Custom Powers Master List (Work In Progress)

[Sanctaphrax]

I would really rather not make it pricier. Soulfire is something special, this is just another variety of Sponsored Magic.

Universal Thaumaturgy is much better than universal Evocation, anyway.

Does anybody have a good way to make it into a 4 refresh power?

[Tedronai]

Also note that Soulfire grants exactly 0 'evothaum', whereas most of these homebrew options take its inclusion as a given.

So, you want to make it a reasonable 4-refresh option?  Drop everything after Thaumaturgy.

[Silverblaze]

Also note that Soulfire grants exactly 0 'evothaum', whereas most of these homebrew options take its inclusion as a given.

So, you want to make it a reasonable 4-refresh option?  Drop everything after Thaumaturgy.

Pretty sure it does.

It isn't worth 5 refresh if it doesn't.

[Tedronai]

It grants access to the full range of thaumaturgy (within agenda limits, and only as thaumaturgy), and downgrades all toughness powers of targets it's used against.
It's worth 5 refresh.

[UmbraLux]

The Soulfire entry on YS292 states it has "Standard sponsored magic benefits..."  From that it appears thaumaturgy with evocation's speed and methods is granted.  What have I missed?

[Sanctaphrax]

The evothaum is the coolest part of this power, in my opinion. But I'm also pretty fond of the "library as sanctum" bit.

The evocation, meanwhile, was an afterthought. Sponsored Magic is supposed to provide evocation, so I added some. The only reason it has such versatility is that I couldn't think of good restrictions.

I don't want to cut away the good parts of the power to make room for the side notes. If the Evocation is exceptionally powerful, it should be made weaker.

So...can anyone think of good limits for the evocation?

Do the non-Tedronai people here even think that the power needs more limits?

[Tedronai]

What have I missed?

That 'evothaum' is no more a 'standard' benefit than is the downgrading of toughness powers, or free specializations
ie. it may be a common benefit, but it is not a default one, and is granted only if the particular brand of sponsored magic explicitly states as much


@Sanctaphrax
You might take a page out of Kemmler's book and grant evothaum in place of normal evo
that one change might be enough to balance it

[ways and means]

Kemmlerite provides both Evo thaum (psychomancy and necromancy) and also allows you to use your ritual control bonus for evocation (pretty much giving you one control focus for every element as long as you tag a death effect) and gives you a specialization  bonus to boot. Mind you I have never worked out how focus and specializations apply for evothaum so I am not sure of its value. 

[benign]

With regards to bibliomancy, I don't think it's too powerful, especially as long as the GM makes sure to keep his player honest about having the appropriate written materials at hand if he wants to produce an evocation effect. Maybe add a line to the evocation bit, something like:

Evocation: Bibliomantic evocations make use of the Word element. Word evocations generally function by bringing things from the world of words into reality. This can create almost any evocation effect, but it requires access to written material containing the desired effect. This may require the caster to make a successful declaration or research a particular text in order to achieve a specific evocation.

Another thought I had was limiting the bibliomancer to casting every evocation spell as if it were a rote spell, i.e. does not have to roll for control but also may not be adjusted on the fly to match the current situation. This is a pretty big restriction, but also does well at reflecting the fact that all of the bibliomancer's source material is written down, and thus less flexible than normal sorcery that springs directly from the will. It would also give him access to essentially an unlimited number of rote spells, which sounds powerful but in my experience is emphatically not. I never really saw the point of rotes in the first place, and neither has anyone I've played with.

Random question: can the bibliomancer cast from something that he wrote down? If so that may be a gamebreaker right there.

[benign]

Thinking more about it, I think that making all the bibliomancer's potential evocations as rotes that he accesses by reading from a book really works. Here's why.

Let's say I'm a budding bibliomancer with 4 discipline, 3 conviction. I'm headed into a nasty situation, so I make sure to have my copy of Grave Peril at hand, knowing that it's a good book for summoning up some punishing firepower.

The fight starts and some nasties are swarming over my friends in the next zone. Thinking quickly, I page over to one of my bookmarks, a scene where Harry unloads a few rounds into a vamp. The GM decides that it's a weapon 2 attack (a normal gunshot), requiring 2 shifts of power to cast and that's it. I'd like to put some more force into that hit since I could easily control it, but bibliomancer's can't be choosers and I don't have time to find another page. I agree, and cast the spell.

In the next exchange I get charged by one of the enemies, and I'm having a tough time getting through their armor. Fortunately I know that they are vulnerable to faith type magic, so I flip again in my book to a scene where Susan throws holy water into a hot spotlight, creating a deadly blast of holy steam. The GM rules that it's a weapon 4 attack that cuts through the enemies' toughness power: great! Just enough that I can get the most out of my control while still casting it, and by carefully choosing the appropriate passage I got a little extra oomph out of the spell for free.

Later in the fight we aren't doing so well, and I flip to the page where Dresden lets loose with fuego pyrofuego. The GM looks at it, calls it a weapon 6 attack with an extra 2 shifts to target the whole zone: I need 8 discipline to get it off. Hope I saved some fate points, I'm going to need them.

[Tedronai]

Random question: can the bibliomancer cast from something that he wrote down? If so that may be a gamebreaker right there.

As written, yes.
They could also carry around a 'book of excerpts' containing an indexed list of every effect they can dream up on their craziest acid trips, every effect they've ever witnessed, heard about, or read about, regardless even of whether they could ever conceive of a need for it.

And even if they were to be limited to casting their spells at precisely the described potency, they could just as easily have several versions of that effect described in their tome at varying potency to circumvent that 'restriction'.  And hey, now they don't even have to roll for control!

This might as well be called 'Everything Thaumaturgy with Evocation's Speed and Methods'.
And let's just go ahead and cost it at 1 refresh.  Because that sounds even more balanced, right?

[benign]

As a GM, I'd stop that by saying that removing a passage from the book that contains it destroys its power by destroying its context. Thus you need to have the whole, original copy to cast bibliomancy. Furthermore, the power of words is also dependent on their being read and understood and internalized by an audience; the reader is an active part of the world of fiction. Thus works that have never been read before, or that have had a tiny audience (i.e. things your bibliomancer just wrote) don't have the metaphysical heft to sponsor a bibliomancer's sorcery.

It makes bibliomancy a little wordy and requires that both the GM and player know what they are getting into, but it sounds like it could be terribly fun for both of them to play.

And maybe instead of making the spells rote, that is not having to roll for control, just have the GM set the power and effect and have the bibliomancer be unable to change its details. In essence the drawback of a rote spell without the advantage.

[Tedronai]

As a GM, I'd stop that by saying that removing a passage from the book that contains it destroys its power by destroying its context. Thus you need to have the whole, original copy to cast bibliomancy. Furthermore, the power of words is also dependent on their being read and understood and internalized by an audience; the reader is an active part of the world of fiction. Thus works that have never been read before, or that have had a tiny audience (i.e. things your bibliomancer just wrote) don't have the metaphysical heft to sponsor a bibliomancer's sorcery.

It makes bibliomancy a little wordy and requires that both the GM and player know what they are getting into, but it sounds like it could be terribly fun for both of them to play.

And maybe instead of making the spells rote, that is not having to roll for control, just have the GM set the power and effect and have the bibliomancer be unable to change its details. In essence the drawback of a rote spell without the advantage.

If something to that effect were in the text, the power might not be quite so absurd, though I still have doubts.

[Sanctaphrax]

This might as well be called 'Everything Thaumaturgy with Evocation's Speed and Methods'.
And let's just go ahead and cost it at 1 refresh.  Because that sounds even more balanced, right?

No.

The evocation is still just evocation. It says

This can create almost any evocation effect

which is meant to mean that Thaumaturgy effects are off-limits.

Does that make it seem more reasonable to you?

If not, I think I have a pretty good idea for a rewrite.

PS: @benign: Those sound like pretty excellent compels/invokes for effect. But incorporating them into the power proper seems like more trouble than it's worth.

[Tedronai]

The evocation is still just evocation. It says

which is meant to mean that Thaumaturgy effects are off-limits.

See YS288, the sidebar "With Evocation's Methods and Speed", paying particular attention to the paragraph after the bullet points.
What this power does is to explicitly lay out what constitutes an acceptable 'creative rationalization' as described in that section, and then to make fulfilling that rationalization gamebreakingly simple. (as evidenced by the above noted 'Indexed Tome of Every-Effect-You-Could-Ever-Possibly Need-and-Then-Some')