ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Quazar on December 12, 2010, 11:28:40 PM
-
Besides the cool thematic reasons, are there any mechanical benefits for choosing an FP over a Wizard?
As the rules stand, it seems like even a pyromancer would be schooled by a wizard with fire as a specialization. You can't even take Refinements for specialization, as a Channeler. This may be only my impression, but I always thought ectomancers and pyromancers, etc., should be better at their particular element than a wizard would be. But for just an extra -1 makes the sorcerer/wizard gets 2 extra elements and a specialization, plus the potential for even greater influence over that particular element by adding Refinements.
That seems odd. Why wouldn't an FP at least be able to purchase Refinements for its element? What do y'all think?
-
You can take focus items from Refinement. The idea is that you aren't formally trained or you don't have the strength to specialize, otherwise you'd be there already.
-
But mechanically, you understand what I mean? There must have been some kind of rationale from Evil Hat or one of the betas that prompted it.
You're already specializing, why not further develop that specialization?
-
You can take focus items from Refinement. The idea is that you aren't formally trained or you don't have the strength to specialize, otherwise you'd be there already.
But isn't Mort better than Harry at his particular ectomancy schtick?
-
Focus items. Mort could easily afford a half dozen focus items, all to ectomancy. Pulling off +7 or +8 complexity rituals in a single round is very nice. Maybe he has stunts to use Contacts to help with his rolls (talking to dead drinking buddies to pick up on information), or he has some other trick up his sleeve. Finally, with his ectomanctic skills, he should have plenty of invokable aspects that apply to his use of magic. Harry might have one aspect to use when doing ectomancy. Mort would have two or three.
-
The highest bonus an FP could achieve from refinement is +1/+2 (one of those being power, one being control) anyways, since he has no more elements/ritual areas with which to build a pyramid.
That's a bonus alright, but in the grand scheme of things it's mostly negligible.
In the Dresdenverse, Wizards are supposed to be the pinnacle of mortal magic.
A skilled ectomancer like Mort, is able to better commune with the spirits than Harry, because Harry himself has no practical experience in the matter. Were Harry to concentrate on learning how to commune with ghosts, he'd leave Mort in the dust in no time.
That's part of what the specialization pyramid is about. It expresses the fact that practitioners with a full talent are way more powerful than FPs.
-
The highest bonus an FP could achieve from refinement is +1/+2 (one of those being power, one being control) anyways, since he has no more elements/ritual areas with which to build a pyramid.
That's a bonus alright, but in the grand scheme of things it's mostly negligible.
In the Dresdenverse, Wizards are supposed to be the pinnacle of mortal magic.
A skilled ectomancer like Mort, is able to better commune with the spirits than Harry, because Harry himself has no practical experience in the matter. Were Harry to concentrate on learning how to commune with ghosts, he'd leave Mort in the dust in no time.
That's part of what the specialization pyramid is about. It expresses the fact that practitioners with a full talent are way more powerful than FPs.
I was under the impression that Focus Items did not follow that pyramid.
Also, let us not forget that having extra fate points is a heck of a bonus.
-
Focus Items do skip the pyramid, although they are limited to your Lore, I believe. Them being taken away is a pain though. What Tsunami says is why they did it this way. If you don't like it, house-rule it. But I would also house-rule that once you take specialization into Channeling or Ritual, you can't get Evocation or Thaumaturgy, because you specialized too early, thus stunting your growth in other directions.
-
Focus Items do skip the pyramid, although they are limited to your Lore, I believe. Them being taken away is a pain though. What Tsunami says is why they did it this way. If you don't like it, house-rule it. But I would also house-rule that once you take specialization into Channeling or Ritual, you can't get Evocation or Thaumaturgy, because you specialized too early, thus stunting your growth in other directions.
Ooh, I like that idea. I might have to offer that to the budding ectomancer in my group.
-
A skilled ectomancer like Mort, is able to better commune with the spirits than Harry, because Harry himself has no practical experience in the matter. Were Harry to concentrate on learning how to commune with ghosts, he'd leave Mort in the dust in no time.
Well I think that's pretty stupid if true. I suppose I'll just have to house-rule it. C'est la vie.
I do like the idea of taking Evocation or Thaumaturgy off the table when you buy refinements. Seems like a good balance, though I'd probably say you could take a couple before limiting yourself.
-
Well I think that's pretty stupid if true. I suppose I'll just have to house-rule it. C'est la vie.
I do like the idea of taking Evocation or Thaumaturgy off the table when you buy refinements. Seems like a good balance, though I'd probably say you could take a couple before limiting yourself.
It is true, for one. Grave Peril speaks of it. Mortimer has practice and experience. His native talent isn't that good (or he'd have been picked up by the White Council), and he does it most often. He's done the work to get better then Harry. He's like a 6' middle-weight who has been studying martial-arts for years as far as ectomancy goes. Harry is the 8 foot tall giant with fists of steel and skin like stone who has almost no training whatsoever, but enough muscle to eat rocks, shit bricks, and then build a mansion out of it.
I'd limit it to one Refinement tp Channeling or Ritual for specialization before cutting it off, if you do it. A single Refinement gets them a +1 Power and Control for their chosen path.
-
You know, I've been toying with the idea of an improved version of Channeling that would cost 3 refresh. Do you think that sacrificing focus slots and the ability to take Refinement for foci in exchange for a second free specialization and the ability to ignore the pyramid is fair?
This power was intended as a way to model high-level telekinesis and superhero-style elemental control, but if balanced it would also be a good power for an extremely skilled Focused Practitioner. It could work the same way for Ritual, of course, which would be much less powerful.
-
8 foot tall bruiser is not going to become a expert ballerino in a few months just because he's strong and athletic. That takes decades of practice. Spreading your talents, even when they are larger in sum, makes you inferior to specialists when restricted to a particular discipline. That's just the way the world works. Dresden points out how work it has taken for him to able to throw up even the simplest rough and ready veil. There's no way he just picks up ectomancy and starts showing Lindquist up.
Your idea makes sense to me Sanctaphrax. Particularly if you're going to charge -3 for it.
-
Quazar, you hit on something here. The book talks about the subtly thing being a compel of an aspect. In harry's case, "not so subtle". Which would absolutely apply here. Not to mention, I would expect Mort to always invoke his high concept (and probably his trouble aspect) every time.
Also, don't really need to change refinement. Think about it this way, Mort always has some tools he uses to talk to ghosts. Maybe a crystal ball, maybe some very specific candles. Very specific items. In fact, every specialist is going to have some tools unique to his field/calling. They are focus items. It makes sense. heck, even in the baltimore examples, there is the "hydromancer" that has his trusty slide rule, and it's a focus item. :)
-
Besides the cool thematic reasons, are there any mechanical benefits for choosing an FP over a Wizard?
The extra refresh you don't have to spend.
That said, I do want to address why it's that way thematically in-universe. The idea is that magic isn't discrete blocks but rather a broad field of knowledge whose various facets blend into each other. Knowing how to use Water can make you better at using Fire, because you understand how the fluid aspects of fire act. Knowing how to set Veils can make you better at Wards, because now you understand the parts of Wards that act like Veils a little better.
A "specialist" isn't someone who knows only about his little area of specialization and no other. That's like saying that, for example, a specialist in Middle Ages history is someone who knows nothing about other historical periods. That's not how it works. First you get a broad education on all historical fields, then you go learn more about the specific field that interests you. Ignorance doesn't make you superior. A true Specialist is someone who understands the broad area of knowledge and then goes on to focus intently on the particular area that interests him.
So for example, the true specialist Ectomancer would be someone who has Thaumaturgy (so he's learned how Wards and Summoning work in general) and has taken three Refinements in being better at Ectomancy. He is going to be much more awesome than some guy who never got a proper education to begin with and is just sort of winging it on Ectomancy and nothing else.
-
Master Pyromancer
[-2] Channeling - Fire
[-4] Refinement x4
[-1] Searing Flame stunt/power - fire attacks you personally create deal +2 stress
[-2] Full Lawbreaker 1st (1st option)
[-2] Ritual Diabolism (2nd option)
+5 Discipline, Lore
+4 Athletics, Conviction
+3 Endurance, Alertness
foci: +5 offensive fire control, +5 offensive fire power, +2 diabolism power (optional)
Offensive Control Total: +10, +12 with Lawbreaker
Offensive Power Total: +9, +11 with Lawbreaker, +2 stress
As you can see, the guy is not weak. In fact, offensively he is stronger than the submerged Harry Dresden by a significant margin. And even in rituals, he may have more limited ritual magic but he is quite good at it.
-
I'm still not sure the arguement against Refinements applies.
There's nothing prohibiting a Focused Practicioner from knowing a tremendous amount about every field of magic. True, they can only USE one, but they could know the theory about all of them. (Note that Bob doesn't cast a single spell, and yet seems to be a vast repository of magickal theory and knowledge.)
Most focused types might not learn anything other than what they can do. But PCs aren't 'most types'. I could easily see a frustrated focused practicioner, studying tome after tome, hoping that one of them might unlock the 'block' they must have against becoming a full Wizard.
And then, one day, Something answers...
-
Master Pyromancer (with Evocation instead of Channeling)
[-3] Evocation
[-4] Refinement x4
[-2] Lawbreaker (First)
[-2] Ritual (Diabolism)
+5 Conviction, Lore
+4 Athletics, Discipline
+3 Endurance, Alertness
foci: +5 offensive fire control, +5 offensive fire power
specializations: +2 fire control, +1 fire power
Offensive Power Total: +11, +13 with Lawbreaker
Offensive Control Total: +11, +13 with Lawbreaker
As you can see, this guy is stronger. Slightly worse at Thaumaturgy, but slightly stronger and far more versatile when it comes to Evocation. Please note that both Belial and I are allowing Lawbreaker to add to power as well as control. This is a houserule, but you could be forgiven for thinking that it's canon. Many people do, at first glance.
-
I'm still not sure the arguement against Refinements applies.
There's nothing prohibiting a Focused Practicioner from knowing a tremendous amount about every field of magic. True, they can only USE one, but they could know the theory about all of them. (Note that Bob doesn't cast a single spell, and yet seems to be a vast repository of magickal theory and knowledge.)
As you note, Bob doesn't cast a single spell. So while he knows a lot in the "high Lore" sense, does he know a lot in the "make a bigger boom" sense?
I dunno. There's nothing wrong with changing it so Focused Practioners can use Refinements differently/take more of them, if you want. I was just trying to point out that it's not nonsensical from a logic standpoint. Earlier a ballerina dancer was used as an example. Suppose you had one dancer who never practiced anything but Swan Lake her entire life, dancing it every day and night. Then there's a ballerina dancer who has a broad range of routines and switches between them regularly.
Is the first dancer going to be better at performing Swan Lake? Not necessarily. The second dancer has learned things that the first dancer never could, never will, and he'll bring them into his performance.
-
As you can see, this guy is stronger. Slightly worse at Thaumaturgy, but slightly stronger and far more versatile when it comes to Evocation. Please note that both Belial and I are allowing Lawbreaker to add to power as well as control. This is a houserule, but you could be forgiven for thinking that it's canon. Many people do, at first glance.
For the exact same refresh point expenditure. This just confirms that there is no mechanical reason to be a focused practitioner, even with refinements. I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly.
-
As you note, Bob doesn't cast a single spell. So while he knows a lot in the "high Lore" sense, does he know a lot in the "make a bigger boom" sense?
I dunno. There's nothing wrong with changing it so Focused Practioners can use Refinements differently/take more of them, if you want. I was just trying to point out that it's not nonsensical from a logic standpoint. Earlier a ballerina dancer was used as an example. Suppose you had one dancer who never practiced anything but Swan Lake her entire life, dancing it every day and night. Then there's a ballerina dancer who has a broad range of routines and switches between them regularly.
Is the first dancer going to be better at performing Swan Lake? Not necessarily. The second dancer has learned things that the first dancer never could, never will, and he'll bring them into his performance.
"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” - Bruce Lee
-
So for example, the true specialist Ectomancer would be someone who has Thaumaturgy (so he's learned how Wards and Summoning work in general) and has taken three Refinements in being better at Ectomancy. He is going to be much more awesome than some guy who never got a proper education to begin with and is just sort of winging it on Ectomancy and nothing else.
This would make sense if that was the way it is presented in the book. Here, to be an ectomancer one would take Ritual and now you can talk to ghosts. I'm actually saying, why not just spend the extra 1 refresh to have Thaumaturgy with specializations and potential Refinements and the like. But that would make you a Sorcerer, not a Focused Practitioner.
Perhaps they intend that FPs should take either Thaumaturgy or Evocation as they progress. As far as I can tell though, that's never spelled out.
I'm houseruling it so that Focused Practitioners start off with a specialization bonus in their field for both conditions (power/control or complexity). This pays them for foregoing the other fields, but not enough to disincentivize taking one of the main powers. And I'm allowing the use of Refinements for increasing specialization. But that's just my own take.
-
First, what is Ritual (Diabolism)?
2nd, I'm of the whole school of thought that if you study something exclusively you'll be better at it. Perhaps if you have a more balanced education you'll pick it up faster, but in the end the guy with the PHD in Chemistry should know more about chemistry than the guy with the Bachelors in biology, chemistry, Physics, and biochemistry. And that's what this seems to be to me. Though the Bruce Lee quote was a much more eloquent way of putting this.
Third, I agree, FPs should be able to take refinement for specialization.
-
The main point this thread is missing is this; A focused practitioner is not a guy who specializes in one type of magic while a sorceror or wizard is a generalist. A focused practitioner is someone with an incomplete talent in magic while a wizard or sorceror is a full talent. As such, a wizard is supposed to be stronger than the focused practitioner if he focuses on the same thing. That is why focused practitioners cannot take specialization; they don't have a major talent that can be improved by specializing - they are already specialized and what they get out of it is a cheaper power (see below).
Another important point is that it is not the job of the focused practitioner (mechanically) to compete with the wizard in a high refresh environment. The job of the focused practitioner template is to offer an alternative spellcaster that is playable in lower refresh levels than wizard.
-
I want to add one more thing here. Focused practitioners can do something that full wizards can't: they can create a specialization.
Everyone uses things like pyromancy or ectomancy as an example, but there is really no reason why your couldn't take something outside the normal wheel. Let me put it to you this way - if a Focused Prqctitioner had Channeling: Ectomancy, that is something a wizard just can't do. Hey can tap into ghosts and their themes for any evocation style effect.
I have a player in a game I am starting who sat down at the table with a very clear idea in mind. He wanted to control bugs. Like, seriously control them, to the point where he could use them as blocks to distract someone, or as attacks as swarms of stinging bees, and have spiders weave him suple armor, or restraints for a prisoner. He is going with Focused Practitioner, because it allows him to do these things as both evocation as well as thaumaturgical effects, where Wizard does not.
-
I want to add one more thing here. Focused practitioners can do something that full wizards can't: they can create a specialization.
That's not completely accurate. It's just harder for full Wizards because they are then obligated to come up with their own non-Western element schema.
Per YS 253:
"Wizards with different ancient traditions may construct their evocations out of different elements than the traditional Western ones—Ancient Mai probably practices an evocation system that uses metal, water, wood, earth, fire, and spirit as its base elements, befitting her Chinese heritage. If your wizard comes from a non-Classical tradition, you’ll need to construct a basic idea of what each element does; look to the examples below for guidelines."
I have a Focused Practitioner (that one that does shadow-based magic) and depending on how the campaign goes, he will likely escalate to full Wizard, and I'll have to develop a way to divide up magical effects that will accommodate his existing specialization with Shadows. Or the GM will determine them to be covered under Spirit and we'll be done with it.
-
Or the GM will determine them to be covered under Spirit and we'll be done with it.
That was an argument I was going to make, that a wizard could say, control bugs, but would have to figure out how to fit it into the existing scheme. Maybe it's spirit, like mind control but on a smaller scale or water to physically control the limbs. Just takes some thought and creativity.
Another thing I was going to mention is the Were. They are focused practitioners, and for that matter even more limited. Why play a Were then? Because thematically they are something different, with their own story and theme.
-
Another thing I was going to mention is the Were. They are focused practitioners, and for that matter even more limited. Why play a Were then? Because thematically they are something different, with their own story and theme.
Excellent point. And the same reason to play a Focused Practitioner rather than a wizard. Besides, if it is power you (the collective you) are after, or wanting to be the baddest among the bad, maybe this isn't the right kind of game for you?
At least, that's my take on it.
-
I'm houseruling it so that Focused Practitioners start off with a specialization bonus in their field for both conditions (power/control or complexity). This pays them for foregoing the other fields, but not enough to disincentivize taking one of the main powers. And I'm allowing the use of Refinements for increasing specialization. But that's just my own take.
I am doing that as well. A PC is playing a Emissary of Power who has photomancy with a +1 to control when using it for shadow/darkness effects. She plans to upgrade to evocation in the future with the +1 control (darkness) converting to +1 control (spirit).
I have not found a game mechanics reason to play a FP rather than a full wizard. However, story reasons abound for a character or GM to play one.
-
I think that your fix may be a bit too strong, Quazar. At least for Evocation and Crafting.
As you have it, a character with Channeling is better at evoking their element then a specialized Evoker, for one refresh less. And you really only need one element. That's another problem with the spellcasting rules, and if you fix it then your houserule may be quite reasonable. But as it is, Channeling + Refinement blows Evocation out of the water.
Crafting is perhaps the only field in which a FP is viable at higher power levels. A Crafting specialist is arguably better off with Ritual instead of Thaumaturgy.* So by making Ritual stronger, you make this archetype (which is already quite powerful) much stronger.
In conclusion, I think that your houserule might not so much solve the problem as reverse it so that FPs are better than wizards.
PS: Do FPs in your game have to obey a specialization pyramid? And if so, how does it work?
*Very arguably, and of course Thaumaturgy looks better when you have a lot of Refresh to play with.
-
As you have it, a character with Channeling is better at evoking their element then a specialized Evoker, for one refresh less.
Actually the Channeler is as good as the Evoker, if that Evoker takes specialization in that element, and the Evoker has 2 more elements to bring to the table. Also the Evoker could use Refinements to expand his/her element repertoire and hit people all sorts of angles.
And you really only need one element. That's another problem with the spellcasting rules, and if you fix it then your houserule may be quite reasonable. But as it is, Channeling + Refinement blows Evocation out of the water.
I'm unsure about this. I haven't gotten much play time with the system, so it may be that most people pretty much just focus on one element. Still, it seems like a big advantage to have many different elements at your call.
Crafting is perhaps the only field in which a FP is viable at higher power levels. A Crafting specialist is arguably better off with Ritual instead of Thaumaturgy.* So by making Ritual stronger, you make this archetype (which is already quite powerful) much stronger.
Well if they are going to be a specialist, then why not take Ritual? I'd think Thaumaturgy's great gift would be be access to all those other abilities, like wards and summoning and tracking.
In conclusion, I think that your houserule might not so much solve the problem as reverse it so that FPs are better than wizards.
PS: Do FPs in your game have to obey a specialization pyramid? And if so, how does it work?
*Very arguably, and of course Thaumaturgy looks better when you have a lot of Refresh to play with.
Actually I'm throwing out the pyramid for Evokers and Thaumaturgists too. Why shouldn't one Evoker be ok with Water and Earth, but will kick your ass between your ears with Spirit magic? It seems like a pretty arbitrary thing to do. Maybe there was some issues discovered by Beta testers that necessitated it, but until I hear about them I'm chucking it.
-
Personally, I consider the pyramid a necessary evil. It helps deal with the basic problem that one element can do everything. Especially if that element is spirit. Now, a GM can reward versatility through good game management. But in the absence of such circumstances, there won't be many situations where you say: "Man! I really wish I could use water evocations right now!"
Also, I'm not sure that I understand your houserule. I thought that I did, but you've thrown me into doubt with your first comment. So, is the following true?: Channeling and Ritual come with two free specializations where Evocation and Thaumaturgy provide only one. If so, then I don't see how the Evoker can equal the Channeler (given the assumption that extra elements aren't very useful).
Your point about specialization is valid, although I hate to see anything that makes the crafter archetype more powerful.
By the way, thanks for being willing to discuss this so reasonably. It's nice to see that internet arguments don't have to involve flaming.
-
Oh that's right I did say that Ritual and Channeling get two. I'd changed my mind but never posted the revision. I thought, a specialization and 3 elements is surely better than 2 specializations and 1 element. But then I decided it wasn't a big enough difference to justify a loss of refresh. So I just give Ritual and Channeling one specialization, instead of the none like it says in the book. And the ability to take Refinements in your power.
I'm unsure what to do about the elements problem. I've been considering putting certain restrictions on certain elements. For example, the Earth equivalent of Forzare/Fuego would require at least another level of control to pull off, compared to Fire/Spirit.
Do Crafters really kick everyone else around?
-
They can, quite easily if you let them. +5 Lore, 2 foci. That means they could have a +5 effect with 3 uses for a single enchanted item slot. And after that, they get to spend mental stress to keep using it. Now, throw in some more foci, some specialization, and more slots. It gets quite unfair, in my opinion.
-
Dedicated crafters can make powerful items, but they don't get that control bonus to discipline rolls, so it can be much harder to hit anything. Nor from focus items. Their staying power is awesome, though. with 9 refresh, you could make 9 shift effect items. That's 5 armor!
The problem is +4 discipline vs +9.
-
I wouldn't call crafters unfair, but they're definitely very powerful and very easy to make. Making them stronger probably isn't a good idea.
If I were to rebalance the elements I would probably ditch the fire, water, earth, air, spirit combo and come up with something else. Something with elements that can't be so easily rationalized into doing everything. I would want one element for physical attacks and offensive maneuvers, one for physical defences and defensive maneuvers, one for veils and other mental stuff, and one for movement and controlling the landscape. I'd like to add a fifth element, but I can't think of a good domain for it.
This would naturally make wizards a bit weaker and focused practitioners a lot weaker, but it would solve the problem of elemental interchangability. And it would let us dispose of that bloody offensive/defensive evocation focus rule.
What do you guys think?
-
I prefer maintaining the current flexibility of elements.
-
Seems to me that under the current system there are still weaknesses in every element. For example it's going to be hard to justify doing much with fire other than burn things. However more than that I actually like the way that the current system rewards a creative player.
-
Can you think of a weakness for spirit? Because I can't.
-
You can't set something on fire with it.
-
You can't set something on fire with it.
What about a Soulfire spirit attack evocation which ignites the life force in a target, setting it ablaze? Wouldn't burn a rock, but people and plants might work.
-
So you've added another -4 worth of refresh to make spirit able to burn some things but not all? Seems fair to me. ;D
-
My mistake - I meant Soulfire as a descriptor and not the full power.
-
My mistake - I meant Soulfire as a descriptor and not the full power.
Hmm, I see what you mean, but I'm not sure I'd allow this without some sort of further justification. Spirit is pretty well defined in YS as the go-to for veils, force, and mind magic. I have trouble seeing it used this way.
Note, I'm not trying to be asinine about this, I just think that there are some limits that are pretty well defined, and this seems like one of them. It's always strange to me that a lot of people (not saying you are one of them) seem to interpret any element as doing anything. You can't drown someone in earth, can't burn them with water, can't make a solid wall out of fire, etc., etc.
-
I'm sorry, that was an imprecise question. I meant, "can you think of a situation that requires an evoker to use an element other than spirit and isn't horribly contrived? Because I can't."
Fluff-wise, the elements are quite different. It's the crunch that concerns me.
-
Hmm, I see what you mean, but I'm not sure I'd allow this without some sort of further justification. Spirit is pretty well defined in YS as the go-to for veils, force, and mind magic. I have trouble seeing it used this way.
Note, I'm not trying to be asinine about this, I just think that there are some limits that are pretty well defined, and this seems like one of them. It's always strange to me that a lot of people (not saying you are one of them) seem to interpret any element as doing anything. You can't drown someone in earth, can't burn them with water, can't make a solid wall out of fire, etc., etc.
I agree with this in most parts.
But the world is based off of belief, and we have seen time in the books were the something like fire, could cause ice.
For Spirit I would using something like this, I use my spirit to force(move) the molecules of the air between me and the rock(because we want to burn rock). Causing the air to vibrate(friction) make a supper heated air current to attack that darn evil rock.
Then it all goes back to the character, young wizard trained to move thing around with his mind(spirit) may not think of this. Someone that studies the subject might… maybe
-
The big thing about making Ice with fire or fire with force is that thematically it usually requires a lot of wasted energy. Mechanically there's no basis for that but I think as a GM I would require someone to throw more power into something if they were trying to do that.
-
Actually, there IS a mechanical weakness. If you're using an element for things it is not suited for, you take a penalty in the power of the effect. For example, Harry's spirit shield is very effective vs kinetic attacks but has a penalty vs energy attacks - as we saw in the books. Simply enforce the "blind spots" of every elements. Below is my take on the most appropriate effects for every element;
Spirit
Strong: mental effects (vs discipline), force effects (vs athletics), veils (vs perception)
Weak: physical energy effects, matter manipulation
Fire
Strong: energy effects (vs athletics), draining energy (vs endurance), purifying force (more effective vs "dark" powers)
Weak: most types of defense, physical force
Earth
Strong: manipulating objects and terrain (vs might), gravity and magnetism (vs endurance), resilience/toughness effects (armor and blocks)
Weak: most types of subtle effects
Water
Strong: entropy effects (vs endurance), living matter control (endurance/discipline), subtle matter manipulation
Weak: overt force
Air
Strong: movement (might), force (athletics), subtle air effects
Weak: energy effects
So, a shield of spirit might do very well against bullets, against a crushing wall of earth it or a powerful gust of wind. It won't do very well if someone tries to disintegrate you or poison you with water magic or boil/freeze your blood with fire magic; spirit just can't affect physiological changes or affect nonmagical energy.
Similarly, a shield of fire might easily redirect magical force and diffuse energy attacks but it won't do so well if someone tries to beat you to death.
A shield of earth would absorb anything physical easily but would not be so hot against mental effects or veils.
A shield of air could redirect poisons and physical attacks but might not do so well against direct energy.
-
Excellent list, very useful. In this system, how would you envision someone create Harry's later Shield spell, which had been reinforced (at greater Mental Stress) to affect a greater spread of possible damage sources?
-
Well, it doesn't actually defend against a broader spectrum of attacks. The block rating of the shield has simply been improved.
The shield was originally block 5 [5 for Harry's conviction, with shield bracelet only giving bonus control], and it blocked at a -2 penalty vs energy attacks (such as fire), it would have an effective block of 4 - which a great attack could break through.
The improved shield would be block 8 or 9 [5 for conviction, +1 to +2 spirit power specialization, with improved shield bracelet giving +2 to defense power and control], it would have an effective block of 6 or 7 vs energy, which would be enough to block up to superb attacks.
Of course, this increase does result in blocking a broader attack range in the end - but it is still less efficient than a shield of another type.
-
Hmm, I see what you mean, but I'm not sure I'd allow this without some sort of further justification. Spirit is pretty well defined in YS as the go-to for veils, force, and mind magic. I have trouble seeing it used this way.
It's always strange to me that a lot of people (not saying you are one of them) seem to interpret any element as doing anything. You can't drown someone in earth, can't burn them with water, can't make a solid wall out of fire, etc., etc.
1) buried alive = drowning in earth
2) Steam = burned with water
3) well, may not be solid per se, but you try walking through it ;)
-
Of note steam is heat. You try making steam with only water. If a practitioner has both fire and water I'm all good with them throwing around steam and if there's existing steam I wouldn't have a problem with a water channeler directing it but I'd have issues with a water channeler creating steam.
-
Of note steam is heat. You try making steam with only water. If a practitioner has both fire and water I'm all good with them throwing around steam and if there's existing steam I wouldn't have a problem with a water channeler directing it but I'd have issues with a water channeler creating steam.
Steam is water molecules moving really really fast. It's become a gas, and has more energy left over so it's hot. I don't know, since elements don't actually exist in real life, it's difficult to pin down what can and what can't be done with them.
-
Ok, a way actually occurred to me to create steam with only water (forcing it with high pressures through a very tight spot, much like we create heat using electricity) but again it's incredibly inefficient.
-
Have to throw in another couple of pennies here. Focused Practitioners are an incomplete education, however, I think it's just as valid to say that while sanctaphax's fire specialist wizard was stronger than the pyromancer, the point is, he was only a LITTLE stronger. True he can do other stuff, but to me, the point is that the focused practioner is strong ENOUGH to hang with the wizard and essentially, strong enough to play the game on a submerged level. Who's stronger? Well, really, at a certain point it comes down to the cleverness of the player. The focused practioner is strong enough, and, really, as a player, that's all that matters, that your character can hang with the gang and isn't all "interesting character fluff" but is a ripped up character sheet after one rush of kobolds.
-
Burn with Water? Easy, even the book recommends a way to do: ACID. Acid is water. Carry a car battery with you everywhere. ;)
As for fire, slag that metal/cement. Molten wall. :) Or create a wall of non-fire heat that is too hot for anything to cross.
it's all about your creativity.
-
It's not that some elements cannot do something. It is that it is less efficient.
For example, I could accept someone that could control water to force it to sublimate into steam. However, that would need them to control and give energy to individual molecules while the guy with the fire would just have to blast it, no need to expend extra energy for finely regulated effects. Thus the -2 penalty to power when using Water to do something it cannot easily do.
Similarly, fire could slag the metal/cement and then expend additional effort to control the movement of molecules within the molten material into forming a wall. But that would take a lot more energy than someone with Earth shaping the metal/cement using pure force. Thus the -2 penalty to power.
-
One more thing to add, the Template FP is just a starting point. it does not mean you have to stay a FP for the rest of you play with the character. nothing is set in stone in this game.
just my little 2 cents.
-
I was just talking with my boss at work today about this very thing (I work in a bookstore. We're all geeks). We both agree that the mechanics on this are flawed according to the books. FPs SHOULD be able to take refinement. According to the novels, some people's gifts of magic simply don't allow them to be full fledged wizards. Wizards have more power and options but they spread that power across all those options. Now, yes, a wizard is likely going to beat a FP in a duel because of the options, but foci aside, just using the one area of magic that the FP has access to? There's no reason that the FP wouldn't be able to hold his own or win, depending. Sure, he/she might not have the formal training of the wizard but all they do is that one area of magic. They would, over enough time, know that area of magic absurdly well if they wanted to.
No, the refinement shouldn't be able to be used for foci/enchanted items but powering up their one area of magic? Hell yeah.
-
Just pointing out, right now they can use refinement for enchanted items/foci. Are you saying you disagree with that part as well?
-
Just pointing out, right now they can use refinement for enchanted items/foci. Are you saying you disagree with that part as well?
Just read back over everything involved to make sure I didn't miss anything and it turns out I did. Sorry about that. Right so they can use refinement for focus items and enchanted items. There's currently an argument over if you can even have FI/EI without channeling/thaumaturgy but I'd just say yes. As a DM, saying no would be kind of a dick move, imo. But still, my point about them taking it to boost their ability in that 1 area stands. Obviously not everyone would but their's no real reason why one couldn't.
-
The book isn't exactly clear about it, but specifically, you can have focus items and enchanted as long as they are "in theme" with your high concept/ritual/channeling. Like, if you're a pyromancer, a "force ring" doesn't make sense, but change it to fire and it's fine. Stuff like that.
-
Hey, check out the new Case File, Neutral Grounds. Maria Emana has a refinement that boosts her power and control.
-
Hey, check out the new Case File, Neutral Grounds. Maria Emana has a refinement that boosts her power and control.
Yes but Fred also commented that that may have been a mistake. At least he did the other night in a thread, I don't know if he's said anything more in regards to that yet.
-
Could Hydromancers use blood with their magic could they say cause all of the water in a person to suddenly deside to move outwards and explode a person internally or is there an internal thershold value to stop such spells . I know it would break the first rule but I'm curious as to the possibility?
-
Could Hydromancers use blood with their magic could they say cause all of the water in a person to suddenly deside to move outwards and explode a person internally or is there an internal thershold value to stop such spells . I know it would break the first rule but I'm curious as to the possibility?
No reason why they couldn't. It would work like any other kind of attack more or less. You'd make a roll, they'd try to resist, and if you happen to roll high enough to take them out it would make a horrible mess. Also, you'd be a jerk.
-
Bloodbending!
-
In the Casefiles Thread, Fred says that Focus Items are fine, but you need to have a very, very good reason for enchanted items.
YS, IIRC, stipulates that Channeling/Evocation allows you to have focus items. Ergo, it's possible to have a focus item, no? That's not connecting A to B, that's A to A. I'm not sure I'd allow you to change it once you establish it, tho. Regardless, the point is, with the item slot comes the item, as it were. No point in getting you a slot that you can't ever fill.
To sinker's question of:
On a related note there has been some discussion as to whether they (channelers) can create enchanted items too. A quick Yea/nay?
Fred replied:
I would go with nay on those, unless a good concept is advanced that seems to play inside the bailiwick of their focused spell work, and even then that's a real outlier. But a, so to speak, "natural" focus item doesn't feel so off.
-
In the Casefiles Thread, Fred says that Focus Items are fine, but you need to have a very, very good reason for enchanted items.
Did he mean that channelers cannot have enchanted items or was he simply answering to the question and thus they cannot create enchanted items?
If Harry gave his kinetomancer friend a force ring, could that kinetomancer have that ring in one of his item slots, even though the kinetomancer can't create one on his own?
-
If Harry gave his kinetomancer friend a force ring, could that kinetomancer have that ring in one of his item slots, even though the kinetomancer can't create one on his own?
There are already rules for lending someone your own enchanted items (reduce the power by one and you're free to do so), I'd say use the existing rules. Just because someone gives it to you does not make it yours, nor does it give you the ability to maintain it (physically or magically).
The way the whole thing reads to me (part based on fred, part the current rules, and part playtester rules) is that foci are tools of the trade for all spellcasters. By nature someone is going to pick up a tool and use it, refining it as they feel they need or when they realize that it could work that much better. That's fairly simple. But an enchanted item is a specific spell, encased in something, with it's own unique methods for triggering and recharging. They're much more complex. Maybe a little of that is just my bias too, but I'm hoping some of that helps a bit.
-
Actually I was thinking somewhat along the lines of Luccio giving a new warden one of the silver swords. As long as the warden has the necessary slots, the sword then becomes his. Could a channeler get an enchanted item in a similar manner? Or would his lack of artificing ability stop him from having such an item?
-
Actually I was thinking somewhat along the lines of Luccio giving a new warden one of the silver swords. As long as the warden has the necessary slots, the sword then becomes his. Could a channeler get an enchanted item in a similar manner? Or would his lack of artificing ability stop him from having such an item?
I see what you're saying now.
1) I wonder if Warden Swords may have been handled better as Items of Power (YS 167) but because their intended recipients - Combat-focused Wizards - are critically low on Refresh Points to spend, they were worked in as Enchanted Items instead so that any Wizard would be able to have one if they were supposed to. It does become a precedent in the RPG rules, though.
2) Because it takes up the Wizard's Enchanted Item slots, the normal "lending" rules don't apply. The "lending" is a part of its backstory, as Warden Swords are intentionally rare Plot-related Items that a character either should or shouldn't have, based on his background, and people aren't building comparable new ones per the fiction. And while the backstory indicates one person makes these, full Wizards would be able to come close to making their own. I haven't broken down the build for the Warden Sword, but there may be some rules-bending to allow them the way they are handled in the fiction.
So if a GM agrees that belonging to a group (similar to the Wardens) would come with a particular Enchanted Item used by all its members, regardless of their own abilities, and presumably created by some central artificer like Luccio, then I can see a justification for a Focused Practitioner having an Enchanted Item he could never have himself built. But I'd imagine a GM would have issues with "I met a Wizard Artificer and saved his daughter from Ghouls, so he made me these Enchanted Goggles that fry peoples' souls, despite me being an Earthbender and having no experience with the Spirit element."
-
Also Luccio was making specific swords for specific recipients, so there's some implication that an artificer would have to make it specifically for you, and there's some implication that that requires a lot of skill. You couldn't just find a wizard and go "Hey, I like your Item, can I take it?"
But really I could see this all falling under "a good concept", I.E. a decent reason for you to have it, provided that it still falls within your particular area of expertise.