An idea to allow more spell casting

[Belial666]

Untrue. Only the sorcerer template has such a limitation - the Refinement power itself doesn't. If you're a faerie sorceress with Evocation + Unseelie Magic for example, you could take enough Refinements to be able to kill Lords of the Outer Dark without being a wizard. Or if you're a warlock that simply never trained in Thaumaturgy because you didn't have any teachers, you can still take enough Refinements to outclass Harry Dresden in fire magic. And Scions, Changelings and Emissaries have no hard limits on what powers they can have beyond what their origin would allow flavor-wise.

[Blk4ce]

From what I've gathered, only the wizard template can get specialisations from refinement more than once. Unseelie magic doesn't give you Thaumaturgy [-3], so it's not eligible.

[blackstaff67]

Note that Victor Sells and Kravos probably had several levels of Refinement without being WC Wizards (at least Sells did).  Perhaps the Sorcerer template is all a question of semantics: At this level, you're a sorcerer; higher up would qualify you to call yourself a wizard.  Harry seemed to believe that without WC training you shouldn't rise above that level, but as others have pointed out, he may be an unreliable observer/narrator.

[Blk4ce]

Maybe, but gameplay-wise, to buy specialisations more than once, you have to already have evocation [-3], thaumaturgy [-3], the sight [-1]. Whether you are called WC wizard or not is just flavour.

[Taran]

I don't think that's true.  You just need evocation or Thaum to get specializations.

Add a new element to your Evocation familiarity
list. You also get one specialization for
that new element.
Or, gain two additional specialization
bonuses for Evocation and/or Thaumaturgy.
You have to structure your specialization
bonuses for each ability according to the same
“column” limits for skills

It doesn't say whether or not you're a Wizard.  It just lists the two powers.

I thought The Sight was the big determiner of Wizardliness.

Although, I like that line of thinking...it kind of separates wizards from sorcerers.

[Blk4ce]

Page 81

Nearly every sorcerer also takes the
Sight [–1] (and would be considered “flying
blind” without it). Sorcerers with a dark past
(but hopefully on the path to reform) may need
to take a Lawbreaker stunt or two (page 182).
Sorcerers may take Refinement [–1] once per
spell-ability (once for Thaumaturgy, once for
Evocation), but may not take it multiple times
per ability—there’s only so far they can develop
without being full-on wizards. See “Building a
Practitioner” on page 77 for more information

So you can take it once for evocation and/or once for thaumturgy, if you are missing a part of the package.

[Locnil]

Nope. "Immunity" and "Toughness" to magic only stops direct stress - it doesn't even stop other magical effects on you. Why would apply to a magical effect that is not cast on you at all such as the throwing of an object, which is a might effect cast on the object in order to throw it at you? The icicle thing is the same, except it splits the power into 1 shift to make the object needed, using the rest to throw. No compel you can resist there.

Besides, immunity or no there's nothing stopping the wizard from throwing you. Humanoids only weigh rank 3 mass. A rank 8 might effect would throw your magically immune self 5 zones - skywards. Enjoy your landing; falling damage in the DFRPG is 1 stress per foot fallen. If a zone is around 10 feet minimum...

RAW, both those examples would count as magical attacks, even if that doesn't make sense fluff-wise. When it comes to combat, fluff and mechanics are seperate.

The second one might work, except there's at least the justification for a Aspect invocation that all magic just doesn't affect you. Which, RAW would also block workarounds like levitating the ground you're on, etc.

End of the day, DFRPG is a narrative, not a simulationist game.

[Taran]

Page 81
So you can take it once for evocation and/or once for thaumturgy, if you are missing a part of the package.

You know, I never read the templates that closely as I always saw them as 'guide-lines'.

That's very interesting.

[Blk4ce]

You know, I never read the templates that closely as I always saw them as 'guide-lines'.

That's very interesting.

So do I, but I think that this point was put for balance reasons, so that characters like the one above wouldn't be used at lower refresh.

[Belial666]

@Blk4ce:
That's a specific limitation on sorcerers. You're a sorcerer if you got that template. If you don't have that template, then you don't have the limitation that goes with it. That doesn't mean you specifically need to be a wizard to take several refinements.

Examples from the books:

1) Russel Carson, YS p 388. Neither a sorcerer nor a wizard and he has 3 refinements.
2) Kravos' Ghost, OW p 63. Sorcerer ghost, 6 refinements.
3) Tessa, OW p 166. Denarian with only Evocation, 6 refinements.
4) Rosanna, OW p 222. Denarian with only Evocation, 3 refinements. Though she should have had Hellfire, too.


@Locnil:
Sorry, doesn't work like that. The type of the attack is always based on the flavor, not the mechanics. A spirit blast is magical force and won't affect a magic-immune demon. A magically thrown boulder is physical force and will. A sword is physical force and won't affect a physically-immune demon. A blessed sword is holy and will.
Harry Dresden has exploited this in fights in half a dozen books to hurt magically-immune foes, break circles and so on and so forth. He'd be dead a half-dozen times over if it couldn't be done.

[Sanctaphrax]

The Refinement limitation is part of the Sorcerer Template. If you're not a Sorcerer, you don't have to give a damn about it. And Belial's example isn't a Sorcerer.

Besides, immunity or no there's nothing stopping the wizard from throwing you. Humanoids only weigh rank 3 mass. A rank 8 might effect would throw your magically immune self 5 zones - skywards. Enjoy your landing; falling damage in the DFRPG is 1 stress per foot fallen. If a zone is around 10 feet minimum...

The falling rules are garbage and there are no rules for forced movement with evocation.

EDIT:
For the cost of at-will magic, how about this;
Innate Magic [-1]
You can cast minor spells through your own innate, inexhaustible energy for one element. You can call a single shift of power and control it with your base Discipline. All the other rules of Evocation apply, except for Refinement (but see below)
[-1] Strong Innate Magic: Increase the number of shifts you can call by 1. Can be taken multiple times, to the limit of your Conviction.
[-1] Focused Innate Magic: Increase your Control bonus by 1. Can be taken multiple times, to the limit of your Discipline.
[-1] Extra Element: You get an extra Element for your Innate Magic. Focused/Strong bonuses apply to it normally. Can be taken multiple times, to the limit of your Lore.
[-1] Arcane Implement: You get 1 Refinement. It can only be used for Power foci and enchanted items. Can be taken multiple times. Rules for crafting apply to your items as normal.

Is this intended to replace normal spellcasting completely?

Regardless, I think it shares the problem that the original implementation has: the first Refresh spent is so much more effective than the later points. 1 Refresh for unlimited weapon 1 long-range attacks with Discipline is pretty great, 1 Refresh for +1 weapon rating is significantly less good.

RAW, both those examples would count as magical attacks, even if that doesn't make sense fluff-wise.

RAW, it depends entirely on how the Catch is worded. There's no such thing as "standard" immunity to magic.

[Taran]

@Locnil:
Sorry, doesn't work like that. The type of the attack is always based on the flavor, not the mechanics. A spirit blast is magical force and won't affect a magic-immune demon. A magically thrown boulder is physical force and will.

Mechanically, these are the same.  They are both 'weapon x' evo attacks.

In order to get the "oomph" from 'creative narration', I'd require an invoke on an aspect or appropriate declaration For things like throwing boulders with magic in order to bypass their magic immunity.  Otherwise, it's just cheesy.

I also wouldn't allow 'throwing' a magic immune creature in to a wall to bypass their immunity.  Their immunity would let them get thrown in the first place.

But that's just me.  Otherwise I feel it undervalues the refresh cost of that particular immunity.

[Belial666]

@Taran:
Yes, but whether an attack is magic or not would be part of the narrative, too. Though Lore and Alertness (and any other knowledge skill) allows for declarations without spending Fate Points or actions anyway so there isn't an issue if you do it your way.

@Sanctaphrax:
1 refresh doesn't add +1 weapon rating. It adds +1 shift of power. This will be usable in anything you do with it, like maneuvers, blocks, extra power for extending effects and so on and so forth.
As for the first refresh, it is weaker than guns and far, far weaker than the other suggested version.
2 refresh make it about on par with Breath Weapon - same damage/attack, longer-ranged but no useful maneuvers yet.
5 refresh and it becomes better than guns in damage and also provides maneuvers and blocks.
9 refresh and it allows Power 7 Control 7 evocation with unlimited uses.
18 refresh and it allows Power 12 Control 12 evocation with unlimited uses, assuming Fantastic skills.


I think it balances out fairly well at all refresh levels for what it does.


PS:
After we're done with adjusting the pricing, could you add it to the custom powers list?

[Sanctaphrax]

So is it intended to replace normal spellcasting or not?

[Locnil]

there are no rules for forced movement with evocation.

RAW, it depends entirely on how the Catch is worded. There's no such thing as "standard" immunity to magic.

I was about to bring this up as well.

Hmm, technically it would seem you are right - but it'll be fair game to read immunity to magic as not taking damage from magical attacks, and as Taran pointed out:

Mechanically, these are the same.  They are both 'weapon x' evo attacks.

In order to get the "oomph" from 'creative narration', I'd require an invoke on an aspect or appropriate declaration For things like throwing boulders with magic in order to bypass their magic immunity.  Otherwise, it's just cheesy.

I also wouldn't allow 'throwing' a magic immune creature in to a wall to bypass their immunity.  Their immunity would let them get thrown in the first place.

But that's just me.  Otherwise I feel it undervalues the refresh cost of that particular immunity.

This was more or less what I meant - if a spellcaster wanted to get around someone's magic immunity to damage them anyway, I'd rule they'd need to compel the magic-immune character for it, so as to narratively determine if workarounds work or if the immunity is too encompassing.

But I guess we're at the point where it's pretty much up to each individual GM how they want to run it anyway.