Some folks are considering that a more clever build for Mort would feature Sponsored Magic.
b) Take Evocation with elements that are all basically the same as the original element. Like Heat, Smoke, and Fire.A variation of this might be to build the character power-wise as a normal Wizard, but then take an aspect that limits you to your theme (in this example, ectomancy). That way any time your focus disadvantages you to a sufficiently significant degree, you could claim a fate point (which you could then funnel into making your ectomancy more effective).
I'd stat Mort with Modular Abilities (or something very similar) instead of extra spell casting powers. GS spoiler:(click to show/hide)
I'd stat Mort with Modular Abilities (or something very similar) instead of extra spell casting powers. GS spoiler:It seems to me that this could still be explained as clever use of ectomantic powers. For example:(click to show/hide)
I don't like Sponsored Magic for Mort. He really is an ectomancer. And I don't see what part of his powers Sponsored Magic allows that ectomancy doesn't.
My normal recommendations for people who want specializations for Focused Practitioners are:
a) Trade in the right to take foci for the right to take pyramid-less specializations.
or
b) Take Evocation with elements that are all basically the same as the original element. Like Heat, Smoke, and Fire.
Channelling with pyramid-less specializations and no foci is not necessarily stronger than the default option. Giving up those two free focus slots hurts. Analysis here (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19934.msg1049044.html#msg1049044).Your statement doesn't seem to match the numbers on your linked post. You don't think a +3 to +5 shift advantage on defensive casting is significant? I do.
The point is that FPS should be MORE powerful than wizards in their chosen element.Why?
It's certainly not true of spell casters in DF.
It certainly IS true of a comparison of the top single representatives of each group (based on 'page time'), Harry and Mort.So you're going to extrapolate from a single instance to "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists"? Doing so requires fallacious logic.
It can give a significant advantage, but it doesn't necessarily.
Sure, it lets you boost both offence and defence at the same time. And it removes the whole disarming worry.
But if all you want is as much firepower as you can get, it's actually worse. And if you don't have Refinements, it's strictly worse.
So there's still a reason to pick normal Channelling.
So you're going to extrapolate from a single instance to "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists"? Doing so requires fallacious logic.
I'm not going to count pages for a rebuttal but Cowl makes Mort look like the scared one trick practitioner he is...even in his own specialty. ;)
Beyond that, the books repeatedly call the WC wizards strong compared to others. Against that it makes one statement (that I can recall) about Mort being better than Harry at Mort's specialty. Don't think it compared him to a wizard who might have studied Ectomancy and related fields at all.
So no, I don't think it is necessarily true. As noted before, I think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be more powerful in her specialty than a given generalist wizard. I simply think that's a rare event, not a general rule of "should be more powerful in their focus".
So you're going to extrapolate from a single instance to "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists"? Doing so requires fallacious logic.
I'm not going to count pages for a rebuttal but Cowl makes Mort look like the scared one trick practitioner he is...even in his own specialty. ;)
Beyond that, the books repeatedly call the WC wizards strong compared to others. Against that it makes one statement (that I can recall) about Mort being better than Harry at Mort's specialty. Don't think it compared him to a wizard who might have studied Ectomancy and related fields at all.
So no, I don't think it is necessarily true. As noted before, I think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be more powerful in her specialty than a given generalist wizard. I simply think that's a rare event, not a general rule of "should be more powerful in their focus".
No, I don't think we have enough information to form a solid argument as to which 'should' be more powerful.Err, ok. You did cherry pick a quote from a paragraph which also stated "I certainly think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be very powerful, even more power than a generalist - at least within their specialty." and then made a flat statement denying my rejection of "should be more powerful". Yet it sounds now as if our opinions aren't all that far apart. ???
My rebuttal was intended only for the categorical dismissal of the claim, not as the foundation for a logical argument in favour.
What we DO have sufficient evidence of is that the biased-in-Wizards'-favour-narrator, who for the majority of the novels believed all FPs, and Mort in particular, were pathetically weak in comparison to folks on his level, even in their specialties, and even as compared to generalists like himself, was thoroughly shocked and impressed by the scope and power of feats accomplished by Mort, and convinced that he could likely not accomplish the same.Perhaps. (I don't remember shock or a conviction of being unable to reproduce - but I'll buy it for sake of discussion.) That same wizard narrator was very wary of a certain heart exploding spell and conscious of how outclassed he was by senior wizards. He also notes he has more power than finesse. So I don't find it surprising he can raise a dinosaur but might not be able to use ghosts effectively. That doesn't preclude other wizards from being better at such things than Harry.
The more I read threads on here, the more I hate Harry's GM for letting him get away with so much.Hehe, can't argue!
Err, ok. You did cherry pick a quote from a paragraph which also stated "I certainly think it's possible for a focused practitioner to be very powerful, even more power than a generalist - at least within their specialty." and then made a flat statement denying my rejection of "should be more powerful". Yet it sounds now as if our opinions aren't all that far apart. ???
I still reject the claim that "focused practitioners should be more powerful than generalists in their specialty". There's no evidence for such a statement. Replace "should" with "may" and I'd allow the possibility...as I've already stated.
Perhaps. (I don't remember shock or a conviction of being unable to reproduce - but I'll buy it for sake of discussion.) That same wizard narrator was very wary of a certain heart exploding spell and conscious of how outclassed he was by senior wizards. He also notes he has more power than finesse. So I don't find it surprising he can raise a dinosaur but might not be able to use ghosts effectively. That doesn't preclude other wizards from being better at such things than Harry.
Channelling is already only good when saving Refresh or when focusing purely on offence/defence. Evocation utterly trumps it in all other cases.
Which is why it doesn't bother me to make a version of it that trumps it except when saving Refresh or when focusing purely on offence/defence.
It would bother me to make a specialized power stronger than Evocation, though. Evocation is very strong, and making something stronger seems unwise.
PS: Focused Practitioners are actually generally better than Wizards at their speciality. Unless, of course, the Wizard chooses to specialize in the same thing as the Focused Practitioner.
You'll be better at defence. But you'll be worse at offence, which is what you care about.
I used to worry about the balance of being un-disarmable, but then I remembered that underpants are valid foci.
I don't have my copy of the book but iirc Harry accuses Mort of hiding his strength. Mort then exclaims that he didn't want to be drafted into the war against the ramps. This certainly read to me like he had thrown the wc tests like Elaine had.Quite possible. Someday it might be interesting to see how many different versions of Mort could be drawn up. ;)
You'll be better at defence. But you'll be worse at offence, which is what you care about.In my games, more than half of a caster's rolls tend to qualify as defensive. Basically, any unopposed roll - almost all blocks and self, scene, and ally maneuvers. How are you treating it?
I used to worry about the balance of being un-disarmable, but then I remembered that underpants are valid foci.Declaration: Skid Marks; Compel: Not enough contact to work. :o Slightly tongue in cheek but I hope your suggestion was also. Somewhat less tongue in cheek, getting soaked in water could also be compelled to temporarily disable clothing foci.
Everybody keeps referring to mort as a focused practitioner, but the conversation he has with Harry in GS cast doubt on his classification IMO.Spoilers for GS:
I don't have my copy of the book but iirc Harry accuses Mort of hiding his strength. Mort then exclaims that he didn't want to be drafted into the war against the ramps. This certainly read to me like he had thrown the wc tests like Elaine had.
@UmbraLux:Perhaps because he min/maxed his casting? Or because you haven't put him on the defensive? Shrug, I'm just throwing out guesses. It does surprise me you'd want to make the magic he's not using just as (or nearly as) powerful as his attacks - particularly since you say it's difficult to GM.
Belial's character in my PbP game rarely casts a non-offensive evocation, because he optimized for offensive power. His character can end most fights in one shot. Which is hard to GM for, but I've managed decently so far.
My RL game does not have a spellcaster, though it's sort of supposed to.It's certainly possible. It's possible to treat everything like a nail if you only have a hammer. ;) Jokes aside, some situations make attacking a suboptimal choice at best. Whether or not those get used depends on the group. The thaumaturgist throwing weapon 6 "potions" around is the "optimized" character in the game we're playing.
So my limited experience suggests that it's quite possible to use only offence if you really try. I don't know if the same is true for defence.
My point about underwear foci is that unless the GM is out to disable you then you don't really need to worry too much about losing access to foci. And if your GM is out to disable you, he can do that anyway.The "GM is out to disable you" characterization is simplistic at best. Have you tried carrying a staff around the city? Into the White House? (Our game is set in DC.) Or even city hall? What about the police station? A neutral's house? There are lots of potential reasons for not having access to foci.
(Anyway, why would wetness disable underpants foci?)
Edit: And water disrupts magic so might be compelled to temporarily disable foci which soak it up.
RUNNING water disables magic.