Foci and Specializations Houserule Idea

[Strill]

Right now the Specialization system, and to a lesser extent, the Focus system, present players with non-choices. The game is designed such that each element can accomplish pretty much any effect with equal capacity. This completely defeats the point of specializing in one element or another, except for aesthetic purposes. Why does it matter if I can attack with Fire when I can already attack with Air? If I ever run into the rare enemy who's somehow immune to Air evocations, but not Fire, then there's still no reason to specialize in Fire. Rather than spend a point of Refinement on Fire magic, I can simply keep a point or two of refresh unspent and use the Fate Points. Those Fate Points can be used every session, unlike a Fire specialization which I might need a handful of times, if ever. It also means that, apart for the special case of Veils, which are exclusive to spirit, players should focus completely on specializing in a single evocation element to the exclusion of all others, which is boring and not true to the books.

This also causes issues when interacting with NPCs statted by Evil Hat. Evil Hat designs Wizards with specializations and foci in all sorts of different areas, even if those choices are strictly inferior. A player who invests their refinements properly, therefore, stands head and shoulders above the NPCs, making those NPC stats useless to the GM.

This difference in power level between what was expected and what is possible also upsets the balance between Wizards and Mortals. Wizards can get so many shifts, that it's impossible to defend against a spell unless you're also a wizard. Evil Hat expects a "capable" Chest-Deep Wizard to reliably manage 3 or 4 shifts of power. A competent player, however, can comfortably reach upwards of seven or eight shifts, and more with extra effort. While 3 or 4 shifts is certainly within mortal capacity to deal with, seven or eight is much, much, harder, and that's only the beginning. This tosses even beginner Wizards so high above mortals that they're impossible to resist. It turns the game into "rocket tag" where the first Wizard to take his turn incinerates the enemy with overwhelming force.

The fundamental root of the problem is that the book doesn't follow its own recommendations. For context, stunts are supposed to apply a +2 to a particular use of a single trapping. In this case, the book is treating Refinement like a stunt, and elements as though they were trappings. The simple answer is that unless you're willing to define what each element can and cannot do, the elements simply are not trappings. Any element can do anything. (Except Spirit, which just makes Spirit the best element, and that's boring.) The real trappings of the spellcasting system are ACTIONS like Attack or Maneuver. These are the things you should be specializing in.

MY GOAL WITH THE FOLLOWING SYSTEM is that a wizard's stats be difficult to increase across the board for all categories. Wizards should have to make meaningful choices on what to specialize in and what not to. Generally, this will make wizards weaker on average, compared to mono-element wizards in the standard system. However, many things which used to depend on power, such as Duration, or Area of Effect, will be easier to use. In this way, wizards will have spells with lower Power, but much easier access to supplementary effects.  Hopefully, this will incentivize players to build their characters more like the wizards in the rule book, who have their specializations split wider in a variety of categories.

To this end I propose the following system:

FOCI:
Foci are no longer tied to "offense" or "defense". Instead, they're tied to TWO of the following categories:

Evocation Action Categories:
* Attack
* Maneuver
* Shield (Defensive Block vs Attacks)
* Bind (Offensive Block, 1 target, all actions)
* Interference (Offensive Block, any target(s), one action)
* Veil (Defensive Block vs Perception, or Illusion-based Maneuver)
* Counterspell

This list is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather a proof-of-concept for how each option should have a limited scope of applications, kind of like how Thaumaturgy specializations already work.

Rather than choosing categories, you may choose to design a Focus exclusively for a specific Rote. If so, it gains one additional Focus Slot's worth of effect at no additional cost.

Foci no longer grant power and control bonuses in the way they used to. Instead they give effects from the following list.

* 1 Focus Slot: +1 exchange of persistence
* 1 Focus Slot: The focus's effects apply to one additional Evocation action category
* 2 Focus Slot (Shields): Shields are omni-directional
* 2 Focus Slots (Veils): Veils do not penalize perception rolls of those within them
* 2 Focus Slots: +1 to Control
* 2 Focus Slots: Spells may cover a whole zone (or an additional zone)

Only one Focus may be used for any given spell.

An Evocation Focus is limited in the number of Focus Slots it can hold. A single Focus can have a number of Focus Slots up to your Lore skill value. If you want more slots in the same focus, each slot in excess of your Lore skill value costs two slots.

For example, if your Lore skill is 3, you can create a Focus with +1 exchanges of persistence (1 slot) that can cover a whole zone (2 slots). This costs 3 Focus slots total.  If you want to add an additional +1 Control (2 slots) to your focus, that would exceed your Lore of 3. This means the cost of that +1 Control is doubled to 4 slots, giving your focus a total cost of 7 focus slots.

If your Lore skill increases, some of your foci may become cheaper, freeing up focus slots.

SPECIALIZATIONS:
Evocation specializations no longer apply to elements. Instead, they're bound to one of the Evocation Actions.

In addition, when structuring your specializations according to the "column" system, don't count power and control as separate categories. Instead, just count up the number of specializations in each Evocation Action, irrespective of whether those specialization bonuses are for power or control.
For example, if a character had +2 Power and +1 Control for Attack spells, that would add up to 3 specializations total in Attack. He would also need 2 specializations in a second action, and 1 specialization in a third action in order to balance the column.

EVOCATION ACTIONS:

Attack:
When you roll to control the spell, shifts in excess of the target's defense roll are converted to damage at a rate of 2 to 1.

When you cast an attack evocation that affects a whole zone, you halve your spell's weapon rating (rounded up).

Maneuver:
Maneuvers are unchanged from YS.

Blocks:
Blocks are divided into multiple categories: Shield, Bind, Interference, and Veil.

Shield:
Shield spells are a block which prevents attacks. They function as in YS except that they are mono-directional by default. Opponents may Maneuver to take advantage of this opening, or use Blocks to prevent you from using your shield against a certain attacker. For 2 shifts of power, you may make an omni-directional shield.

Bind:
Bind spells are a block which prevents a single target from taking most (or all) actions, such as a spell which ties up the target using invisible cords of force, or which causes the earth to rise up and swallow the target, or that puts its target to sleep.

Interference:
Interference spells are a block which prevents a specific action (other than attack) from multiple targets. For example, a strong wind blowing out a door to increase the zone barrier; a heavy mist that prevents fires from starting; a roaring fire enveloping the pile of guns so that no one can grab them.

Veil:
Veils are spells which Block perception. Veils can also use illusions to take Maneuvers. Veils are otherwise unchanged from YS. Remember that Veils penalize the perception rolls of those within them by the same amount, unless you spend 2 shifts to make the veil transparent from within.

Counterspell:
Counterspells are unchanged from YS.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think your assessment of the problems is essentially sound. But I'm not too keen on your solution.

Your proposal is a lot more complicated than the canonical system, and if implemented I suspect it would pigeonhole spellcasting characters. A wizard specialized in air can do many different things in any given scene, but a wizard specialized in interference and binds with foci granting free shifts of persistence is pushed to take the same approach in every fight.

I don't really have a better idea, though. Maybe giving the elements more definition, and making them genuinely mechanically different from each other, would work.

PS: What do you mean when you say shields are "omni-directional"?

[Taran]

I also agree with your assessment.    I like the approach you are using but I have to agree with Sanctaphrax that it seems overly complicated.

I've tried to 'fix' spellcasting but it's been mostly nerfing their foci.  I like the idea of having foci focus on something other than power/control.

One of the big things I did with foci is limit the Total Power of ALL your foci to your lore. (not just each item)

So, if your lore is 4, all your evocation foci combined cannot be greater than 4.   Each power has its own cap, so if you have thaumaturgy, you can have another 4 foci points.  Then you can take foci specializations to increase your cap.

Anyways, it doesn't do much to change the flavour of wizards.  You'd still max out your favorite element.  All it does is keep numbers the same as everyone else.

What if each element was better at a particular action?  Like, each element can block/attack/maneuver/counterspell/veil but some are better than others.
Fire=attack
Air = maneuver
Earth = block
Water = counterspell
Spirit = veil

Maybe buying a focus in a particular element is cheaper for drawing Power when using it for it's preferred action?
And/Or a focus slot is worth an extra bonus if it's for a specific rote (which stacks with the current rule for rote foci)

Something like that.  So it encourages multiple foci to make spells cheaper cast for specific actions.

for example:(thinking out loud)

I take +1control/+1 Power Fire focus(2 focus slots)

with a Conviction/displine 4, you can draw 5 shifts of power for fire spells and control them at 5.  An Fire attack spell can be weapon 6 but it only counts as weapon/Power 5 for the purposes of control.

I see people putting more into control since they get free power but, since it only counts for attacking, maybe it doesn't matter.  Although, control is more optimal for attacks than anything else while Power is better for maneuvers.  So maybe it doesn't work.

Maybe it doesn't affect power or control...maybe it just lets you absorb backlash for that specific action?

I dunno.  In any case, I like where you're going.

Edit:  what if foci give you armour against backlash for a specific action.  So, in the above Fire example, you could overcast an attack spell, take two mental stress and, when you fail to control the extra shift of power, you soak it with armour.  It lets you put more 'oomph' into a spell action without increasing accuracy.

So, it doesn't nerf anything, but it gives incentives to broaden your focus selection....meh

[Theogony_IX]

I think you could actually blend the two ideas, Strill's and RaW, to great effect.

What is the difference between Specializations and Foci really?  There isn't one, not fundamentally.  They both adjust power and control for elements.  They just do it differently.

Sanctaphrax's point is well made.  You don't want to force pigeonholing on a character, but you can make it a strategic option.

So if specializations work the way Strill has outlined, representing a course of study or a proclivity for a certain type of spell that works across all elements (but dropping the ladder requirement), then foci can work as they traditionally have, boosting power and control for an element or number of elements.  At this point, there is actually a choice to make.

A greater mind than my own would actually have to run through how these options might pan out, if there is any incentive to specialize.

[Strill]

I think your assessment of the problems is essentially sound. But I'm not too keen on your solution.

Your proposal is a lot more complicated than the canonical system, and if implemented I suspect it would pigeonhole spellcasting characters. A wizard specialized in air can do many different things in any given scene, but a wizard specialized in interference and binds with foci granting free shifts of persistence is pushed to take the same approach in every fight.

I've actually put a lot of thought into preventing players from being pigeonholed. For example, that's why I make the pyramid system for specialties more strict. You literally can't specialize so hard that the above situation happens. To reach +3 Power and +3 Control in any one action, you would also need:

5 specialties in a second action
4 specialties in a third action
3 specialties in a fourth action
2 specialties in a fifth action
1 specialty in a sixth action

That's 10.5 Refresh there from evocation specialties alone, and you've got a pretty darn wide array of options. If you compare this to the NPC wizards in the book, the power levels should be pretty close.

As for the free shifts of persistence, I made them so easy to get because a lot of the time a spell that lasts only one turn is pointless. For example, if your shield lasts only one turn, your opponent can just attack another party member, and then your turn was mostly wasted. I also gave shifts of persistence because it'll be harder to create super-high Power blocks with the stricter pyramid system for specialties.

Also, the bonus for designing a focus exclusively for a single rote is implicitly stronger with these rules. Normally you'd only get an extra +1 power or +1 control. With this, you can get a whole extra +1 shift of persistence, worth +1 power AND +1 control (but not as flexible). This means that for one Focus slot, you can get +2 Persistence to a given rote. I did this to encourage players to take a wider variety of foci, rather than dumping all their points into a single focus and getting pigeonholed.

Furthermore, as another system to prevent players from being pigeonholed, I also made it so that cramming too many focus slots in a single focus costs extra.

PS: What do you mean when you say shields are "omni-directional"?

An omni-directional shield would cover you completely, rather than simply facing in one direction.

My approach to Foci was based on what Dresden says his Shield Bracelet lets him do. He mentions at some points that without his bracelet, he can only make a quarter-dome of force, but with the bracelet, he could create a complete dome of force for the same effort.

I also agree with your assessment.    I like the approach you are using but I have to agree with Sanctaphrax that it seems overly complicated.

I've tried to 'fix' spellcasting but it's been mostly nerfing their foci.  I like the idea of having foci focus on something other than power/control.

One of the big things I did with foci is limit the Total Power of ALL your foci to your lore. (not just each item)

So, if your lore is 4, all your evocation foci combined cannot be greater than 4.   Each power has its own cap, so if you have thaumaturgy, you can have another 4 foci points.  Then you can take foci specializations to increase your cap.

Anyways, it doesn't do much to change the flavour of wizards.  You'd still max out your favorite element.  All it does is keep numbers the same as everyone else.

I don't see any need to put the limit on all your foci combined. You can still only use one focus per spell, so all that does is limit the player's creativity and encourage them to min-max even harder.

Why have a shield bracelet when you can only use it for your shielding spell? Why not just dump all your focus points into a single offensive focus that handles the widest array of situations with the largest bonus?

If you want to "keep the numbers the same as everyone else", then just limit the maximum slots you can cram into a single focus. If someone decides to make a wider variety of foci anyway, it'll be a poor decision from a min-max perspective, but won't overpower them.

What if each element was better at a particular action?  Like, each element can block/attack/maneuver/counterspell/veil but some are better than others.
Fire=attack
Air = maneuver
Earth = block
Water = counterspell
Spirit = veil

You're still better specializing in one element. For example, say Earth gives +1 Shift to Blocks. Which would you rather have:

+4 power/control for Fire

+2 Power/Control for Earth, and +2 Power/Control for Fire

The Fire specialist has +4 Shifts for Blocks, while the Earth/Fire generalist has only +3 shifts for Blocks. There's still no reason to mix your specializations.

Maybe buying a focus in a particular element is cheaper for drawing Power when using it for it's preferred action?
And/Or a focus slot is worth an extra bonus if it's for a specific rote (which stacks with the current rule for rote foci)

Something like that.  So it encourages multiple foci to make spells cheaper cast for specific actions.

Foci already get an extra +1 when they're designed exclusively for a specific rote. What are you referring to?

Edit:  what if foci give you armour against backlash for a specific action.  So, in the above Fire example, you could overcast an attack spell, take two mental stress and, when you fail to control the extra shift of power, you soak it with armour.  It lets you put more 'oomph' into a spell action without increasing accuracy.

So, it doesn't nerf anything, but it gives incentives to broaden your focus selection....meh

This would be hard to balance. Armor vs Backlash is the same as Control for most spells, but weaker for attacks. What do you charge for it? If you charge the same as an actual point of control, then it's overpriced and you should never take it. If you make it, say, half-price, then Backlash/Fallout lose their teeth as an interesting game mechanic.

I think you could actually blend the two ideas, Strill's and RaW, to great effect.

What is the difference between Specializations and Foci really?  There isn't one, not fundamentally.  They both adjust power and control for elements.  They just do it differently.

Sanctaphrax's point is well made.  You don't want to force pigeonholing on a character, but you can make it a strategic option.

So if specializations work the way Strill has outlined, representing a course of study or a proclivity for a certain type of spell that works across all elements (but dropping the ladder requirement), then foci can work as they traditionally have, boosting power and control for an element or number of elements.  At this point, there is actually a choice to make.

A greater mind than my own would actually have to run through how these options might pan out, if there is any incentive to specialize.

The ladder requirement is specifically what prevents you from being pigeonholed. Otherwise, you just put all your points into attack, and use that to the exclusion of every other option.

[Theogony_IX]

What if each element was better at a particular action?  Like, each element can block/attack/maneuver/counterspell/veil but some are better than others.
Fire=attack
Air = maneuver
Earth = block
Water = counterspell
Spirit = veil

You're still better specializing in one element. For example, say Earth gives +1 Shift to Blocks. Which would you rather have:

+4 power/control for Fire

+2 Power/Control for Earth, and +2 Power/Control for Fire

The Fire specialist has +4 Shifts for Blocks, while the Earth/Fire generalist has only +3 shifts for Blocks. There's still no reason to mix your specializations.

Honestly, this may be the most elegant path to a solution, but the focus here is wrong.  You don't want to make elements more or less efficient at particular actions, you want to give them a unique trapping, like spirit and veils.  Veils comes from thaumaturgy, so you could do the same for the other elements and pull trappings from thaumaturgy types.

This would give you incentives to specialize in something other than a single element.  It strays from what we see in the books though, so it might not sit well with people who like to model the books closely.

The other option is to rule out certain actions for different elements.  For example, spirit is the only element that can perform blocks vs perception, earth is the only element that can perform an evocation grapple, fire is the only element that can perform zone wide blocks, etc.

[Sanctaphrax]

I've actually put a lot of thought into preventing players from being pigeonholed. For example, that's why I make the pyramid system for specialties more strict. You literally can't specialize so hard that the above situation happens.

That helps, but doesn't take much to push someone in a specific direction. Suppose I have +1 bind power, +1 bind control, +1 interference power, and a focus giving 3 shifts of persistence to binds and interference. Or +1 attack power, +1 attack control, +1 veil control, and a focus giving +1 control and a free zone effect on my attacks and veils. That's enough to make me reluctant to deviate from the plan.

That being said...your decision to apply the pyramid to the total bonus and not to each individual bonus might do a lot to address the problems on its own. It really clamps down on monofocus.

An omni-directional shield would cover you completely, rather than simply facing in one direction.

My approach to Foci was based on what Dresden says his Shield Bracelet lets him do. He mentions at some points that without his bracelet, he can only make a quarter-dome of force, but with the bracelet, he could create a complete dome of force for the same effort.

That doesn't mean anything mechanically, though. A block is a block regardless.

I don't see any need to put the limit on all your foci combined. You can still only use one focus per spell, so all that does is limit the player's creativity and encourage them to min-max even harder.

In canon, you can use one focus for control and one for power. Taran's trying to address that, I think. But personally I prefer your one-focus-per-spell approach.

[Strill]

That helps, but doesn't take much to push someone in a specific direction. Suppose I have +1 bind power, +1 bind control, +1 interference power, and a focus giving 3 shifts of persistence to binds and interference. Or +1 attack power, +1 attack control, +1 veil control, and a focus giving +1 control and a free zone effect on my attacks and veils. That's enough to make me reluctant to deviate from the plan.

I can argue that for 1/3rd the cost of that +3 persistence focus, you could get a +2 persistence shield focus if it's tied to a single rote. I could say that perhaps foci should be tied to three categories, and not two. However, if those incentives are really so extreme that a +1 in only 2 categories is enough to convince you to never use anything else, I'd say specializations simply shouldn't exist at all.

The way I see it, either specializations need to be like Stunts, in that they make you better in some situations over others, or they need to be removed as a bad game mechanic that does nothing but inflate player power and compromise the skill cap and the skill pyramid systems.

But honestly, I'm not so sure that your example is necessarily so extreme as you make it out to be. In fact, isn't it kind of true to canon? Harry has a relatively predictable game plan he tries to follow. Blast the bad guys, unnerve them with banter, and block anything they throw at him. Molly has a relatively predictable game plan she tries to follow. Hide with a veil, and fool them into giving up or beating one another. Nevertheless they're sometimes placed in situations where going outside their specialties is still the best option. Like when Harry uses Veils. Maybe it encourages you to come up with some reliable tactics and use them most of the time, but does it really restrict you to the point that going off-specialty is completely impractical?

That doesn't mean anything mechanically, though. A block is a block regardless.

I explain it under the description for Shields. With a mono-directional shield, your opponents can maneuver or assess to take advantage of the opening, or Block you from using your shield against a certain attacker.

In canon, you can use one focus for control and one for power. Taran's trying to address that, I think. But personally I prefer your one-focus-per-spell approach.

You're right. I didn't notice that. The problem with one focus per spell though, is it forces you to take only one focus, which is less interesting.

I suppose you could instead cap focus slots by category, but allow any number of foci to stack. So no more than <Lore> focus slots dedicated to offense, and <Lore> focus slots to defense, but you can use all applicable foci at any given time.

I dunno.. that's getting complicated.

[Sanctaphrax]

The way I see it, either specializations need to be like Stunts, in that they make you better in some situations over others, or they need to be removed as a bad game mechanic that does nothing but inflate player power and compromise the skill cap and the skill pyramid systems.

I don't really agree. It's okay for Powers to be straight upgrades - see the Inhuman/Supernatural/Mythic Powers. That's what makes high-Refresh beings like senior wizards and ancient vampires so threatening.

But honestly, I'm not so sure that your
example is necessarily so extreme as you make it out to be. In fact, isn't it kind of true to canon?
...
Maybe it encourages you to come up with some reliable tactics and use them most of the time, but does it really restrict you to the point that going off-specialty is completely impractical?

I wouldn't say completely impractical. Just discouraged, in a way that that doesn't quite sit right with me.

As for canon, I couldn't say. I read the novels when they come out, and it's been a while since the last release. Apart from consulting Cold Days a few times to help me run my PbP game, I haven't opened a DF book since then.

I explain it under the description for Shields. With a mono-directional shield, your opponents can maneuver or assess to take advantage of the opening, or Block you from using your shield against a certain attacker.

Ah, I see. Sorry I missed that.

I'm not too keen on this idea. Seems like extra complexity for little gain.

You're right. I didn't notice that. The problem with one focus per spell though, is it forces you to take only one focus, which is less interesting.

It forces you to take one focus per type of spell. I'm okay with that, personally.

PS: Sorry if I seem excessively negative here. When I post homebrew I usually want more criticism than I get, so I tend to assume other people want criticism too. Let me know if it bothers you.

[Strill]

I don't really agree. It's okay for Powers to be straight upgrades - see the Inhuman/Supernatural/Mythic Powers. That's what makes high-Refresh beings like senior wizards and ancient vampires so threatening.

I'm willing to accept that to some extent, just not to the degree that RAW allows. That's why I made it my goal to design a system that results in a power level comparable to the Wizard NPCs in the book.

Ah, I see. Sorry I missed that.

I'm not too keen on this idea. Seems like extra complexity for little gain.

I can see that. I could probably produce a more slimmed down version without some unnecessary parts.

It forces you to take one focus per type of spell. I'm okay with that, personally.

Oh, you mean if you combined the 1 focus per spell limit along with my spell categories system?

PS: Sorry if I seem excessively negative here. When I post homebrew I usually want more criticism than I get, so I tend to assume other people want criticism too. Let me know if it bothers you.

No it's quite alright.

[Sanctaphrax]

I'm willing to accept that to some extent, just not to the degree that RAW allows. That's why I made it my goal to design a system that results in a power level comparable to the Wizard NPCs in the book.

Do you intend to do this for non-spellcasting Powers too? Because non-Wizard canon NPCs tend to be vastly weaker than their PC equivalents too.

Oh, you mean if you combined the 1 focus per spell limit along with my spell categories system?

Even without the spell category system, preventing people from having two foci for spirit attack spells (for example) can keep some of the excesses of PC spellcasting in check.