Focused Practitioner vs Wizard

[Belial666]

Master Pyromancer

[-2] Channeling - Fire
[-4] Refinement x4
[-1] Searing Flame stunt/power - fire attacks you personally create deal +2 stress
[-2] Full Lawbreaker 1st (1st option)
[-2] Ritual Diabolism (2nd option)

+5 Discipline, Lore
+4 Athletics, Conviction
+3 Endurance, Alertness

foci: +5 offensive fire control, +5 offensive fire power, +2 diabolism power (optional)

Offensive Control Total: +10, +12 with Lawbreaker
Offensive Power Total: +9, +11 with Lawbreaker, +2 stress



As you can see, the guy is not weak. In fact, offensively he is stronger than the submerged Harry Dresden by a significant margin. And even in rituals, he may have more limited ritual magic but he is quite good at it.

[Bruce Coulson]

I'm still not sure the arguement against Refinements applies.

There's nothing prohibiting a Focused Practicioner from knowing a tremendous amount about every field of magic.  True, they can only USE one, but they could know the theory about all of them.  (Note that Bob doesn't cast a single spell, and yet seems to be a vast repository of magickal theory and knowledge.)

Most focused types might not learn anything other than what they can do.  But PCs aren't 'most types'.  I could easily see a frustrated focused practicioner, studying tome after tome, hoping that one of them might unlock the 'block' they must have against becoming a full Wizard.

And then, one day, Something answers...

[Sanctaphrax]

Master Pyromancer (with Evocation instead of Channeling)

[-3] Evocation
[-4] Refinement x4
[-2] Lawbreaker (First)
[-2] Ritual (Diabolism)

+5 Conviction, Lore
+4 Athletics, Discipline
+3 Endurance, Alertness

foci: +5 offensive fire control, +5 offensive fire power
specializations: +2 fire control, +1 fire power

Offensive Power Total: +11, +13 with Lawbreaker
Offensive Control Total: +11, +13 with Lawbreaker

As you can see, this guy is stronger. Slightly worse at Thaumaturgy, but slightly stronger and far more versatile when it comes to Evocation. Please note that both Belial and I are allowing Lawbreaker to add to power as well as control. This is a houserule, but you could be forgiven for thinking that it's canon. Many people do, at first glance.

[Wolfwood2]

I'm still not sure the arguement against Refinements applies.

There's nothing prohibiting a Focused Practicioner from knowing a tremendous amount about every field of magic.  True, they can only USE one, but they could know the theory about all of them.  (Note that Bob doesn't cast a single spell, and yet seems to be a vast repository of magickal theory and knowledge.)

As you note, Bob doesn't cast a single spell.  So while he knows a lot in the "high Lore" sense, does he know a lot in the "make a bigger boom" sense?

I dunno.  There's nothing wrong with changing it so Focused Practioners can use Refinements differently/take more of them, if you want.  I was just trying to point out that it's not nonsensical from a logic standpoint.  Earlier a ballerina dancer was used as an example.  Suppose you had one dancer who never practiced anything but Swan Lake her entire life, dancing it every day and night.  Then there's a ballerina dancer who has a broad range of routines and switches between them regularly.

Is the first dancer going to be better at performing Swan Lake?  Not necessarily.  The second dancer has learned things that the first dancer never could, never will, and he'll bring them into his performance.

[Quazar]

As you can see, this guy is stronger. Slightly worse at Thaumaturgy, but slightly stronger and far more versatile when it comes to Evocation. Please note that both Belial and I are allowing Lawbreaker to add to power as well as control. This is a houserule, but you could be forgiven for thinking that it's canon. Many people do, at first glance.

For the exact same refresh point expenditure.  This just confirms that there is no mechanical reason to be a focused practitioner, even with refinements.  I just wanted to make sure I understood correctly.

[Slife]

As you note, Bob doesn't cast a single spell.  So while he knows a lot in the "high Lore" sense, does he know a lot in the "make a bigger boom" sense?

I dunno.  There's nothing wrong with changing it so Focused Practioners can use Refinements differently/take more of them, if you want.  I was just trying to point out that it's not nonsensical from a logic standpoint.  Earlier a ballerina dancer was used as an example.  Suppose you had one dancer who never practiced anything but Swan Lake her entire life, dancing it every day and night.  Then there's a ballerina dancer who has a broad range of routines and switches between them regularly.

Is the first dancer going to be better at performing Swan Lake?  Not necessarily.  The second dancer has learned things that the first dancer never could, never will, and he'll bring them into his performance.

"I fear not the man who has practiced 10,000 kicks once, but I fear the man who has practiced one kick 10,000 times.” - Bruce Lee

[Quazar]

So for example, the true specialist Ectomancer would be someone who has Thaumaturgy (so he's learned how Wards and Summoning work in general) and has taken three Refinements in being better at Ectomancy.  He is going to be much more awesome than some guy who never got a proper education to begin with and is just sort of winging it on Ectomancy and nothing else.

This would make sense if that was the way it is presented in the book.  Here, to be an ectomancer one would take Ritual and now you can talk to ghosts.  I'm actually saying, why not just spend the extra 1 refresh to have Thaumaturgy with specializations and potential Refinements and the like.  But that would make you a Sorcerer, not a Focused Practitioner.

Perhaps they intend that FPs should take either Thaumaturgy or Evocation as they progress.  As far as I can tell though, that's never spelled out.

I'm houseruling it so that Focused Practitioners start off with a specialization bonus in their field for both conditions (power/control or complexity).  This pays them for foregoing the other fields, but not enough to disincentivize taking one of the main powers.  And I'm allowing the use of Refinements for increasing specialization.  But that's just my own take.

[Grotms]

First, what is Ritual (Diabolism)?

2nd, I'm of the whole school of thought that if you study something exclusively you'll be better at it. Perhaps if you have a more balanced education you'll pick it up faster, but in the end the guy with the PHD in Chemistry should know more about chemistry than the guy with the Bachelors in biology, chemistry, Physics, and biochemistry. And that's what this seems to be to me. Though the Bruce Lee quote was a much more eloquent way of putting this.

Third, I agree, FPs should be able to take refinement for specialization.

[Belial666]

The main point this thread is missing is this; A focused practitioner is not a guy who specializes in one type of magic while a sorceror or wizard is a generalist. A focused practitioner is someone with an incomplete talent in magic while a wizard or sorceror is a full talent. As such, a wizard is supposed to be stronger than the focused practitioner if he focuses on the same thing. That is why focused practitioners cannot take specialization; they don't have a major talent that can be improved by specializing - they are already specialized and what they get out of it is a cheaper power (see below).

Another important point is that it is not the job of the focused practitioner (mechanically) to compete with the wizard in a high refresh environment. The job of the focused practitioner template is to offer an alternative spellcaster that is playable in lower refresh levels than wizard.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

I want to add one more thing here. Focused practitioners can do something that full wizards can't: they can create a specialization.

Everyone uses things like pyromancy or ectomancy as an example, but there is really no reason why your couldn't take something outside the normal wheel. Let me put it to you this way - if a Focused Prqctitioner had Channeling: Ectomancy, that is something a wizard just can't do. Hey can tap into ghosts and their themes for any evocation style effect.

I have a player in a game I am starting who sat down at the table with a very clear idea in mind. He wanted to control bugs. Like, seriously control them, to the point where he could use them as blocks to distract someone, or as attacks as swarms of stinging bees, and have spiders weave him suple armor, or restraints for a prisoner. He is going with Focused Practitioner, because it allows him to do these things as both evocation as well as thaumaturgical effects, where Wizard does not.

[devonapple]

I want to add one more thing here. Focused practitioners can do something that full wizards can't: they can create a specialization.

That's not completely accurate. It's just harder for full Wizards because they are then obligated to come up with their own non-Western element schema.

Per YS 253:
"Wizards with different ancient traditions may construct their evocations out of different elements than the traditional Western ones—Ancient Mai probably practices an evocation system that uses metal, water, wood, earth, fire, and spirit as its base elements, befitting her Chinese heritage. If your wizard comes from a non-Classical tradition, you’ll need to construct a basic idea of what each element does; look to the examples below for guidelines."

I have a Focused Practitioner (that one that does shadow-based magic) and depending on how the campaign goes, he will likely escalate to full Wizard, and I'll have to develop a way to divide up magical effects that will accommodate his existing specialization with Shadows. Or the GM will determine them to be covered under Spirit and we'll be done with it.

[sinker]

Or the GM will determine them to be covered under Spirit and we'll be done with it.

That was an argument I was going to make, that a wizard could say, control bugs, but would have to figure out how to fit it into the existing scheme. Maybe it's spirit, like mind control but on a smaller scale or water to physically control the limbs. Just takes some thought and creativity.

Another thing I was going to mention is the Were. They are focused practitioners, and for that matter even more limited. Why play a Were then? Because thematically they are something different, with their own story and theme.

[MyNinjaH8sU]

Another thing I was going to mention is the Were. They are focused practitioners, and for that matter even more limited. Why play a Were then? Because thematically they are something different, with their own story and theme.

Excellent point. And the same reason to play a Focused Practitioner rather than a wizard. Besides, if it is power you (the collective you) are after, or wanting to be the baddest among the bad, maybe this isn't the right kind of game for you?

At least, that's my take on it.

[Motman]

I'm houseruling it so that Focused Practitioners start off with a specialization bonus in their field for both conditions (power/control or complexity).  This pays them for foregoing the other fields, but not enough to disincentivize taking one of the main powers.  And I'm allowing the use of Refinements for increasing specialization.  But that's just my own take.

I am doing that as well.  A PC is playing a Emissary of Power who has photomancy with a +1 to control when using it for shadow/darkness effects.  She plans to upgrade to evocation in the future with the +1 control (darkness) converting to +1 control (spirit).

I have not found a game mechanics reason to play a FP rather than a full wizard.  However, story reasons abound for a character or GM to play one.

[Sanctaphrax]

I think that your fix may be a bit too strong, Quazar. At least for Evocation and Crafting.

As you have it, a character with Channeling is better at evoking their element then a specialized Evoker, for one refresh less. And you really only need one element. That's another problem with the spellcasting rules, and if you fix it then your houserule may be quite reasonable. But as it is, Channeling + Refinement blows Evocation out of the water.

Crafting is perhaps the only field in which a FP is viable at higher power levels. A Crafting specialist is arguably better off with Ritual instead of Thaumaturgy.* So by making Ritual stronger, you make this archetype (which is already quite powerful) much stronger.

In conclusion, I think that your houserule might not so much solve the problem as reverse it so that FPs are better than wizards.

PS: Do FPs in your game have to obey a specialization pyramid? And if so, how does it work?

*Very arguably, and of course Thaumaturgy looks better when you have a lot of Refresh to play with.