ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ARedthorn on July 24, 2011, 04:25:56 PM
-
I've been running a game for a while in Dresden, and a player recently brought something up that had been bothering me for quite some time, but had been ignoring...
namely, when a wizard picks up a rank of Refinement, you have a couple options- 1 new element + 1 specialization, 2 specializations, or 2 focus items (which can, of course, be swapped for enchanted items 2:1).
This implies, very strongly, that a new element is about equivalent to a specialization... which I have no problem with.
2 enchanted items are worth 1 focus... that I also have no problem with.
But my player asked me why they would ever opt to take 2 focus item slots when they can have 2 specializations for the same price... after all, 2 specializations apply to the element... 2 focus slots apply to the element only offensively or defensively. In order to get the same value out of the focus items I'd get out of 2 specs, I'd need 4 slots, and even then, foci can be lost.
So I'm very strongly considering a house rule that allows refinement to do the following:
New element + spec
2 specs
3 foci
4 enchanted items
1 spec + 1 foci + 1 enchanted item.
Still not completely balanced, but a lot more manageable.
Is anyone else out there doing anything similar?
-
Beyond the point in which a Wizard has +1 Control/Power [Element], +2 Power/Control [Element], a refinement for specialisation cannot up the shift-band a Wizard performs at, whereas Foci can; albeit only for offense or defense.
Say a Wizard has Great (+4) Discipline and Conviction. He chooses to focus on Fire, gaining a +1 Control specialisation. As a Wizard in a submerged (for the purpose of this exercise) game, the Wizard spends the first of his two unspent refresh on a Refinement. He now has +2 Fire Control, and +1 Fire Power. Lets say he dedicates two of his four Foci to defensive and offensive Fire Power (two seperate items).
He is now a 6 shift Fire Evocator. Another point of refinement on specialisation cannot up that to 7 shifts, the math just doesn't work; because Specialisations must follow a pyramid. Foci however, do not. Thus, a point of refinement could increase the strength of either his offensive, or defensive, foci by +1 fire power and +1 fire control. Thus giving him 7 shifts in either offensive Fire spells, or defensive fire spells.
The two free Foci he has could up him to 7 shifts in both offensive and defensive, however they're irrelevant to this point.
[Edit:] Completely forgot to actually get to my response to your idea. I think it is unnecessary personally, as both Foci and Specialisations have strengths and weaknesses; and have their place in the setting.
-
Foci are nice because you need to stack specializations: you can't have a +4 Fire Power bonus without a +3 elemental bonus, a +2 elemental bonus and a +1 elemental bonus. That's 10 points of specialization bonus, or 5 points of refinement.
A +4 offensive focus, on the other hand, only costs 2 points of refinement.
-
my simple answer: because it is consistent with the character. I always give this answer ( ;)), but especially in the HDRPG because of the way ist is played. When e player stucks to his stora and his character, he will find the answer what to take pretty easily.
By the way: I thought about playing with a group in Dresden myself (what better place in a dresdenfiles-rpg...? ;D). Maybe you want to share some ideas here..?
-
The two main uses for foci are:
a) Evening out disparities between Conviction and Discipline, and
b) Stacking past the pyramid.
There's also:
c) You get some free with your purchase of spellcasting anyway.
-
I know foci can bypass the pyramid- I left that out in my first post... for really, no readily apparent reason. It is a plus, but I don't think enough of one- it's one of the reasons why I made foci 3:2 vs spec, instead of 2:1.
And I suppose that in the hands of a focused practitioner who only wants to ever have 1 element that they work with, they'd become necessary in a hurry, per the example earlier... but in the hands of anyone else, anyone with more than one element... they still seem a waste, because keeping the pyramid isn't hard at all.
My game started fully submerged, and they've since earned a refresh. My mage primarily uses spirit and air, and has yet to move beyond her initial free foci... all her refinement so far has gone into specialization.
Conviction 5/Discipline 4, progressed as follows:
Spirit/Earth/Fire Elements (Evocation)
1 Spirit Power (from Evocation)
1 Spirit Power, 1 Air Power (added Air, through 1st level of refinement, still at character creation)
2 Spirit Power, 1 Spirit Control, 1 Air Power (2nd level of refinement, from a spare refresh she saved at character creation).
She recently decided she needed to improve her control a lot- she's been kinda sloppy with her evocation (and duh, with the original build)... so she increased her discipline to 5, and used another refresh on refinement (earned in play a couple sessions before this point), when she asked me why she'd ever bother with foci. Given the givens, she could use her refinement to add to her spirit offensive control and her air defensive control... OR she could just gain a generic point of control in each, and maintain more versatility, and less dependence on carried items. I couldn't argue.
2 Spirit Power, 2 Spirit Control, 1 Air Power, 1 Air Control.
Further, she said, her next point would be wasted if she took foci... because to increase her effectiveness with both forms of magic, she could spend 2 refinement to get the following:
4 Spirit Power, 3 Spirit Control, 2 Air Power, 1 Air Control
All she'd have to do is wait until she had 2 refresh to spend at once- something she has no problem with. Still couldn't argue.
After that, she said anything more, and she'd want to pick up water magic anyway, just to round the character's options out, and a +1 bonus on that would let her take her pyramid even further.
(For that matter, if she didn't feel like waiting to spend her refresh, she could do this first, and then be able to spend as she went without upsetting the pyramid, to the same final result).
She's planned her wizard out for the next 3 or 4 refresh points past fully submerged (and in 4 months of gaming spanning about 3 years in-game, my players have only earned 1, though they're soon to earn a 2nd)... and without ever increasing her foci past the initial free ones.
Furthermore, one of my other players built a wizard for the hell of it, and a possible cameo role... and did the same thing.
A friend of mine in a different gaming group offered me a seat at his table, for a game he's planning on starting... and the group currently lacks any casters at all... I'm leaning towards playing an evocator with sponsored magic (unseelie), and even I find I'm not interested in foci very much at all. That GM admits to the same concern.
Now... mind, if you go channeling instead of evocation- they're not only necessary, but required by the rules (you can't take spec at all)... but for anyone with evocation.... foci seem like they need a little more help if I've got 4 people (myself included) all asked the same question: "Why would I ever bother?"
[Edit:] I'll grant you, flavor is more important than build- form follow function et al... but that doesn't mean we can't have the builds balanced too. The cons on foci just seem to outweigh the pros, to me... and I'm the sort to try to investigate that more. Sure, my suggestion may be unnecessary in the light of following your character build, but does anyone think it's unreasonable, or has anyone addressed anything similar?
I love Dresden, don't get me wrong- but I've yet to find a table-top system that makes everyone at the table perfectly happy with it in all regards, and couldn't benefit from the occasional house rule. This is all I'm suggesting.... certainly in my game, there's something afoot with so many players who don't see the point of foci relative to what else you can purchase with refinement.
-
Quick side question: are folks managing to designate any and all Evocation effects as either Offensive or Defensive? Or are there Evocations (Maneuvers, probably) which you wouldn't consider fitting in either camp? Are there spells for which a Focus Item simply won't help?
-
There is really no good reason, from a mechanical perspective, to use more than one element for evocation.
(Barring deliberate and highly specific attempts by the GM to force you to use or not use a given element.)
So your players' situation is a bit odd.
Also, foci are flexible. You can swap them out for other foci or enchanted items after purchasing them.
-
I can think of at least one good reason, from a mechanical perspective- spell flavors limit spell function. Sure, for pure damage- dealing or blocking stress outright- it doesn't much matter which element you use, on the fly... but for any other use, it should.
Placed in a scenario where she needs to move a large object out of the way, water and fire will be of little use (unless destroying it works, and for fire, if it's even flammable). Earth might help, if it's metallic... and spirit could work, if you don't mind just golf-balling it (watch out for ricochets)... but air ought to be the go-to.
A maneuver that unbalances a group of enemies so that you can compel them to stumble works well with air or earth, poorly with spirit, and not at all with fire or water.
Also- as a house-rule of ours, some blocks can be ignored at penalty (if I use a gun to lay down a spray of cover-fire blocking a door, it's not as if the door becomes impassible, just dangerous. If someone wants to go through the door, they roll athletics against the block difficulty. Success means they duck through safely. Failure means they have a choice between aborting or forcing their way through the block. Forcing their way through results in stress... from, you know, bullets. This applies as appropriate to the source of the block, as follows). The element used can determine a lot here- like the opposition roll and how a penalty might play out: an earthwall blocking a door might be athletics restricted by might, with failure forcing you to abort. A water block however might be a lot like Ramirez's shield- athletics to slip through some gap, with failure being abort or suffer potentially very lethal dissolution.
Counterspelling with fire or water should be multi-use (fire consumes magic, water is decay), but using earth, spirit or air for countering an existing spell ought to only apply to the same element/effect type.
It seems to me this was the intent of the game- otherwise, why bother with different flavors at all, except to interact in specific, deliberate ways with various available compels, aspects, and functions?
-
2 Spirit Power, 2 Spirit Control, 1 Air Power, 1 Air Control.
Further, she said, her next point would be wasted if she took foci... because to increase her effectiveness with both forms of magic, she could spend 2 refinement to get the following:
4 Spirit Power, 3 Spirit Control, 2 Air Power, 1 Air Control
All she'd have to do is wait until she had 2 refresh to spend at once- something she has no problem with. Still couldn't argue.
What's wrong with spending one refresh to get 3/2/2/1, and then going up to 4/3/2/1? What reason is there to sit on that refresh?
-
A maneuver that unbalances a group of enemies so that you can compel them to stumble works well with air or earth, poorly with spirit, and not at all with fire or water.
I can think of both fire and water spells that would be capable of putting people off balance, and for that matter water could do it many different ways.
Forcing their way through results in stress... from, you know, bullets.
Keep in mind that stress does not equal damage or injury at all. As long as you are only taking stress an attack has not hit you, but rather caused you difficulty in avoiding it. Consequences are damage.
It seems to me this was the intent of the game- otherwise, why bother with different flavors at all, except to interact in specific, deliberate ways with various available compels, aspects, and functions?
I don't really know why the developers chose to include the elements however they repeat the following concept over and over. A block is a block is a block. Same applies to any other concept (attacks, maneuvers, aspects, counterspells). What this means is that every block prevents the thing it was meant to prevent unless broken. Every aspect provides a +2 when invoked. Every attack functions in exactly the same way. There are no "better" aspects, no blocks that are less effective at blocking, no counterspell that is more effective than another. You can surmise the developer's intent all you like but they felt that this concept was important enough to clearly state repeatedly, so I expect they felt it was important to the game core.
-
3/2/2/1 is not a legal pyramid.
The restrictions you use for what elements are capable of are rather harsh, it seems to me. I would certainly let someone push something around with a jet of water or use spirit to disrupt the emotional energies that hold a spell together. And so on.
My experience suggests that most people do not restrict the elements as heavily as you. And I don't think that the rulebook is on your side either.
In essence, you have changed the rules. It is not surprising that the consistency of the related rules is affected negatively by this.
-
3/2/2/1 is not a legal pyramid.
... that's true. I have no idea what I was looking at, or why it seemed to make sense at the time.
You could go with some other combination of Refinement bonuses and 'retrain' it when you got the second refresh, though.
-
Exact rules aside, let me just add this: Offering more focus items for refinement is a buff to casters, who already have the greatest potential in the game to boost their own numbers up to ridiculous levels. Casters don't need a buff.
Secondly to that, so what if specializations and foci aren't exactly perfectly balanced against each other? Does everything NEED to be balanced perfectly?
EDIT: I'd also like to add that the 'offensive' or 'defensive' restriction on focus items is less of problem than you might think. Many casters I've seen play find themselves casting attack spells far more often than blocks or maneuvers.
A lot depends on what the character's end goal is - if you want to be versatile, then a specialization pyramid is fine and dandy. If, however, you just want to make your Spirit Evocations HURT as much as possible, then you put all your refinement into a focus item that gives Spirit offense control (and maybe power as well, but control is better if you can only choose one) and go to town.
-
Perhaps I have not understood the mechanics right up until now, but aren't foci often an integral part of rote spells? You get more bang for your easy buck, right? I know you don't have to include them, but if you want a rote spell to enjoy the bonus of a focus item, it becomes a requirement for that rote. Or have I somehow misread that part?
-
Assuming you are talking about Refinement:
Specializations: nobody can take them away, but they are unchangeable once chosen, think hard about this.
Foci: you can switch them around, redefine them, change from enchant to focus and back, but I can sunder them, steal them, if I break your arm I can ask the GM to forbid you on using a wand or staff unless you pay a fate point or make like, dunno, Endurance check vs the pain...
So if you make a one trick pony, like having only Channeling Fire, go nuts with the specializations.
If you go White Wizard, take only foci and get diverse items like Left Sock of +1 Power Air Evocation (lol) and Right Sock of +2 Control Air Evocation.
Keep in mind that the power of the foci has limits in terms of how small the item can be. +2 is fine for a ring, but +4(in total) might require a rod or staff, and those are a pain. I recommend you keep your options open, your items many and small.
If you don't have enough juice, shoot twice, instead of shooting once, big, and miss.
-
If you go White Wizard, take only foci and get diverse items like Left Sock of +1 Power Air Evocation (lol) and Right Sock of +2 Control Air Evocation.
Great, now I can't stop laughing as I picture a wizard with sock puppet foci. :D
-
I can think of both fire and water spells that would be capable of putting people off balance, and for that matter water could do it many different ways.
Keep in mind that stress does not equal damage or injury at all. As long as you are only taking stress an attack has not hit you, but rather caused you difficulty in avoiding it. Consequences are damage.
I don't really know why the developers chose to include the elements however they repeat the following concept over and over. A block is a block is a block. Same applies to any other concept (attacks, maneuvers, aspects, counterspells). What this means is that every block prevents the thing it was meant to prevent unless broken. Every aspect provides a +2 when invoked. Every attack functions in exactly the same way. There are no "better" aspects, no blocks that are less effective at blocking, no counterspell that is more effective than another. You can surmise the developer's intent all you like but they felt that this concept was important enough to clearly state repeatedly, so I expect they felt it was important to the game core.
pt 1- fair enough, to some degree, with creativity.
pt 2- absolutely fair enough- I've looked around the board some more and thought about it some- and I agree with the ideas bounced around here that ignoring a block outright shouldn't cause stress, but it might be appropriate to allow a player to take a consequence to boost their roll (until it bypasses the block), as stated in another forum.
pt 3- a block is a block etc, etc... yeah... but to be honest, I and my gaming group consider the dresden files series to be, in essence, supplements to the rpg system, much the same way lawyers use precedent to supplement the code of law. If there's a grey area in the rules, and my players can point to an established example in the canon of the series or even simple reason as to why it should go one way or another, I think that's fair. One of the ways this comes into play is the appropriateness of various spells within their elements- especially since it's a recurring theme in the book.
On a related note:
The restrictions you use for what elements are capable of are rather harsh, it seems to me. I would certainly let someone push something around with a jet of water or use spirit to disrupt the emotional energies that hold a spell together. And so on.
My experience suggests that most people do not restrict the elements as heavily as you. And I don't think that the rulebook is on your side either.
In essence, you have changed the rules. It is not surprising that the consistency of the related rules is affected negatively by this.
Water, specifically... hell no. Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.
I also was trying to come up with the most restrictive examples I could, to prove a point about how sometimes the restrictions should matter, and the elements should have an effect in play. There's also a lot of overlap between spell elements too. Spirit can make decent counterspelling material for non-spirit spells, since spirit is the element for all unseen forces (which just about covers magic entirely), but I'd have to hear the player reason through it like you did before I'd outright accept it. Likewise, I'd be ok with using fire to counter an unseelie frost spell as mutually exclusive opposites just as much as I'd allow fire to counter/divert it. (again- speaking of maneuvers and other less direct spells here- for direct damage, just about any block is reasonable, with the right visual).
As for "most people"- well, that may be a difference in area and groups... I have 2 gaming groups both running a dresden campaign right now- I'm the only member those two groups have in common, and I only GM in one of them. This is as much from my players as me- when my wizard comes up with her rote spells, she likes to think about the visual, and how it ties into what she should be capable of, and when my players run up against any kind of magic-wielder, they operate against the caster in different ways based on what they're throwing.
For me- "most people," in point of fact, the only dresden players and GMs I know until I signed on this forum- operate on my wavelength... so this has been something of a curveball for me to find anyone (much less the whole board), operating under completely different assumptions.
So- the whole reason for this rabbit trail is this: versatility.
If elements matter, then versatility in elements matters... making a strong specialization pyramid becomes easy and worthwhile for any wizard, and foci become wasted refresh.
If elements don't matter, and you can do everything with a single element, then versatility in elements is a waste of points, the pyramid gets very small, and foci become the only way to go... but my question is this... in that case, why play a wizard at all? Save yourself a refresh and just take channeling. If a focused practitioner can accomplish just as much versatility as a wizard, then my problem is that wizard is obsolete... at the very least, this should be a world where wizards and f.p.'s would be on equal footing at worst (probably better- the f.p. has extra refresh he can spend on even better foci!)
Edit: (forgot to add this, even though I'd been thinking about it since post #1)
Example- My game is set in Seattle- lots of light showers, all the time (it's a city aspect, so theoretically, my players can even compel it if they want... not that any of them have thought to do so yet). If it rains, it's going to impair all magic some, but fire magic more than anything else (no... there's not really a hard case for this in the system, except that there's no reason not to have a general block against magic, and a slightly stronger one against fire magic come into play... and there's at least twice I can think of in the books where exactly this effect is established).
Hence, elements matter, in our campaigns.
-
On a related note:Water, specifically... hell no. Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.
So you won't allow Water magic to summon/create water?
-
Actually I think I can clear stuff up.
There are five elements, and 10 ways to specialize amongst them.
To get a +5 Control you would do something like:
+5 +4 +3 +2 +1.
Thats 7 Refinements (1 as a Base, and then 14/2=7).
To get a +5 control via Foci you need only spend 3 refresh (and you have one left over focus slot), but its only going to be offensive or defensive. So for the same effect as the specializations you'd have to bring it to 5 refinement on focus items, and even then it is still cheaper.
Now lets imagine we got our lore up to 6, and want to get a +6 control via specialization.
+6 +5 +4 +3 +2 +1. Thats 20 specializations, or 10 refinement.
In foci thats 6 refinement. It becomes increasingly hard as you go up in scale to get appreciable bonuses in the areas of specialization you want as your pyramid becomes bigger and bigger. Foci don't have that limitation.
Regarding Elements:
I too think you are too narrow in your application of the elements. That is not to say that focusing in one element is the only way to go, in fact I'm sure it is not. There are monster that are vulnerable to fire and monsters that are vulnerable to water etcetera. This obviously make other elements very useful.
I pick my elements based on versatility within that element, so for example my very favorite element is spirit since it can do Force based attacks (FOZARE!!!) and defenses, it can do veils, and it can affect spirits and such like, and illusions too. It is very versatile.
Another I usually pick is Air, since it is also very versatile. It can do lightning, it can be used to blow hot/cold air as I need it, it can make shields, it can suffocate people, it can (nolethally) knock people over, and this is just off the top of my head.
-
Great, now I can't stop laughing as I picture a wizard with sock puppet foci. :D
Lols, think of voo doo priests, what you said is actually canon xD
-
maybe on a small scale, water can be moved around (the game references using it to suffocate- although that could be through entropy just as easily, since all you'd need to do something like that is break down someone's lungs a little, and let them fill with water and blood)... but create it outright? no... any significant amount of water shorts magic out- hence why a rainstorm is a hinderance but not an absolute mage-killer.
Course, there are plenty of other fluids that the game also discusses...
again- let me say- this isn't just me- my players are also on the same page here. It's the reason water's the one element my wizard didn't pick up, in fact- because she didn't really grock the feel of it, beyond what we see from ramirez.
Also, Koffeykid- in the long haul, once you get up there, yes- refinement gets a lot stickier and pricier for that max bonus... don't get me wrong, I get that. It just seemed to me that an innate bonus (un-loseable) that applies to offense and defense was a lot more useful than the same amount of restricted (offense OR defense), removable bonus... and that the ability to change foci between stories or break the pyramid wasn't enough of a bonus to make them equivalent in value.
Your 3 refresh focus may be cheaper, but it only offers a +5 bonus to offensive OR defensive control to a single element. If I want offensive AND defensive control +5, I'd need to spend 5 refinement to manage that, and it would have to be a very large focus to pull it off, or a couple big ones (harder to conceal, easier to remove in combat, not always as easily available to you as, say, an innate knack).
For my 7 refresh, I get +5 offensive AND defensive control to that element, on top of which I get +4 offensive AND defensive power to the same element, and I get 2 other elements improved ON TOP of that. 2 extra refresh, and I get at least double the function, if not triple.
Again, assuming of course, that there's any point to having multiple elements... a debate perhaps best suited for another thread, but one I'm not willing to leave to the wayside, since it affects this issue so much.
-
Water magic isn't about projecting water even vaguely- water magic is entropy associations... you couldn't so much move the object as dissolve it.
Just a note, on YS256, where the book defines elements, pummeling or slicing with "a Jet of water" is specifically stated.
-
Noted, and I've actually edited my previous post to expound upon the usefulness of having multiple powerful elemental options, but I'll move back over to the focus item side of things once more.
Focus item sizes are important to keep in mind, but its not nearly as dire as you would imagine. Most people *aren't* going to go for the one trick pony huge focus anyway, just as, when elements are properly versatile (but still within their area of niche protection) jumping up to a +5 specialization wont necessarily be the first thing you do.
Lets remember that the proper wizard is going to have his refinement spread out amongst four things. Evocation Specializations, Thaumaturgy Specializations, Focus Items, and Enchanted Items. Each area is *very* powerful, and while of course you can favor one above all others, it isn't wise to ignore the other three entirely. This is why focus items are nice because they *can* be changed.
When you are making enchanted items, you can switch your focus items to bonuses to crafting, when you are focusing on some thaumaturgy stuff you can get them switched to that, etcetera, of course its not something that changes from scene to scene, but something done between the end of one book and finished at the start of another.
-edit-
Also, just to point out, the most powerful area of focus for a wizard isn't even specializations, or focus items. Enchanted items are far more powerful than they seem at first. Build out a 10 refresh wizard with a focus on Crafting (+2 Strength, +1 Uses, and six enchanted item slots, see what you get).
-
Are you sure you can use slots for Evocation for Thaumaturgy and vice versa?
-
You obviously have a very strongly formed opinion. I don't see any argument I could raise that would likely shake that as I've quoted hard RAW and it seems to have no effect. Seems to me that in the position that you hold foci are only going to have that one place in the end game for you. I hope that works out for you, and that you have lots of fun with it.
As a side note, I really do love Devonapple's houserule for taking consequences to add shifts of effect to a mundane roll. It's such an elegant and simple way of dealing with the idea of succeeding but at a cost.
So if you make a one trick pony, like having only Channeling Fire, go nuts with the specializations.
If you go White Wizard, take only foci and get diverse items like Left Sock of +1 Power Air Evocation (lol) and Right Sock of +2 Control Air Evocation.
Of note, if you have channeling fire then you can't ever take a specialization. Channeling gets no initial specialization and can't buy refinements for anything but focus items. Additionally even if they could buy specializations they could never get higher than +2 fire control, +1 fire power (or vice versa) as they don't have any other element to support further bonuses in the pyramid.
-
Just a note, on YS256, where the book defines elements, pummeling or slicing with "a Jet of water" is specifically stated.
So noted... would it be semantics to debate if that's actually water, or ectoplasm taking the shape of water? ;D
Fair enough on that point, though I'm having a hard time coping with some of the conflicting fluff there... I can live with it, I guess. We'll see if my players can.
Still, one bad example doesn't ruin the rest- I think having the flavors matter is a good idea... and I think those flavors should have a lot of overlap in function, but not complete overlap... and little to no overlap when it comes to visual/side-effects/etc.
-
You obviously have a very strongly formed opinion. I don't see any argument I could raise that would likely shake that as I've quoted hard RAW and it seems to have no effect. Seems to me that in the position that you hold foci are only going to have that one place in the end game for you. I hope that works out for you, and that you have lots of fun with it.
As a side note, I really do love Devonapple's houserule for taking consequences to add shifts of effect to a mundane roll. It's such an elegant and simple way of dealing with the idea of succeeding but at a cost.
Oh- it's had an effect- and a number of them...
1- I'm pitching Devonapple's houserule to my players in place of the one we've been using... it's far more appropriate.
2- See my last post
3- My opinion was strongly formed for lack of an opposing opinion... which is a bad thing, and I'm trying to hammer some things out here... some of that means rephrasing myself to better communicate, and if that comes across as hard-headedness, apologies. Trying to learn where your ideas come from, and why they do or don't work, beyond simply the RAW being mandate of heaven.
4- The RAW you specifically quoted, I think, can have a slightly different interpretation that makes the elements still valuable... and I really can't imagine them not being valuable. The issue with foci is a consequence of that, that for now, I'm quite happily moving away from. I'm now far more concerned with the function of fluff, as it were. If the RAW make multi-elements pointless, then my game is broken... it's not enough to just be told that, if I'm not given either an alternative or a way to fix it (fix the RAW, or fix my game). I am, in fact:
5- rapidly becoming convinced that I and my players have absolutely no understanding of the game as the majority know it... which might be a problem worth investigating. or:
6- I'm wildly misreading what you guys mean when you're talking about the functional similarity of elements, or you're wildly misreading my intent about their differentiation (since more than one has commented that my group seems abnormally stickly about them, counter to what the rules support).... quite possibly both.
-
So noted... would it be semantics to debate if that's actually water, or ectoplasm taking the shape of water? ;D
There is always water in the air (and in the human body), so a Wizard could conceivably condense the ambient water into a column. They could also simulate it with ectoplasm. Depends on the flavor.
If someone with water magic was casting "real" water jets in an arid climate, for instance, the GM could easily compel that Aspect against the caster and either make it harder by 2 shifts, or forbid it outright. And the player could, likewise, justify taking Consequences to fuel the spell with their own body fluids.
Likewise, someone using ectoplasm to cast "simulated" water jets would be unable to justify an Aspect reflecting water's natural properties against magic: they could not, for example, place an Evocation Maneuver "Water Everywhere" and Invoke it against a Summoned creature.
And if the GM needs to lock it down, they should probably determine which one the caster is doing, and use that method - ectoplasm or real water - consistently for all of their spells.
-
I didn't mean that this whole thing had no purpose at all, just that while you may have overlooked a few things, you seem to be fairly certain of the answer to your original question. I don't see anything that completely contradicts your answer so it's likely that we can't dissuade you.
And all of that is completely fine.
(or perhaps I simply can't come up with any arguments that I can't shoot down using your viewpoint)
-
I think I've sorted most of it out, and I was misreading a couple of earlier posts, in an alarming direction, hence my alarm.
That said... I still think there may be some balance issues between specialization and foci... but the only way to really determine a functional house rule is to test it... not sure I'm willing to. I came here hoping someone already had found a solution that worked well, but in absence of that... I may just have a group that favors mages with little or no focus on foci.
-
Well, "elements matter" is a very reasonable way to play.
I just don't think it's the default.
Because it is not the default, you may have to change other game elements in order to balance things while using it.
For your games, I think it would be very reasonable for foci to benefit both offence and defense. Making elements important makes wizards weaker and foci less attractive. This change would counteract both, at least partially.
I think it'd work pretty well.
In fact, I can see a solid argument that playing your way with this houserule is better than "canon". (Scare quotes there to emphasize ambiguity and lameness of word.)
-
I think one of the reasons this question comes up so often is that the first point of refinement spent on specializations is such a power boost. The advantage becomes slightly less clear cut after that, but as almost no one plays beyond the submerged power level, no one ever has enough points to get deeper into the specialization vs foci area.