ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: WadeL on October 23, 2014, 08:16:31 PM
-
I've heard folks talk several times about how Power is weaker than Control, but I was wondering if there are any advantages to going Power-heavy?
(Not talking about Conviction-heavy - which has its own advantages - but Power heavy).
If you've got 5 Power, 5 Control, on an even die roll you can generate 10 shifts of damage while only taking one stress.
If you've got 3 Power, 7 Control, on an even die roll you can also generate 10 shifts of damage for one stress.
But if you've got 7 Power, 3 Control, on an even die roll you can only generate 6 shifts of damage for one stress. You can get up to 10 by also taking a 4 stress hit for backlash, but that only brings you up to parity, it doesn't actually give you any advantages.
Are there any advantages to going Power heavy?
-
I prefer control over power myself, but there is one application I can see, Rote spells. You don't have to control them, so you don't have to deal with backlash. Just aim and shoot, or in cases of blocks and some maneuvers, just declare them to be there. Done right, you can have a pretty powerful arsenal at your disposal.
For anything else, a parity of power and control will most likely give you the best results, with control being slightly better.
-
Just to clarify: If you set up a rote spell with more power than you have control, you'll be taking backlash or fallout every time you cast that spell.
The only reason I would make such a rote would be if I had a recovery or toughness power (or No Pain No Gain) to help deal with the extra stress I'd be taking. Could make for an interesting Blood Mage type character.
-
Having more Power available is what'll be restricting the effective strength you can throw out Blocks and Maneuvers. If you see yourself using a lot of those, then you'll need to make sure your Power is up to snuff or you'll burn a lot of Mental to get them higher in combat.
Personally, I like to try to keep my Control at least +1 over my Power in specializations, and use Foci to mainly boost control from there, occasionally boosting Power with them--but always maintaining P = C + X, where X can be anything (and I prefer at least 1; statistically just the +1 control over power makes it way harder to fail a non-rote at base Power). I'd never have my Power higher than my control, unless I wanted to from a RP perspective (Blood Mage idea that PirateJack suggested, etc).
-
Having more Power available is what'll be restricting the effective strength you can throw out Blocks and Maneuvers. If you see yourself using a lot of those, then you'll need to make sure your Power is up to snuff or you'll burn a lot of Mental to get them higher in combat.
Again though, it really is about making sure your Power is close to your Control...no real motive to go over your Control, is there?
-
Control is only straight-up better when you're using attacks, which certainly isn't the only thing you can do with evocation. Otherwise, power is usually about equally as good. However, it's usually worth getting a +4 Control foci if you can afford the Refinements. Never blowing an evocation roll at your base power is handy.
-
If you're planning to cast with backlash, power > control might be a good idea. If your power is 1 greater than your control, you can use your fourth physical and mental stress boxes to cast a spell at your control +4 with an average roll.
That's a bit of a niche case, but it's something.
-
If you're planning to cast with backlash, power > control might be a good idea. If your power is 1 greater than your control, you can use your fourth physical and mental stress boxes to cast a spell at your control +4 with an average roll.
That's a bit of a niche case, but it's something.
That's not the worst, I guess. Let's take the scenarios from my first post, and run them from the point of view of "going for maximum effect, willing to take stress but no consequences, and have 4 mental and physical stress boxes, rolling even on the dice".
5 Power, 5 Control - I can go up to a Power 9 attack for 4 mental stress, and then can take 4 physical stress to control the backlash - 14 damage.
3 Power, 7 Control - I can go up to a Power 7 attack for 4 mental stress, I've still got no backlash - 14 damage.
7 Power, 3 Control - Hrm, it actually doesn't work out so well. For a 1 stress hit and a 4 stress hit (for backlash) I can still get up to 14 damage. No better.
The Power over Control person has an advantage in stress taken compared to having them even (which I didn't expect), but still no reason not to favour Control fairly heavily unless I'm missing something.
I do see how for non-attack stuff it is fine to have them be around the same, but again, no advantages to favouring Power.
I'm mostly trying to confirm this is the case and I haven't missed anything subtle, before going off and deciding if I want to tweak it at all.
-
I'd like it if there was a mechanic in place that made taking Power over Control a viable choice. I dislike how static all my wizard builds are in that regard.
-
With great preparation I can see power being better, but only if you can set up first. Assuming you have the time to set up all the free tags you need to control all the power you can call up. The power heavy player can overcast higher than the control heavy character. As far as I understand there is no upper limit to how many tags you can apply to a roll if they make sense. You just have to prep or get your ass kicked for the whole story and hoard those fate points.
-
I'd like it if there was a mechanic in place that made taking Power over Control a viable choice. I dislike how static all my wizard builds are in that regard.
I agree, though realistically, there's got to be the whole "I control my spell successfully" shebang, and drawbacks if you don't. At least for how the DV magic works.
The only idea that jumps to my head is maybe giving wizards who take consequences from Backlash the ability to tag their own consequences (maybe need a stunt for it)..."I gritted my teeth and drew on the pain from my broken ankle, using it as fuel for my fury before I let it loose. 'FUEGO!'" Etc...It fits with how Harry has described his sources of power in combat--powerful emotion and pain have always been in there. Mechanically, the opposite is probably happening (he takes a consequence as part of the spell and describes it the way I just did), but whatever. Normally I do things like this with Conviction navel-gazing maneuvers, but it might help? I dunno...it feels a bit powerful, but at the same time, you're getting yourself closer and closer to being taken out, so it's a dangerous game to play. I'd want to run a few mock conflicts to test it first.
Some custom stunts can also help with this...I recall one of the NPCs on the Resource Board having a stunt that reduced fallout by 2 shifts.
-
5 Power, 5 Control - I can go up to a Power 9 attack for 4 mental stress, and then can take 4 physical stress to control the backlash - 14 damage.
3 Power, 7 Control - I can go up to a Power 7 attack for 4 mental stress, I've still got no backlash - 14 damage.
7 Power, 3 Control - Hrm, it actually doesn't work out so well. For a 1 stress hit and a 4 stress hit (for backlash) I can still get up to 14 damage. No better.
Not quite. Spells have a base cost of 1 stress, so 4 stress only gets you up to power + 3.
And I don't think backlash helps with targeting rolls, though the book is a bit unclear about that. So the high-power guy is probably only doing 10 stress with a 7-power spell. Control really shines on attacks.
I'm mostly trying to confirm this is the case and I haven't missed anything subtle, before going off and deciding if I want to tweak it at all.
You should take aspect invocations and roll variance into account. Aspect invocations make high-power a bit better, since it makes it possible to control spells that are way above your maximum control.
Roll variance actually favours the guy with a control surplus, though.
...realistically...
What?
The only idea that jumps to my head is maybe giving wizards who take consequences from Backlash the ability to tag their own consequences (maybe need a stunt for it)..."I gritted my teeth and drew on the pain from my broken ankle, using it as fuel for my fury before I let it loose. 'FUEGO!'" Etc...It fits with how Harry has described his sources of power in combat--powerful emotion and pain have always been in there. Mechanically, the opposite is probably happening (he takes a consequence as part of the spell and describes it the way I just did), but whatever. Normally I do things like this with Conviction navel-gazing maneuvers, but it might help? I dunno...it feels a bit powerful, but at the same time, you're getting yourself closer and closer to being taken out, so it's a dangerous game to play. I'd want to run a few mock conflicts to test it first.
It's not really a good idea to give wizards any extra power for free. Might be balanced as a stunt/Power, but it would encourage alpha-striking and that's likely to make the game less fun.
-
When setting up specializations and focus items, no, there's no particular advantage to power over control (assuming you have "enough" power, anyway, which is mostly an issue for maneuvers. But can also matter for some of the interesting things you can do with sponsored magic evothaum...)
However, when setting up skills, there's a very good reason to go for power over control: power is tied to the same stat that gives you your casting stress track. So if you're looking at will 5 / discipline 4, versus will 4 / discipline 5, the former gives you an extra minor mental consequence slot, which means one more spell you can get off when you really need to.
-
What?
Reworded: "I agree, but based on canonical descriptions of how spellcasting works in the Dresdenverse, there's got to be some kind of "I control my spell successfully" shebang, and drawbacks if you don't. "
How's that? That's what I get for writing stuff right after waking up.
-
Not quite. Spells have a base cost of 1 stress, so 4 stress only gets you up to power + 3.
Ahh, yeah, forgot that.
You should take aspect invocations and roll variance into account. Aspect invocations make high-power a bit better, since it makes it possible to control spells that are way above your maximum control.
I don't see it? Like, comparing our power and control goons again, saying both of them are invoking +4 worth of Aspects.
5 Power, 5 Control - My base effect, invoking those aspects, is going to be 14. If I'm going out and take extra stress to get my Power to 8, that puts me at 17 instead.
3 Power, 7 Control - Base effect is going to be 14. If I push myself, I'll get to Power 6, for a 17 again.
7 Power, 3 Control - Base going in, with no extra stress, is going to be 14. Or I can take 4 stress for increased power, and a 3 stress to absorb backlash, and do a Power 10 attack...which gets me up to 17, for exactly the same effect as the other guys get, only I have to take more stress to do it.
-
Seems like it's a wash either way.
The reckless guy who always leaves the building on fire would take power over control and the studious fellow whose attacks are like surgical strikes takes control.
-
How's that?
Better, at least if you ask me.
I don't see it?
Using your examples...
Without Aspects, the high-power low-control guy is clearly inferior on standard attacks. He has to take backlash to do the same amount of stress that the high-control low-power guy does normally. And control guy is more accurate.
With Aspects, they do the same amount of damage for the same cost. Control guy is still more accurate, though.
If you want an example where Aspects lead to a situation where power is actually better, here's one:
The Merlin wants to create a barrier to stop an army while the rest of the Council retreats. Through teamwork and his FP supply, he can invoke 7 Aspects. He needs a block strength of 25 to stop the army. Once it's up he'll extend the duration with another spell, so he doesn't need to buy duration.
If the Merlin has power 15 control 11, he can take 10 mental stress to cast the spell and then, assuming an average roll, do it without backlash. 10 mental stress hurts, but with consequences it's manageable.
If the Merlin has power 11 control 15 instead, it'll take him 14 mental stress. He can still cast it without backlash, but that 14 stress is pretty serious. If he's already a bit beat-up, he might well have to take an extreme consequence.
So in this situation, power is actually better.
-
So, I've got some thoughts on how one might beef up Power...without, hopefully, making evokers more powerful, because that we don't need! Which combination of these do you think might be ideal?
1. Modifiers for zones get subtracted from Power instead of adding to the Power cost
This essentially means that it is easier to control zone attacks, but still have the same power requirements. For instance, say a Wizard wants to hit two zones (-4)...
Power 5, Control 5 - Power drops to 1 because he's going after two zones. Can easily control it, doing 6 shifts of effect to each zone.
Power 3, Control 7 - Power drops to -1 from affecting two zones. Can't even do it unless he's willing to go up to taking 3 stress to get a Power 1 attack, though if he does that he does end up with 8 shifts of effect.
Power 7, Control 3 - Power drops to 3, can now control the Power just fine. Does 6 shifts of effect to each zone.
You might also decide to do a similar thing for extra zones for block...or even for duration on things like shields, which would give a really nice bonus to Power.
2. Limit damage on spell attacks based on your Power (maximum damage of 2x Power).
Basically, this would mean you can only do so much with accuracy - in the end, you also need the juice. So if you do a Power 3 attack, your maximum damage is going to be 6, even if your opponent rolls Mediocre for his dodge and you roll Fantastic on your Discipline.
I actually kind of like this - it seems to make sense - the only thing I don't like is how different it makes evocation from other weapon attacks then. But considering the weapon rating of an evocation attack can go way, way over what a mundane weapon can be, I don't think that's an issue so much.
3. No targeting bonus to damage on zone effects.
If you target a whole zone, you just do your weapon damage, no accuracy bonus, though it still is what the targets have to roll to dodge. This is another one of those things that makes sense, but does change things more than it seems - it makes Zone attacks all or nothing damage wise, for instance (though that may make sense too?).
4. Give some number of free casting for spells way below your Power.
People do sometimes complain about Wizards not being able to get off quite enough spells, anyways (though obviously it is far more than enough most of the time). So say that, once per scene, you can cast a spell at Power -4 for free. And maybe also once per scene at Power -8, Power -12, Power -16, etc, so long as your Power doesn't go into the negatives. This way, someone with a lot of juice has more staying power, but it doesn't make casters too much more lethal because the extra spells they can throw into the mix are at lower power.
Anyways, anyone like any of these tweaks? Or see horrible downsides to any of them?
-
I think that you are very focused on attacks, and that isn't all one can do with magic. Maneuvers, Blocks, and Counterspells are extremely useful things and are determined more by power than by control. If you're going to make an analysis of the benefits of power over control and vice versa, then you need to include these as well.
-
There's a common houserule saying that control bonuses don't add to attack rolls. They help with controlling the spell, but aiming is straight Discipline.
Personally I think that's a bit too hard on high-end Wizards, but I'm told it works reasonably well at the levels people normally play at.
As for your suggestions...
I don't much like the first idea, since it makes it easier to end a fight on the first round with a huge zone attack.
The second idea seems fine to me. It's another thing to keep track of, though, and I'm not sure how often it'll come up.
I actually like the third idea quite a bit. Zone attacks are really strong, this would tone them down a bit. Might even be worth applying to non-magical zone attacks.
The fourth is kinda minor. It's an upgrade to wizards and that's often problematic, but one spell at power -4 isn't likely to change much. I don't think this is likely to meaningfully affect the balance between power and control.
-
I think that you are very focused on attacks, and that isn't all one can do with magic. Maneuvers, Blocks, and Counterspells are extremely useful things and are determined more by power than by control. If you're going to make an analysis of the benefits of power over control and vice versa, then you need to include these as well.
I guess with non-attack stuff, it seems it is almost always the best option to go with balanced Control and Power. Where with attack, Control is way better. But there don't seem to be any applications where Power is the better choice.
-
I guess with non-attack stuff, it seems it is almost always the best option to go with balanced Control and Power. Where with attack, Control is way better. But there don't seem to be any applications where Power is the better choice.
When it comes to non-attack evocations, that is the case if you are relying on only your raw stats. You can sacrifice control for more power and rely on tagging maneuvers to make your control rolls. Maneuvers can augment your control, but they can't augment your power. In this way, having more power than control allows your non-attack spells to be that much more efficient and/or more powerful, which can be very useful depending on the situation. See Sanctaphrax's Block example above.
There are advantages and disadvantages to each set up. What it comes down to, is how you want your spell casting to play out.
If all you want is attack, attack, attack. Then control over power.
If you want a variety of average sized spells every exchange, then bring them a little more even and save up those fate points for poor rolls.
If you want a variety of really big spells possibly spread out a bit, then go power over control and spend your exchanges on maneuvers, convince your teammates that the best strategy is to feed you maneuvers, or set yourself up to efficiently soak up stress in backlash.
-
I saw this suggestion elsewhere, so I figured I'd ressurrect this thread to see if anyone had any thoughts...
What about just saying Control bonuses don't apply to the attack roll?
So you've got Great (+4) Discipline and Conviction, specializations/items that give you +2 Control and +2 Power. You summon up a Weapon: 6 fire blast for 1 Stress. You roll Discipline to attack, get +0 on the dice...so a Great (+4) result. Your Control bonus applies to that roll to check if you can control your shifts of power (6 control for 6 power - check!), but you still only get that +4 to attack.
It would seem that it takes away some of the double-dipping of Control bonuses, removes the thing where after a few Refresh wizards are way, way better at hitting things with single-target attacks than anyone else, down-powers Control on attacks where everyone agrees it is too powerful, and doesn't down-power Control in other areas at all.
Anyone see any meaningful disadvantages to doing it this way?
-
So, I've got some thoughts on how one might beef up Power...without, hopefully, making evokers more powerful, because that we don't need! Which combination of these do you think might be ideal?
1. Modifiers for zones get subtracted from Power instead of adding to the Power cost
This essentially means that it is easier to control zone attacks, but still have the same power requirements. For instance, say a Wizard wants to hit two zones (-4)...
Power 5, Control 5 - Power drops to 1 because he's going after two zones. Can easily control it, doing 6 shifts of effect to each zone.
I respectfully disagree here. Your wizard must still call up Five (5) shifts of Power; the EFFECT merely drops to one as far as the targets are concerned, but the Power must still be controlled, especially if it's not a Rote. That's how I would rule at any rate.
-
I really think that a lot of the trouble surrounding wizards can be handled by taking the book's advice on YS77 Building a Practitioner. Don't allow your players to create a wizard with a 5-5-4 set up. Ask them to vary their trifecta skills. That way if they want high control, they have to deal with low power. It allows them to be good at Thaumaturgy, but only a one or two trick pony in combat. If they want full variety and strength in combat, they have to deal with a low control and be not so great at Thaumaturgy. Multiple wizards in the group can then fill differing roles, rather than one wizard being able to do everything.
Additionally, this then gives the bonuses from focus items a more useful roll in shoring up weaknesses. Say I went high control and low power. I might use my focus items to bolster my power for defensive evocations if I want to round my caster out.
When I was GMing I gave wizards 12 points to spend on their trifecta skills and didn't allow Conviction and Discipline to both be at 5 (I toyed with the idea of requiring a 2 point difference between the two skills as well, but the game died before I could test the idea out.). I also asked them to define a blind spot in their casting and to reflect it in one of their aspects. If they wanted the 4-4-4 set up, I required a larger blind spot. It seemed to work nicely that way for the little bit we tried it.
It doesn't solve everything, but it helps. It also widens the difference between choosing high power or high control. When your 1-stress block is only 3 shifts cos' you dumped everything into offense and control, that makes a difference.
-
I don't think it's appropriate to interfere with people's skill selection.
What about just saying Control bonuses don't apply to the attack roll?
So you've got Great (+4) Discipline and Conviction, specializations/items that give you +2 Control and +2 Power. You summon up a Weapon: 6 fire blast for 1 Stress. You roll Discipline to attack, get +0 on the dice...so a Great (+4) result. Your Control bonus applies to that roll to check if you can control your shifts of power (6 control for 6 power - check!), but you still only get that +4 to attack.
It would seem that it takes away some of the double-dipping of Control bonuses, removes the thing where after a few Refresh wizards are way, way better at hitting things with single-target attacks than anyone else, down-powers Control on attacks where everyone agrees it is too powerful, and doesn't down-power Control in other areas at all.
Anyone see any meaningful disadvantages to doing it this way?
It makes high-Refresh spellcasters substantially weaker. You might not see that as a downside, but personally I don't like the idea of making Evocation so inaccurate.
And not everybody agrees control is too powerful on attacks.
-
I don't think it's appropriate to interfere with people's skill selection.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess. If the books suggest it, and it solves some problems, I don't see the harm.
-
It makes high-Refresh spellcasters substantially weaker. You might not see that as a downside, but personally I don't like the idea of making Evocation so inaccurate.
I guess, comparing it to other high-refresh characters...are other high refresh characters likely to get big bonuses to their attack rolls that Wizards can't also get? It seems that stunts/powers that raise your attack roll (as opposed to damage) are pretty rare - for the vast majority of character types, the only way to raise your to-hit roll is to up your skill. Except wizards, who can pretty trivially get +4 to attack even by the time you're in the low teens of refresh.
-
It's limited to only four or five attacks or actions per combat, though -- beyond that, it starts to hit them pretty heavily.
How many times has Harry obliterated some obstacle, only to learn there's something else he immediately has to deal with while he's still recovering?
Yes, wizards are powerful -- obscenely so, in some circumstances (one of my players has, on more than one occasion, cashed in fate points to cast a spell rolling from 20) -- but they're supposed to be, and there are some drawbacks that can cripple them, or at least seriously offset their usefulness. A fight just lasting more than four rounds can prove a challenge to a wizard -- especially if you let them cast shields reflexively as defenses.
-
If the books suggest it, and it solves some problems, I don't see the harm.
I don't think they do and I don't think it does. IIRC all the book says is that it's difficult or impossible to make all three skills very high. Not that you shouldn't be allowed.
And 5/4/4 is often more optimal than 5/5/4, if you ask me. So prohibiting 5/5/4 doesn't do very much to depower spellcasters.
I guess, comparing it to other high-refresh characters...are other high refresh characters likely to get big bonuses to their attack rolls that Wizards can't also get?
Not big bonuses. But +1 to hit is a standard stunt effect, and there's also True Aim and Blood Drinker. Combine that with apex combat skills and occasional custom stuff, and you can expect people to attack at around skill cap +1 or +2. Plus some of them can dump huge stacks of FP, which Wizards pretty much never have.
Wizards, meanwhile, often don't have capped Discipline. So they'll probably be attacking around skill cap -1 or +0.
It's a very significant difference against people with enchanted item defences or capped Athletics plus a dodging stunt and/or Speed.
A fight just lasting more than four rounds can prove a challenge to a wizard -- especially if you let them cast shields reflexively as defenses.
I'm not disagreeing, but I think it's kinda funny how the phrasing here implies that reflexive shields make Wizards weaker.
-
What about just saying Control bonuses don't apply to the attack roll?
I have liked this possible house-rule for a long time. If I were ever to run a DF game again, I would use it.
-
I'm not disagreeing, but I think it's kinda funny how the phrasing here implies that reflexive shields make Wizards weaker.
I wouldn't say weaker, per se. Just burns up their potential casting juju that much faster.
-
I'm not disagreeing, but I think it's kinda funny how the phrasing here implies that reflexive shields make Wizards weaker.
Hah, well, I more meant that it makes them burn through what they have quicker -- a four-round wizard becomes a two-round wizard if he's relying on that for defense.
-
I don't think they do and I don't think it does. IIRC all the book says is that it's difficult or impossible to make all three skills very high. Not that you shouldn't be allowed.
And 5/4/4 is often more optimal than 5/5/4, if you ask me. So prohibiting 5/5/4 doesn't do very much to depower spellcasters.
Building a Practitioner
Skills
How an arcane practitioner’s skills are set is a big part of the caster’s flavor and identity as well. It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to build a caster that is very highly rated in all three of the “spellcaster trinity”: Conviction, Discipline, and Lore (though you could choose to build a spellcaster that’s merely medium rated in all three—a true generalist).
No, it doesn't state outright that having all of them highly rated is not allowed, but that's why I said "suggestion" rather than rule. The last sentence there makes the designer's stance on the issue very clear though. "You could choose to build a spellcaster that's merely medium rated in all three" implies that choosing a spellcaster that is highly rated in all three isn't really a good option as far they are concerned. As does the sentence before that. I doubt they included that box just for the hell of it. In my opinion, they did it because it addresses some of the problems I commonly see come up regarding spellcasters . . . including this one.
-
How many times has Harry obliterated some obstacle, only to learn there's something else he immediately has to deal with while he's still recovering?
I don't see a need to de-power evocators, personally. If you're having an issue with overpowered casters and don't see the above problem come up very often, then in my opinion, you're running the table wrong for a group w/ a blaster in it. A stacked evocator can do serious, serious things in combat...but they also only get 4 spells off at best before they start needing to take consequences (barring enchanted items but that's another discussion).
-
No, it doesn't state outright that having all of them highly rated is not allowed, but that's why I said "suggestion" rather than rule. The last sentence there makes the designer's stance on the issue very clear though. "You could choose to build a spellcaster that's merely medium rated in all three" implies that choosing a spellcaster that is highly rated in all three isn't really a good option as far they are concerned. As does the sentence before that. I doubt they included that box just for the hell of it. In my opinion, they did it because it addresses some of the problems I commonly see come up regarding spellcasters . . . including this one.
That's not making a suggestion or a value judgment at all.
What it's saying is that, if you're building a practitioner, you're not going to be able to have all of them at the top -- a simple statement of fact -- it's impossible to have all three of them at the skillcap in any of the given power levels in the book. You could have all three at 3 or 4, but you can't get all three to 5, because you'd need 45 total points.
And if you're building someone who's well balanced outside of spellcasting, then the room at the top runs out quickly (great, you've got Conviction, Discipline, and Lore at the top three, but now you have to choose the rest of your skills, and they're all starting at 3 and below).
I don't see a need to de-power evocators, personally. If you're having an issue with overpowered casters and don't see the above problem come up very often, then in my opinion, you're running the table wrong for a group w/ a blaster in it. A stacked evocator can do serious, serious things in combat...but they also only get 4 spells off at best before they start needing to take consequences (barring enchanted items but that's another discussion).
Yeah, that's what I was saying -- though in my case, for the most part my wizards end up hurting themselves just by overdoing it on the power (one is, in character, almost suicidally eager to push her limits and tends to blow out an internal gasket when facing something big).
-
That's not making a suggestion or a value judgment at all.
What it's saying is that, if you're building a practitioner, you're not going to be able to have all of them at the top -- a simple statement of fact -- it's impossible to have all three of them at the skillcap in any of the given power levels in the book. You could have all three at 3 or 4, but you can't get all three to 5, because you'd need 45 total points.
And if you're building someone who's well balanced outside of spellcasting, then the room at the top runs out quickly (great, you've got Conviction, Discipline, and Lore at the top three, but now you have to choose the rest of your skills, and they're all starting at 3 and below).
Having a skill ranked at 4 could hardly be called low or even medium as far as skills go. A skill ranked at 3 is professional level craft. Anything above is exceptional. But even when looking at just the skill ladder, 4 and 5 are clearly your high ranked skills. Calling that box a simple statement of fact because the three skills can't all be ranked at peak seems a misinterpretation. It's not difficult at all to put your spellcaster trinity at the top of your skill ladder. You only have to decide whether you want a 5-5-4 set up or a 5-4-4 set up (or something similar for different power levels). So what is the box really trying to say?
I know it may seem like I'm pressing this pretty hard, and I may be, but not because I care terribly much what you guys do. I may choose to run a game this way, but if I were to participate in a game that didn't, it wouldn't bother me. I just think it's a concept worthy of full consideration before being dismissed.
-
"It's very difficult, if not impossible," is not a suggestion. It's a statement. It's not saying you should build them with one stat low, or that GMs should enforce having one stat low, it's saying that one or more of the skills is going to be lower than the others.
As for whether 3 is low or not, for a spellcaster, it is -- Harry's discipline of 3 is considered low, and frankly, if you're a practitioner, you're probably in a fairly high level game, in which case the things you're fighting are going to be rolling from 3s and 4s.
3's plenty low when you're trying to hit or dodge someone who's dodging or attacking from 4 or 5.
-
*shrug. Again, I find that to be a weak interpretation. In the spirit of resolution though, I'll shoot an email out and see if I can get an answer from one of the designers.
-
As the text states it, it says that it's difficult to do, not that the GM should make it difficult to do ("It’s very difficult, if not impossible, to build a caster that is very highly rated in all three of the “spellcaster trinity”").
The text is saying what it means, there; there's no real value in vaguely implying something, because that's not a reliable reference point. If we wanted the GM to enforce something, we'd say the GM needs to enforce it. That sentiment is absent from the text in question. :)
So, bottom line, if you can structure your skill slots to support it, within the budget constraints you're given by your power level, knock yourself out.
Fred
I will happily eat my crow, and withdraw my interpretation of the text. :-X :)
-
Good on you.