Cashing In Focus Slots

[Mr. Death]

An idea that struck me while browsing another thread...Refinement is either 2 focus slots, 2 specializations, or some combination thereof, indicating that, cost-wise, they're equivalent. Each of the spellcraft powers offers you 2 focus slots. What's everyone's thoughts on cashing those initial 'free' focus slots for extra specializations instead?

[Sanctaphrax]

I would not allow it, at least not at a 1 to 1 exchange rate.

Specializations are almost strictly better than foci.

[Todjaeger]

An idea that struck me while browsing another thread...Refinement is either 2 focus slots, 2 specializations, or some combination thereof, indicating that, cost-wise, they're equivalent. Each of the spellcraft powers offers you 2 focus slots. What's everyone's thoughts on cashing those initial 'free' focus slots for extra specializations instead?

That is actually a house rule I have in my campaign, as thematically, some characters aren't interested in having focus or enchanted items.  I still require players to keep to the normal stacking rules though.

-Cheers

[Haru]

I'd allow it for a caster character that just started out, but I would require him to take up the slots he initially traded in if he ever took refinement. That way, He could have a slight advantage in the beginning, if it better fits his character, but in the long run it would equal out.

[CottbusFiles]

That is actually a house rule I have in my campaign, as thematically, some characters aren't interested in having focus or enchanted items.  I still require players to keep to the normal stacking rules though.

-Cheers

Thematicly focus item's are a big deal in the Books and everyone not using some would be considered strange...

[UmbraLux]

I would not allow it, at least not at a 1 to 1 exchange rate.

Specializations are almost strictly better than foci.

I agree. 

But, your statement amuses me.  After all, you're offering better than a one for one trade here:

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.

Not only do you appear to trade it but you void the pyramid requirement.
-----
Amusement aside, I recommend against trading points between foci and specializations.  But, if you are allowing it, a one for one trade while maintaining the pyramid requirement seems reasonable.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Specializations are better, but less versatile.  They require that you follow the pyramid.  They can't be traded for enchanted items (which seems how every caster in my party has decided to boost their defenses). 

So, on paper, I don't see the problem.  However, in practice I do.  When you're first starting off, it becomes a no brainer in many situations.  Any house rule that looks more attractive in the majority of builds (where you have to have a specific reason NOT to do it) worries me. 

See, as you start to build that pyramid, that +1 from a focus item that doesn't require that you spend several specializations to get looks very attractive, even if it only applies in half the situations of a specialization.  However, when you're first starting out (and thus only have +1's to begin with), you're trading a +1 that applies 1/4 of the time for one which applies 1/2 of the time.

This is one which was probably heavily playtested, as it really can only be seen when building characters rather than when "reading into" the costs of powers and bonuses.

[Sanctaphrax]

After all, you're offering better than a one for one trade here:Not only do you appear to trade it but you void the pyramid requirement.

Ugh, no.

See, that trade requires you to forfeit your two free focus slots from Channelling. That's a big deal.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Ugh, no.

See, that trade requires you to forfeit your two free focus slots from Channelling. That's a big deal.

Ooh!  Would you allow me to trade my starting focus items with Evocation to ignore the pyramid with specializations?  Because that would be tasty and follow the exact same design ideas.

[Sanctaphrax]

Dunno. Haven't run the numbers.

But if I did let you, I wouldn't just require you to give up your starting foci. I would also require you to give up the possibility of taking foci later.

[Todjaeger]

Thematicly focus item's are a big deal in the Books and everyone not using some would be considered strange...

So far, only one player in my campaign has taken advantage of the house rule, and what they did was trade in one Thaumaturgy focus item slot to pick up an extra +1 specialization in Entropomancy: Control +1 while using the remaining Focus Item slot for a mojo bag foci providing Psychomancy: Control +1.  That is the Freelance Houngan who chose to do so.  The other members of the party (a Hedge Wizard, an Ectomancer, and an Apprentice) all have either kept their slots as focus items, or exchanged some of those slots for Enchanted Items or Potions Slots.

The major point of the house rule is to provide an option for a character who thematically would not use Focus or Enchanted Item/Potion slots very much, and not as a way for players to munchkin build their characters.

And I agree that most casters would likely have at least a couple of items which they would use.  However the novels and short stories have given several examples of practioners who don't have any apparent or at least obvious, focus, enchanted or potion items.

Cowl, Grevane, Corpsetaker and the spellcasting Denarians all come to mind as those who don't necessarily use such items.

The other important part about the house rule is that the specialization pyramid must still be followed, and I don't allow players to start out with a specialization bonus above +1, since the campaign's starting refresh is only Feet in the Water level.

-Cheers