PDF vs. book regarding Crafting

[Becq]

The Crafter build, as well as most other 'optimized' Caster builds, generally seem to depend on powerful foci.  Knowing that, perhaps another simple yet effecive way to tone down such builds would be to limit the strength of any given focus to one, plus the character's largest specialization bonus.  Ie, if a character's best specialization was +2 to Earth Control, then he could create foci (of any type) up to a strength of +3 (not just an Earth Control Focus).

From a balance perspective, this would mean that most starting casters would be limited to focus items of no more that 1-3 strength.  Focused Practitioners would never get beyond +1, due to the inability to buy specializations (Crafters in particular could get at most +1 craft strength and +1 craft frequency focus items.  Sorcerors would max out at +3 (limit of one refinement per skill means bonuses no better than +2/+1), and Wizards would have a slowly growing cap as they grew in strength.

Background-wise, this would reflect that novice casters can't create powerful focus items (though they could still create many weak ones, depending on FI slots available) -- but as the caster grows in capability, so does their ability to create more powerful casting tools.

All of the above, of course, lies firmly in the "house rules for those to whom it appeals" camp.

[Sanctaphrax]

That would effectively negate the problem from a high-powered Ritual-based Crafter, but it would do little about one relying on Thaumaturgy.

[Vairelome]

Sanctaphrax is correct; here is math demonstrating the point:

Lore 5.
-3 Thaumaturgy (+1 Crafting Strength)
-1 Refinement (+1 Crafting Strength, +1 Crafting Frequency)  (total: +2 Str +1 Fre in spec, 2+1=3 cap in FI bonus)
-3 Refinement x3 (Focus Item +3 Strength, Focus Item +3 Frequency)

-7 Refresh total.

Thaumaturgy FI slots and any additional Refinement converted to EI slots at +5 Strength, +4 Frequency, for at least (no additional Refinement) 4 EIs at Power 10, 5 uses/session.

Getting to the 5th point of bonus Frequency is hard, since you need at least 2 more Refinement, but 5 uses/session is generally sufficient.

(The generic Ritual: Crafting build is slightly more optimized under the RAW, but I'd prefer the Thaumaturgy build anyway.  Spending half of one refresh to get the full range of Thaum is a hell of a lot of versatility for the price--the other half gives you the spec point.  For a Feet In The Water Crafter, maybe not, but I'd likely drop a point of refresh in play for the upgrade at some point.)

[Becq]

My understanding is that you may only buy a power if it is listed as an option by your template.  Of those templates listed in the RAW, the only ones that allow Refinement (for more than just item slots) are Sorceror (max 1 per skill) and Wizard (no limit).  Focused Practitioner does not allow them.  My inference from this (and from the text on YS81 discussing it briefly) is that:

* Wizard-level magical aptitude (full access to magic, including Evocation AND Thaumaturgy AND The Sight) as well as Wizard-level training (ie, a White Council tutor, though other sources might be acceptable) is required to buy more than one Refinement per skill
* Sorceror-level magical aptitude (broad understanding of magic , including Evocation AND Thaumaturgy) and lots of practice is required to buy a single Refinement per skill
* Lesser magical aptitude (those with less than Sorceror-level abilities) leaves the caster unable to buy Refinement (except as additional slots)

Note that the above is inference.  There is nothing that specifically states that you can't build a custom template that includes Ritual and unlimited Refinement, but there's lots of flavor text and implication that suggests the above scaling.  And assuming you require any custom templates to scale in the same way the RAW templates do, I think the house rules I posted earlier would limit abusive caster builds fairly well.  In Vairelome's example, the worst case would be:

Lore 5.
-3 Thaumaturgy (+1 Crafting Strength)
-2 Refinement x2 (Focus Item +2 Strength, Focus Item +2 Frequency)

-5 Refresh total, granting +3 strength and +2 frequency (up to 16 EIs at power 8, 3 uses).  Which, I think, is within the realm of reasonable -- or at least much closer than the existing optimized Crafter build.  A Crafter that achieved Sorcery-grade magic could achieve the item strength you proposed, but not as a baseline submerged character (it would take -10 refresh for 8 EIs at power 10, 5 uses).

As another option, you could limit the strength of focus items to the greatest specialization, minimum one (instead of greatest specialization +1).  This would limit the Crafter build to power 7, 2 use items.

[UmbraLux]

My understanding is that you may only buy a power if it is listed as an option by your template. 

Gah!  Templates are not classes - at least not to my group.  They're suggestions and starting points...but not limitations. 

It is worth pointing out the statement on YS72: "...while the choices listed here are hardly the only ones available in the Dresdenverse, they represent...best options..."  The templates do give us some "musts" - things characters must have to use one of the "pre-packaged character types".  That said, I don't think any of the "musts" are prohibitive.  The "musts" cover the minimum and the options cover the most common but we all know PCs are unique individuals. 

At least that's how I read templates.  However, I freely admit D&D has prejudiced me against "classes".   

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't think I'm the only one who totally ignores templates. I'd really rather not see any important element of the game's balance be based upon them.

[UmbraLux]

Can't say I totally ignore them...but I wouldn't really miss them if they'd been cut from YS.  I do follow them for most NPCs, only occasionally do they break the mold.  But PCs?  Their molds often get thrown out very early in the process. 

[Vairelome]

As far as templates go in character creation, I'm generally in one of two modes.  The first would be when I've got a very strong character concept in mind already, and I'm trying to find the rules that best fit my concept (often, this happens when I'm trying to port characters originally created in another system).  In that case, templates?  What templates?  The other would be when I'm trying to create a new character from scratch, already knowing that the DFRPG is the intended setting.  In that case, I find that the templates provide a useful starting point for concept bundles.

In neither case would I remotely consider the templates to be a hard-and-fast straightjacket, and the RAW support this pretty explicitly, in my opinion (actually, in stronger terms than I expected, on first reading).  From YS54, the description of the Submerged power level:

Submerged (10 refresh, 35 skill points, skill cap at Superb):  You are a major-leaguer; refined customization and combination are options for all templates--it becomes possible at this stage to be a Champion of God with a Sword of the Cross, a Werewolf who can do earth evocations, or a Red Court Infected who becomes an Emissary of the Buddha as a way of taming his impulse control.  For the stronger templates, this power level provides some tweaking; for the weaker ones, it provides the chance to make your character supernaturally one of a kind.

A Werewolf who can do earth evocations?  Yeah, somehow letting a Ritualist have Refinement doesn't seem so wacky any more.

Also, I was merely providing an illustration of the math, above, not an endorsement of the house rule.  I agree that practitioners are powerful, including the better Crafter builds, but I think the RAW are fine as-is in this case.  Naturally, other tables may feel differently.

[zenten]

I stick to templates, but I let PCs have more than one if they want and can afford the refresh on the musts.

That said, there's nothing preventing a focused practioner to pick up Refinement as long as it's for focus items only.

[Vairelome]

Right, Becq was just proposing a house rule that would sharply limit the degree to which focused practitioners could use FIs.  An Ectomancy Ritualist would only be able to take Refinement twice (Ectomancy Power and Control +1, Crafting Strength and Frequency +1), while a Crafting Ritualist would only be able to take Refinement once (Crafting Strength and Frequency +1...unless he wanted to spend half a Refinement on Crafting Focus Items +1, which would be rather dumb).

[Becq]

Gah!  Templates are not classes - at least not to my group.  They're suggestions and starting points...but not limitations. 

It is worth pointing out the statement on YS72: "...while the choices listed here are hardly the only ones available in the Dresdenverse, they represent...best options..."  The templates do give us some "musts" - things characters must have to use one of the "pre-packaged character types".  That said, I don't think any of the "musts" are prohibitive.  The "musts" cover the minimum and the options cover the most common but we all know PCs are unique individuals. 

At least that's how I read templates.  However, I freely admit D&D has prejudiced me against "classes".   

I don't believe I ever stated that characters should be limited to the templates provided in the book.  What I *did* say was that custom classes -- especially those dealing with magical knowledge -- should be built to "fit in" with the existing templates.  For example, the following should never be a valid template:

Twink
Twinks are those who have, through study or enlightenment, gained the understanding to manipulate all things supernatural.
Musts: None.
Options: Twinks are limited to purchasing powers from the following categories: Creature Features, Faerie Magic, Items of Power, Minor Abilities, Nevernever Powers, Psychic Abilities, Shapeshifting, Speed, Spellcraft, Strength, Toughness, True Faith, Vampirism.
Important Skills: Any
Minimum Refresh Cost: –0

This is obviously an extreme example, but creating a custom template that is basically a variant of a Focused Practitioner but allowing access to full-Wizard specialization is much the same.

@Vairelome: Almost, but the idea was to limit how strong a focus item a caster could create based on their training (as reflected by specializations), since many of the more unbalanced builds rely on the creation of extraordinarily strong focus items.  The character could still buy unlimited item slot refinements, and could have a wide variety of weak focus items or a pile of enchanted items, but the limit on focus item strength would in turn make the enchanted items less overpowering.

As to combining templates, this is fine, too.  Most of the existing templates have a minimum investment which also serves to prevent abuse.  For example, with enough refresh, a Werewolf could develop into a full Wizard.  But they would not be able to buy refinements (which is an option for Wizards) until they filled out the rest of the template (ie, finished their basic training, as it were).

[Sanctaphrax]

The Twink template looks a lot like the Scion template to me.

Anyway, I figure that if powers are made and balanced properly then any combination of them will also be balanced. I have no interest in restricting people to the canon templates, or in trying to balance templates that I make myself.

[Becq]

The Twink template looks a lot like the Scion template to me.

The "Scion" template is only a sidebar suggestion how template customization might be used to convert an existing template (Changeling, which does have limitations) to represent other supernatural half-breeds.  The Emissary is much closer to the "take whatever you want" powerset, but then it also comes with a significant bit of baggage listed under the 'Musts' section.  The 'soft' control that requires that powers tie in well with the High Concept can also be cited as limiting powers.

Anyway, I figure that if powers are made and balanced properly then any combination of them will also be balanced. I have no interest in restricting people to the canon templates, or in trying to balance templates that I make myself.

Fair enough, and that's supported by the game.  I'm just pointing out a way to introduce a minimal amount of structure into the rules to smoothly handle what are commonly (but not universally) considered problem builds for those who are looking for an answer to that issue.  If that's not you, I'm certainly not going to shove them down your throat!

[Vairelome]

Becq, I understand that you think optimized Crafters are overpowered, and are looking for a house rule to fix that.  Naturally, a house rule is going to conflict with the RAW; that's the entire point.  My concern is mostly limiting unintended consequences, and one of them that I can see is a house rule that substantially drops the upper power limit of all Focused Practitioners is going to conflict with some of the general world-building laid out in the books.

I was using Ectomancy as a generic example of a thematic Ritualist earlier, but what about Mortimer Lindquist specifically?  Template-wise, he's a Focused Practitioner, and I believe he has Ritual: Ectomancy rather than Thaumaturgy, so no specializations for him.  On the other hand, he should be written up as having at least a few quite powerful Focus Items.  Note that even though the RAW says he wouldn't have access to specializations, he's also described on YS76 by Harry as "INCREDIBLY capable at what he does.  Some of his tricks are stuff I'm not sure I could easily figure out myself."  I think this supports the idea that the stat most closely tied to Ritualist skill and ability is Lore, not Thaumaturgical specializations (Morty would have a quite substantial Lore), and is why the RAW sets Lore as the cap on Focus Item strength.

Whatever house rule you end up adopting, I'd hope it wouldn't foreclose powerful Focused Practitioners.  I think it would narrow your group's options overmuch if the only powerful practitioners available were Wizards.  That said, your table, your rules, etc.

[Sanctaphrax]

Eh. The rules already make FPs inferior. The best way to be a high-powered pyromancer is to take Evocation with the following elements:

Red fire
White fire
Yellow fire.