ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: narphoenix on May 04, 2013, 08:40:32 PM
-
So, say someone's casting a biomancy Evothaum. Do you use Biomancy Complexity to determine power and Biomancy control to determine control, or do oh model it as an evocation with evocation bonuses, just with wider effects?
-
Per the Evothaum side bar on YS pg 288 it uses the same structure as Evocation: so control and attack rolls, calling up power, etc. Evothaum just has broader effects based on the Thaumaturgy it is copying.
-
Yes, but do you use The Evocation bonuses or The Thaumaturgy ones?
-
Evothaum IS Evocation with a differing set of available (narrative) effects. It uses the rules for Evocation, including those for specializations and foci.
-
What Ted said.
-
Yo. (http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,32352.0.html)
-
I always assumed it was Thaumaturgic Complexity = Evothaum Power and Thaumaturgic Control = Evothaum Control.
I still think that's how it should work, even now that I see it's not actually written that way.
-
Houserule as you will.
If you implement that, and have previously or later implement RAW on the matter, let us know how the results compare.
-
Houserule as you will.
If you implement that, and have previously or later implement RAW on the matter, let us know how the results compare.
I'm not convinced there IS a RAW on the matter. It never really says either way.
The sidebar on evothaum has three bullet points; it's limited to line of sight, "the spell is cast like evocation: power first, control later, all done in one exchange"; it has access to thaumaturgic effects, and you use the thaumaturgic complexity as a guideline for the necessary evocation power. It then goes on to say that the difference between available effects is largely a matter of what you don't have to rationalize. No statement on foci.
I can see "use evocation foci" as an interpretation of "the spell is cast like evocation," but since it then goes on to explain that as "power first, control later, all done in one exchange", I don't find that convincing.
-
I can see "use evocation foci" as an interpretation of "the spell is cast like evocation," but since it then goes on to explain that as "power first, control later, all done in one exchange", I don't find that convincing.
Evocation uses Power and control. Thaumaturgy uses Complexity and Control. Therefore evo-thaum uses evocation foci because complexity won't boost an evocation spell - only power does that.
The difference between evocation and evothaum is the "elements". For example, evocation lets youyou can attack with spirit, fire, water, earth, air.
Evothaum lets you attack with biomancy, ectomancy etc... it's still an attack but it has a different narrative and, in some instances, might have different effects.
Evocation lets you put up a block while evothaum lets you put up a ward. A ward has different limitations and advantages than a block. The methods are all evocation. Evocation does not use thaum foci.
-
Evocation uses Power and control. Thaumaturgy uses Complexity and Control. Therefore evo-thaum uses evocation foci because complexity won't boost an evocation spell - only power does that.
Hmm, that does make sense, but WHAT evocation foci? I mean, would an entropomancy evothaum use spirit foci, water foci, or what?
I guess you could make specific evothaum foci but that seems too pricey for something that's often kind of niche (given how low the effective complexity will likely be).
-
It's actually relatively cheap since sponsored magic generally constitutes a singular element.
-
It's actually relatively cheap since sponsored magic generally constitutes a singular element.
You mean use "Unseelie Magic Power/Control" foci rather than "Entropomancy Power/Control" foci for the entropomancy-as-evocation that Unseelie Magic lets you use?
If you can use your existing Unseelie Magic evocation foci, then yeah, that makes sense.
-
You mean use "Unseelie Magic Power/Control" foci rather than "Entropomancy Power/Control" foci for the entropomancy-as-evocation that Unseelie Magic lets you use?
If you can use your existing Unseelie Magic evocation foci, then yeah, that makes sense.
Keep in mind, as Evocation, foci are still split between offensive and defensive.
-
You mean use "Unseelie Magic Power/Control" foci rather than "Entropomancy Power/Control" foci for the entropomancy-as-evocation that Unseelie Magic lets you use?
You could get yourself an Entropomancy Offensive Control focus, but it wouldn't make much sense to do so if your Entropomancy evothaum comes from Unseelie Magic and you already have (or could make/acquire) an Unseelie Magic Offensive Control focus.
It'd be rather like an individual with Ritual:Ectomancy getting themselves a Summoning&Binding focus. They could do it, but it would only help them Summon/Bind ghosts and the like, since those are the only things they can affect with their magic.
-
OK, yeah, as long as you can use existing evocation foci for evothaum, not limited to evothaum-only foci, I don't see the problem.
-
Evocation uses Power and control. Thaumaturgy uses Complexity and Control. Therefore evo-thaum uses evocation foci because complexity won't boost an evocation spell - only power does that.
Not necessarily. Evothaum might use special evothaum foci. Or it might not use any foci at all.
The rules really don't mention this issue. There are no RAW.
Anyway, I know from personal experience that using evocation foci for evothaum can be problematic. So I'd be inclined to use thaumaturgy foci, or perhaps special evothaum foci. (Complexity would count as Power, if using thaumaturgy foci.)
I'm not sure whether or not that counts as a houserule. Doesn't matter much, really...it's mostly just a question of how you define the word houserule.
-
Anyway, I know from personal experience that using evocation foci for evothaum can be problematic.
I'm actually curious how it's problematic. Do you feel it is too powerful to use evocation foci for evothaum?
For example:
If I'm a wizard with Thaum and Evocation, I can take all my foci and boost evocation fire magic. Dividing it between power or control or just boosting one of those as high as I can (since it's limited by Lore)
If I have Summer sponsored magic, I can put all my foci into the element "summer" the same way as I did with fire.
Is it overpowered because "Summer" is much more flexible?
-
It seems a bit overpowered to me, since pumping up your Evocation is really good even without the extra benefit of being able to apply the bonus to some more complicated spells.
But the power isn't my main concern. I just find it problematic when a character's evothaum is much better than their actual thaumaturgy. Elena in EtA has a set-up like that, and it has produced some weirdness. Having your effectiveness reduced by taking extra time to cast makes little sense, and when you cast big spells it encourages you to consider using a pseudo-ritual with Evocation and a bunch of maneuvers. Which is just mechanically obtuse.
-
On the other hand, allowing the use of Thaumaturgy Foci for what is fundamentally Evocation is mechanically strictly superior to using Evocation Foci unless you institute additional rules of some kind to address the fact that Evocation Foci must be split between offensive and defensive roles.
-
You've got a point, but I'd shy away from saying "strictly". If you use thaumaturgy foci for your evothaum then you can't use those foci for big attacks. Evothaum just doesn't do those. And depending on rules intepretation there may be other things that Evocation is better than Evothaum at.
-
It seems a bit overpowered to me, since pumping up your Evocation is really good even without the extra benefit of being able to apply the bonus to some more complicated spells.
It's not overpowered, at least partly on account of the defense/offense split.
I just find it problematic when a character's evothaum is much better than their actual thaumaturgy. Elena in EtA has a set-up like that, and it has produced some weirdness. Having your effectiveness reduced by taking extra time to cast makes little sense, and when you cast big spells it encourages you to consider using a pseudo-ritual with Evocation and a bunch of maneuvers. Which is just mechanically obtuse.
Taking extra time doesn't reduce your effectiveness, while the base complexity of no prep thaumaturgy will almost always be lower than what you could pour into a big bang evocation (effective conviction + 3 from burning your 4th stress box) thaumaturgy doesn't have an upper bound the way evocation effectively does, and doesn't eat your stress. On the gripping hand, evocation effects are inherently more powerful, point for point, than their equivalent thaumaturgy cousins, even when produced by evothaum.
-
If you use thaumaturgy foci for your evothaum then you can't use those foci for big attacks. Evothaum just doesn't do those. And depending on rules intepretation there may be other things that Evocation is better than Evothaum at.
All of this is 'depending on rules interpretation'. And the 'rules interpretation' that supports it is one that ignored the strongest statement we have with regards to how evothaum actually works.
-
I know, but the strongest statement is still pretty weak. So I don't feel bad about ignoring it.
-
Blatantly and explicitly ignoring the closest thing we have to a definitive rule and calling the result a 'rules interpretation' is, at best, insultingly disingenuous.
-
The closest thing we have to a definitive rule is an implication derived from a legalistic reading of the game's terminology.
It might be the best we have, but it's still not much. I don't see why we should let it bind us.
Like I said before, I'm not sure whether ignoring it counts as a houserule or not. Either way, I think it's probably a good idea.