ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: fatty on July 26, 2010, 11:51:51 PM
-
Hello Everyone,
Is there anything to say anywhere that you can't take channelling twice, but with different elements?
-
Well you could I suppose, but why would you? For one refresh more you can take evocation and get a specialisation and two extra elements. If it's for the focus items then you could take a refinement for more item slots (which is a total for 4 refresh and still leaves you up a specialisation and an element).
Is there a specific reason why you want channelling twice?
ps. The username is familiar, as is the location. If it's not just a coincidence, hello mate :)
-
You can take Evocation, choose two elements and leave the third undecided if that really floats your boat. It's also cheaper.
-
On the bottom of p162 it says you can't take any power multiple times unless the power says you can.
Like it's been said, it would be better to take evocation and just hold back one of your specialties.
-
As others have said you could do it but if you are a natural spellcaster it makes a lot more sense to just upgrade to Evocation. The only way this makes sense is if you take more than one type of Sponsored Magic, and if that's the case you probably have a lot more to worry about, than an inefficient use of Refresh.
-
Well, I haven't had a chance to sit down and read the rules, but here's the reason why I wasn't sure if you could just take evocation and no other power because of the templates. I mean I couldn't see just the evoker template.
-
The Templates are guidelines. If you want to play a character who only has Evocation that's totally fine, or a character who is somewhere between the templates in power level that works as well, say a powerful Sorcerer who is just a hair away from being a Wizard.
-
Just Evocation is fine :D I like to destroy stuff.
-
The Templates are guidelines. If you want to play a character who only has Evocation that's totally fine, or a character who is somewhere between the templates in power level that works as well, say a powerful Sorcerer who is just a hair away from being a Wizard.
The problem is that the way the character creation rules are written in YS is that one of the steps is choosing a template. So if you do follow the rules strictly, you have to choose a template.
-
You may have to choose a template, if that's the way you and your group decide to go, but what's to stop (if that is the case) of making your own templates? There's MUCH more to the Dresdenverse than what we've seen in the books...as each novel aptly demonstrates.
As to the OP, however, as Tush Hog stated, as per the rules, you can't take any power twice unless it specifically says so.
Of course, what's good for you and your group may be to totally ignore that rule and allow multiple purchases of powers, in which case, have fun! That is the primary goal, after all...
-
You may have to choose a template, if that's the way you and your group decide to go, but what's to stop (if that is the case) of making your own templates? There's MUCH more to the Dresdenverse than what we've seen in the books...as each novel aptly demonstrates.
Of course, what's good for you and your group may be to totally ignore that rule and allow multiple purchases of powers, in which case, have fun! That is the primary goal, after all...
The group could decide that you can ignore certain rules. But since we are discussing those rules, it is easier if we were all on the same page and since we are posting in this forum, presumably having bought YS and OW, if you are going to ignore some rules, it might be better if you state those rules that you aren't following.
-
The problem is that the way the character creation rules are written in YS is that one of the steps is choosing a template. So if you do follow the rules strictly, you have to choose a template.
Dude, first off, you can make up a Template, following that step and still doing what you want. This is even explicit on YS p. 72.
Second, that kind of mechanistic thinking is completely at odds with the entirety of the DFRPG system, and the FATE system in general.
-
toturi,
If you really want the book's permission to mess with the powers you can take as part of a spellcasting template take a look at the "what about playing an apprentice" sidebar on YS p86
-
Assuming one has no problems with manipulating the default rules a little, reading the Refinement power and related marginalia indicates that a new Element and a specialization in a current on are roughly equivalent. So, just take Evocation with two elements and two specialties.
-
The margin note on p. 162 specifically says that unless a power explicitly says differently, you can't take it more than once. So no, no "multiple channeling." I'd use GruffandTumble's rule, myself.
-
Gruffs idea is at odds with the rules and balance. Elements as written are just flavor. Taking specs instead of second and third elements is obviously the smarter choice (would be). If it were allowed You could take spec refinements for channelling.
-
Gruffs idea is at odds with the rules and balance. Elements as written are just flavor. Taking specs instead of second and third elements is obviously the smarter choice (would be). If it were allowed You could take spec refinements for channelling.
And yet the Refinement power lets you choose between a new element and two specialization bonuses for the exact same cost.
-
And yet the Refinement power lets you choose between a new element and two specialization bonuses for the exact same cost.
It lets you choose a new element and a specialization in that element, so if your GM is allowing the mix-and-match approach you could take two elements. Though I can't see any reason to take an additional element instead of a specialization.
-
It lets you choose a new element and a specialization in that element, so if your GM is allowing the mix-and-match approach you could take two elements. Though I can't see any reason to take an additional element instead of a specialization.
Try telling a wizard who only knows water evocations that different elements are just flavor when a slavering pack of Red Court vampires is charging him. :)
-
Try telling a wizard who only knows water evocations that different elements are just flavor when a slavering pack of Red Court vampires is charging him. :)
And he casually disintegrates them? I'm...not really sure what you're getting at here.
Personally, I wouldn't allow anyone to rearrange the basic Evocation setup (and there's no evidence that doing so is legal), though I certainly would on levels of Refinement.
-
I heartily disagree that elements are just flavor. Certainly, you're very unlikely to need all five, and four is often overkill, but between the need to satisfy Catches and the need not to bog down a session for ten minutes trying to justify the action you want to take with your available elements, they are very handy.
That being said, I prefaced my suggestion by stating that it was not intended as a "go to" interpretation on the default rules. I could have been a little more clear, I guess. So, here goes clarity: That suggestion was made purely to illuminate an alternate viewpoint. In no way do I consider it canon or RAW. I just wanted to showcase an interesting idea from a viewpoint I had not seen previously.
-
Well, I haven't had a chance to sit down and read the rules, but here's the reason why I wasn't sure if you could just take evocation and no other power because of the templates. I mean I couldn't see just the evoker template.
Look at the Focused Practioner Template, voila Evoker Template.
Ups.
If I were limited to the printed Templates and wanted to play an Evoker only. I would look at:
- Emissary of Power or
- Changeling
-
Elements are flavor. All they do are satisfy catches. As written. It would take me 10 sec to think of any effect you could want with earth or spirit, 15 sec for water or air, 20 for fire. That's hardly bogging down a session.
-
Elements are flavor. All they do are satisfy catches.
Nine words containing two mutually exclusive points. That's some impressive brevity right there. Or maybe you are using a definition of "flavor" that means "uncommonly occurring but still tremendously advantageous mechanical benefit"? Should we alert Webster's?
As written. It would take me 10 sec to think of any effect you could want with earth or spirit, 15 sec for water or air, 20 for fire. That's hardly bogging down a session.
I'm very happy for you. Not everyone thinks this fast. My "ten minutes" was intended as hyperbole, but I have yet to meet a gamer who enjoys spending excess time so the guy with special circumstances can resolve his fancy action.
Final point--spells are not solely defined by the effect they create, but also by the situation they affect. If a pyromancer wants to throw up a shield spell in a dry wooden building, you can bet your ass that I'm compelling the "Highly Flammable" aspect on the walls. Many forms of Earth magic manipulating actual dirt or stone is ripe for compels, where simple kinetomancy creating stony force barriers would be less so.
-
No. I mean they might as well not satisfy catches. If I'm a pyromancer fighting a fire demon, I'll steal heat from him. If I'm a biomancer fighting an ent, I'll hit him with a laser. Everything is Just shifts of power. I decide the effect.
If you tag highly flammable I'll tag smoke cover. You have to be twice as creative as your players or a bad GM to make diversifying worth his time. As written.
-
No. I mean they might as well not satisfy catches. If I'm a pyromancer fighting a fire demon, I'll steal heat from him. If I'm a biomancer fighting an ent, I'll hit him with a laser. Everything is Just shifts of power. I decide the effect.
If that's how your group runs it, that's dandy. Not everyone is going to agree that the heat-stealing trick works on a fire demon--I prioritize symbolic associations way over scientific rigor in this kind of situation, and wouldn't let it fly.
If you tag highly flammable I'll tag smoke cover. You have to be twice as creative as your players or a bad GM to make diversifying worth his time. As written.
I'm not talking about tags for a direct bonus. I mentioned "compels." If you don't pay the GM a fate point to buy off the compel, the building will collapse on you, and all the smoke cover in the world won't save you from flaming boards falling on your head. Some groups might not offer that compel, sure. That's their prerogative. It is not your prerogative to tell them they are doing it wrong.
-
Personally, I think the differing elements are very important and not just window dressing. Whether it would be through justifications, satisfying catches, or the simple "BS" rule, some elements are simply going to be better at "their thing" than others. I agree with Gruff on the fact that if a game group decides to run it where the elements are meaningless, that's fine...for that group. But for mine, they are important. They're important because Harry sets buildings on fire. They're important because fire is different from air which is different from spirit which is different from earth which is different from water. If they were all the same then the notion of picking a specialty would be a small sidebar talking about thematic use only, not something that is meant to be "learned" via Refinement.
-
Heat stealing is Canon and an example in YS.
You can't compel my death. When I Dodge with athletics I'll make a declaration for the new temporary aspect smoke cover and make a more powerful block.
If you want to bend the rules to make diversity relevant, that's nice. But you're not playing the game as written.
Personally I'd love to house rule elemental differences, but at least I know it's a house rule.
-
If you want to bend the rules to make diversity relevant, that's nice. But you're not playing the game as written.
Personally I'd love to house rule elemental differences, but at least I know it's a house rule.
What rule book are you reading? When I read pages 254-255 of YS, where it goes on about the different uses for the different elements, they clearly delineate differing uses for each, where they are better at some things than other elements. No where do I see anything that removes that. No one is house ruling a thing when it comes to different elements satisfying catches or enabling certain aspects.
Veils, as one example, are the "special province of spirit magic.". That's not a house rule...that's "as written". You certainly aren't going to hit me with a "Drenched" aspect with fire or earth. I can see some correlation between earth's gravity effects and air "pushes" or pressure, but it won't look the same, feel the same, or have the same scene effects.
If you want to disagree and run it your way, believe me I'd be the last to tell you you can't, but the idea that elemental differences are "house ruling" is just plain wrong, as is telling me I'm not playing the game "as written".
Now, if you are referring to the sidebar where it talks about justifying electricity via earth or air, sure it opens the door for varying justifications, but no where does it invalidate different elements...at least not that I can find.
-
Heat stealing is Canon and an example in YS.
You can't compel my death. When I Dodge with athletics I'll make a declaration for the new temporary aspect smoke cover and make a more powerful block.
If you want to bend the rules to make diversity relevant, that's nice. But you're not playing the game as written.
Personally I'd love to house rule elemental differences, but at least I know it's a house rule.
I'm not saying Heat Stealing isn't possible, but I'd need a page citation before I buy that it is specifically applicable to the exact situation I am referring to.
I'm not compelling "death." Don't put words into my mouth. Attacks and damage can come in the form of compels--that's how True Love is stated to be able to damage WCVs despite not harming any other form of creature.
I'm not bending the rules. I'm interpreting them. If you want to go rules-fundamentalist on me and declare you know the One True Way, I will be happy to add you to my mental list of Internet Crazies. If you are willing to accept that not everyone is your identical psychic clone, then we can continue talking.
-
Not all elements can mimik all other elements.
Spirit can do all things the other elements can do, but the other elements cant do the special things Spirit can do.
On the whole I agree with John Galt --> just take Spirit.
With Spirit/Force you can explain/do it.
That leaves situations, like the Wizard is low on Fate-Points and uses Fire for collateral damage, compelling himself to setting the building on fire...
-
Doc- you're not really getting it. I'm not talking about narrative effects, but MECHANICAL. Your hydromancer could use water to apply a "soaked" aspect that you tag for a penalty to movement speed, while my biomancer does the same thing with "tremors" or "grasping plants".
Gruff- please continue to argue with ad hominems and personally insult me. When you get banned, maybe the rest of us can have a rational discussion.
Korwin - Earth is at least as versatile as spirit. Electromagnetic waves, gravity and the earth...
-
Spirit is the catch all category. A Kinetomancer for example (Channeling limited to spirit), can use spirit to emulate telekinesis, but can't affect ghosts. An ectomancer, on the other hand, could affect ghosts and spirits all day long, but couldn't do much to influence physical objects. On paper, they would look identical (Channeling - Spirit), but just because the game rules are too coarse to represent this, doesn't mean that the difference isn't there.
-
*starts prepping the fire extinguishers*
-
Spirit/Force is never going to apply a "Drenched" aspect like water can. Sure, I might get drenched in ectoplasm (ick!) but that is not the same thing. Setting fires with spirit may be possible with really intense light, but it's going to take much greater power than a low-level fire spell (i.e. more shifts to pull it off). Certainly, many of the effects of air could be mimicked by spirit/force, as it could many of earth's effects, but I'd argue that spirit could never disintegrate the way water can (maybe, if we got into hyper-telekinetic control on a molecular level...but wow...talk about over-the-top).
And applying aspects, and adjudicating what those aspects mean and what they effect is mechanical, not just narrative.
I guess what it boils down to, for me anyway, is this:
I would never let the idea that there is "one overriding element that does it all" fly in my game. That rings heavily of "finding a cheat", something that takes away the fun from the table...again, for me. We could debate the quality of elements all day long, but in the end, what really matters (for me) is keeping the game entertaining, diverse, and exciting. Giving any single element or specialization the "I Win!" button works against those goals, thus it will never happen in my game. If having an uber element works for your game, where every other caster that bothers looking at another element is doing so out of sympathy or concept, and not backed by mechanics at the table, then groovy, have at it, I truly and genuinely hope you have fun playing that way. But that's not how the rules are written, mechanically or thematically, as I read them. Justifications can allow for a great deal, but if the BS gets too deep, I have no problem in calling it, especially to help ensure that elemental specializations keep their diversity and teeth.
-
In theory, you can produce lasers with spirit, or transfer heat with fire but I think you have to have the scholarship to understand that, in the same way that you need to be a skilled surgeon before you can use biomancy for anything but the first step on to the road to recovery. Without that knowledge I would allow only the more obvious or traditional uses for the elements.
Someone that understands the idea of fire on an instinctive rather than academic level isn't going to see rapid oxidisation as a result of a chemical process, they are going to see it's heat and hunger, it's destructive nature and it's warmth. In the same way while lightning is a combination of earth and air it is traditionally associated with lightning and so I would allow a focused practitioner of air to cast it without scholarship but not an earth channeller.
Aside from scholarship, I'd allow a fire mage to freeze something but only by channelling the heat in a powerful blast of fire, just like Harry did.
After all, there are 4 elements, plus spirit; not 118. Magic isn't science.
-
That's an interesting condition to include, CMEast, and not one with which I would disagree. The notion of surgical education is supported in-game, either in the main text or in the margins, although precisely where I can not remember. I'd likely rule the same way. It supports the notion of justification with an in-game "prerequisite", making the effects a tad more expensive (via skill selection, if nothing else) to justify than simply because the player knows something.
Now, I suppose the next question concerning that condition would be: At what skill level is someone considered a "skilled surgeon"? Is it simply an aspect somewhere on their character sheet ("Wizard, M.D." perhaps?) or an actual skill that should hit a minimum skill level? Would you consider someone with Scholarship at Fair as enough, or would any level Scholarship work provided they had the mortal stunt of Doctor or Scientist?
-
That probably depends on your game; I'd tend to say that you need at least an effective +3 before you can consider yourself a "skilled surgeon" - but, if you're looking at a wizard, I'd rather sink a stunt into shifting the medical knowledge / care trapping of scholarship over to lore before I just bought up scholarship or spent a stunt on Doctor or somesuch. Maybe call it "Expert Herbalist" or "Chi Flow Surgeon" or something, depending on exactly how your character looks at healing people.
-
Doc, you've still missed my point completely.
CMEast- I like your approach as a House Rule. How about dividing each element into "applications " and letting the player have applications equal to his scholarship?
-
John, I've not missed your point, I just completely disagree. You want it your way in your game, go for it; I won't tell you how to run your game and you certainly won't tell me how to run mine. The rules, as written, from my perspective, do not support what you are saying. Aspects are mechanics. Elements are different in the aspects they allow without stretching justifications.
Quite simply, we disagree. However, this argument produces nothing positive, so I am done participating in it.
-
I think I'd personally go for a more narrative way of doing it, basing it on the characters aspects and it's Scholarship/Lore/Discipline. For instance a 'doctor' with no Scholarship would be a self-deluded quack that can barely tie it's own shoelaces together, let alone cast complicated biomantic rituals. On the other hand I'd perhaps allow a Chinese medicine man with background in acupuncture and a high Lore to heal/augment the body with appropriately themed rituals.
In the same way, a scientist with a background in physics and chemistry whose latent power was discovered late in life (thus putting paid to any career involving complicated lab equipment) might well be able to form laser beams with spirit magic but only if he had a high enough discipline and, if he had a low conviction, perhaps he'd struggle with the brute force aspects like telekinesis. Generally the difference between a laser beam and a kinetic strike is purely narrative, but it'd make a difference when he's trying to pick up some keys from the other side of the room or fighting winter court Hobs.
However it totally depends on each persons game and if you want to break down the elements in to their different applications and the complexity level of each effect then be my guest, I'd be very interested in the results :) For instance using water magic to create phosphorus would be a neat trick!
-
Doc's already backed out of the thread, but Galt, Gruff, watch your respective tones, please.
Thanks.
-
Doc's already backed out of the thread, but Galt, Gruff, watch your respective tones, please.
Thanks.
I'm going to drop it as well. I've laid out my point of view, and I should have stopped there.
-
Since the topic already exist I might as well ask it now (hopefully this wont count as derailment), on them matter of taking two of the same power.
Can you take (and would you consider it fair/legitimate) Physical Immunity twice and would the normal rules for stacked catches still apply?
-
You take physical immunity once, and that covers everything. What you are asking is about taking physical immunity with more than one catch. The answer is yes, but you only get the discount from the catch that gives the biggest rebate, and all the catches count. Or you want to have multiple catches that have to each be satisfied to get past the physical immunity, which would only get a discount from how likely the combined catches would hurt you. So research would be based on how hard it is to find out about both of the catches together, and applicability would be based on how easy it would be to obtain and use both catches at once.
-
Ah I mean more of having Immunity to only Fire and Immunity to only Electricity with Supernatural Toughness (catch: water); that can all be researched. So it would sort of look like this:
Supernatural Toughness -4
Catch: Water (+3)
Physical Immunity (Fire) -8
Catch (Only Fire) +5
Physical Immunity (Electricity) -8
Catch (Only Electricity) +5
Though perhaps I’m wording this wrong, I essentially am asking if having immunity to Only Two things (in this case fire and electricity) possible.
-
I am curious. How are the various elements used when there isn't any of the element apparently around?
Fire is easy. Unless you are surrounded by stuff at absolute zero or in the arctic or some such, there's always some heat around or the heat can come from you. Spirit doesn't really have a physical element unless you count light but evidently you can conjure up light when it is dark. Air is alright too, unless you are in some kind of vacuum.
Water and earth are the problem. Usually water. In place with no water or in some really dry place with low humidity, where's the water? Especially if you need really lots of water to achieve the effects you want: Water blast in the desert - where are you going to find the water to "Drench" someone with?
Entropic spells use the water element but does it actually cause water to physically materialise or is it, as I think it is, just a visual effect?
-
Mostly just visual. See the exploding tree example in YS to see how you bring your environment into play.
But in general you've limited your thinking too much.
Entropy is always around (water)
Heat is always around (fire)
Electromagnetic waves and gravity are always around (earth)
air is always around.
-
Ah I mean more of having Immunity to only Fire and Immunity to only Electricity with Supernatural Toughness (catch: water); that can all be researched. So it would sort of look like this:
Supernatural Toughness -4
Catch: Water (+3)
Physical Immunity (Fire) -8
Catch (Only Fire) +5
Physical Immunity (Electricity) -8
Catch (Only Electricity) +5
Though perhaps I’m wording this wrong, I essentially am asking if having immunity to Only Two things (in this case fire and electricity) possible.
You're doing that wrong. The actual structure would look like this:
Supernatural Toughness -4
Catch: water (+3)
Physical Immunity -8
Stacked Catch: anything that's not fire or electricity +N
Now, the only question is, what's the value of N? Specifically, does it get the +2 for only protecting against fire and electricity, or does it lose that since that's two things rather than one? Were I GMing for you, I'd probably rule that fire & electricity is a sufficiently limited category of stuff for that catch to still be worth +5, but other GMs could easily argue that it's worth +4 or +3 instead (+2 for easy to get stuff that's neither fire nor electricity, +1 for researcheable, and maybe +1 for only protecting from a limited category of stuff).
-
You're doing that wrong. The actual structure would look like this:
Supernatural Toughness -4
Catch: water (+3)
Physical Immunity -8
Stacked Catch: anything that's not fire or electricity +N
Ahh that for showing how that should be worded.
Now, the only question is, what's the value of N? Specifically, does it get the +2 for only protecting against fire and electricity, or does it lose that since that's two things rather than one? Were I GMing for you, I'd probably rule that fire & electricity is a sufficiently limited category of stuff for that catch to still be worth +5, but other GMs could easily argue that it's worth +4 or +3 instead (+2 for easy to get stuff that's neither fire nor electricity, +1 for researcheable, and maybe +1 for only protecting from a limited category of stuff).
Yes that is, ultimately, the question that ask! Normally Physical Immunity works of being Immune to everything ‘except’ the catch (EX: Immune to everything but Fire) and on the opposite matter is when your immune to only one thing, and get the +2 Refresh bonus (EX: Immunity to only Fire). This turns out to be a strange middle ground in which you aren’t to immune to only one thing, but also are also not immune to everything except that one thing.
One of the reasons I ended up writing it up wrong in the first place is because it fits neither category, and brings to question as to whether its worth a total of -16 Refresh or just -8, and whether its possible to gain the Stacked Catch bonus as well.
-
I would give it the +2 Bonus for "only against one thing".
If I compare Immunity against Fire and Electicity against Immunity against Guns or Immunity against Magic, it doesnt seem overpowered.