all three of them at the skillcap in any of the given power levels in the book. You could have all three at 3 or 4, but you can't get all three to 5, because you'd need 45 total points.

And if you're building someone who's well balanced outside of spellcasting, then the room at the top runs out quickly (great, you've got Conviction, Discipline, and Lore at the top three, but now you have to choose the rest of your skills, and they're all starting at 3 and below).

I don't see a need to de-power evocators, personally. If you're having an issue with overpowered casters and don't see the above problem come up very often, then in my opinion, you're running the table wrong for a group w/ a blaster in it. A stacked evocator can do serious, serious things in combat...but they also only get 4 spells off at best before they start needing to take consequences (barring enchanted items but that's another discussion).

Yeah, that's what I was saying -- though in my case, for the most part my wizards end up hurting themselves just by overdoing it on the power (one is, in character, almost suicidally eager to push her limits and tends to blow out an internal gasket when facing something big).

[Theogony_IX]

That's not making a suggestion or a value judgment at all.

What it's saying is that, if you're building a practitioner, you're not going to be able to have all of them at the top -- a simple statement of fact -- it's impossible to have all three of them at the skillcap in any of the given power levels in the book. You could have all three at 3 or 4, but you can't get all three to 5, because you'd need 45 total points.

And if you're building someone who's well balanced outside of spellcasting, then the room at the top runs out quickly (great, you've got Conviction, Discipline, and Lore at the top three, but now you have to choose the rest of your skills, and they're all starting at 3 and below).

Having a skill ranked at 4 could hardly be called low or even medium as far as skills go.  A skill ranked at 3 is professional level craft.  Anything above is exceptional.  But even when looking at just the skill ladder, 4 and 5 are clearly your high ranked skills.  Calling that box a simple statement of fact because the three skills can't all be ranked at peak seems a misinterpretation.  It's not difficult at all to put your spellcaster trinity at the top of your skill ladder.  You only have to decide whether you want a 5-5-4 set up or a 5-4-4 set up (or something similar for different power levels).  So what is the box really trying to say?

I know it may seem like I'm pressing this pretty hard, and I may be, but not because I care terribly much what you guys do.  I may choose to run a game this way, but if I were to participate in a game that didn't, it wouldn't bother me.  I just think it's a concept worthy of full consideration before being dismissed.

[Mr. Death]

"It's very difficult, if not impossible," is not a suggestion. It's a statement. It's not saying you should build them with one stat low, or that GMs should enforce having one stat low, it's saying that one or more of the skills is going to be lower than the others.

As for whether 3 is low or not, for a spellcaster, it is -- Harry's discipline of 3 is considered low, and frankly, if you're a practitioner, you're probably in a fairly high level game, in which case the things you're fighting are going to be rolling from 3s and 4s.

3's plenty low when you're trying to hit or dodge someone who's dodging or attacking from 4 or 5.

[Theogony_IX]

*shrug.  Again, I find that to be a weak interpretation.  In the spirit of resolution though, I'll shoot an email out and see if I can get an answer from one of the designers.

[Theogony_IX]

As the text states it, it says that it's difficult to do, not that the GM should make it difficult to do ("It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to build a caster that is very highly rated in all three of the “spellcaster trinity”").

The text is saying what it means, there; there's no real value in vaguely implying something, because that's not a reliable reference point. If we wanted the GM to enforce something, we'd say the GM needs to enforce it. That sentiment is absent from the text in question.

So, bottom line, if you can structure your skill slots to support it, within the budget constraints you're given by your power level, knock yourself out.

Fred

I will happily eat my crow, and withdraw my interpretation of the text. 

[Sanctaphrax]

Good on you.