ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Melendwyr on July 09, 2014, 06:00:29 PM

Title: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 09, 2014, 06:00:29 PM
I realize that the RPG was written pre-Turn Coat, and so had a limited amount of canonical material to work with.  The game's authors aren't psychic, able to know what Mr. Butcher intended.  And of course any game system will have limitations.

But as much as I like the game overall, I find myself unhappy with the way that magical practitioners with a specialized focus are address in the mechanics.  Hannah Ascher isn't an ideal example because her talents were being influenced.  However, it's notable that we never see or hear of her casting a spell that isn't directly connected with flame.  'Aristedes' actually has more capabilities than the game rules would permit.  But later-book Mortimer is a fantastic example of how the rules don't adequately represent what the characters can do.

Mortimer is 'only' an ectomancer.  He doesn't seem to have any abilities beyond that - not even Wizard Biology or the Sight, although I would argue that he has the innate ability to sense spirits without consciously enacting magic.  Yet he's described as being, in some ways, more powerful than Dresden - who is one of the top forty wizards on Earth.  Mortimer doesn't use focus items or ritual paraphernalia to any great degree, yet can enact spells that we're told make some of Dresden's look pretty crude.  And he can perform effects that would seem to be associated with Thaumaturgy (which is a slow method explicitly not suitable for combat) on the fly and so rapidly that they do actually impact combats.  One example of this involves temporarily 'imbuing' himself with the skills and powers of specific ghosts - effectively spirit possession in reverse.  And this at a moment's notice, while a madman tries to kill him.  Another is his improvisation of the wraith-firehose, which he constructed as a weapon with only about a minute's preparation.  And again, he managed to draw Butters' spirit back into his empty body quickly enough that CPR was able to keep the body alive.  Without any ingredients, ritual preparation, etc.

The rules for the 'Focused Practitioner' template aren't compatible with that.  It seems designed to represent untrained dabbling in magic, disallowing the options for improvement and specialization that wizards get.  There's really no way to represent a practitioner of magic who is obligatorily focused on a single aspect of the art.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 09, 2014, 06:12:49 PM
If you stick to the template, I agree. But those templates are best used as starting points or general inspiration, rather than law.

Then, there are quite a few things you can do. Ignore the specialization rules, for example, and just grow in power as a focused practitioner.

One solution I've often proposed is to have themed evocation. So instead of taking evocation with the usual 5 elements, you take evocation where all the elements (4-5 total) are different applications of your specialized magic. That way, you can skill per the normal rules, while staying with one element/specialization.

In addition, you could take powers that reflect spells you've come to master. For example, an aeromancer could be so good at speeding himself up, that it gives him the inhuman speed power. Or even the wing power, if he is able to manipulate the air around him with such ease, that he can fly. There's also the custom power list, if the available powers aren't covering what you are looking for.

There are a lot of options, even if they might not be obvious at first glance.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: bobjob on July 09, 2014, 06:30:55 PM
As Haru explains, some of the best ways to accomplish your goals are to ignore some of the restrictions and house rule it or use custom powers contributed by members of these boards. You said it best, the game designers aren't psychic and there hasn't been an update in years (where as we've had several new books by Jim expanding the flavor of magic). Just have to find a way to bridge the gap until Evil Hat can do it.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 09, 2014, 06:45:34 PM
It's not enough to ignore restrictions.  It's necessary to make entirely new rules.  People who have special skill in types of magic don't have any mechanical advantages over generic wizards at all.  Even if you totally disregard the limits on how power can be increased, they can't be any better at what they do than anyone else.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 09, 2014, 06:52:45 PM
They won't be any better if the other person has spent the same amount of refresh on the same powers, true. But why should they?

Though I'm not sure I understand 100%, could you give an in depth example of what you mean?
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 09, 2014, 07:23:21 PM
Because the generic wizard hasn't actually specialized to the degree that a true specialist has, yet can be just as good as the specialist, even though the specialist spends all of their training time and effort on a particular narrow branch of the art.

Mortimer, the book character, is a master of magics dealing with ghosts and spirits.  He doesn't use any of the trappings for his wizard spells - trappings that Harry tells us aren't technically needed but are aids - because he doesn't actually need them.  Harry doesn't even understand how Mortimer accomplishes all the things he does.

Yet in the RPG, even if we ignore the rules preventing people with the Ritual ability from improving, and even if we ignore the rule that requires specialization bonuses to be 'stacked' so that you can't have a +3 without having both a +2 and a +1,  and even if we grant them an initial specialization bonus like Thaumaturgists get, Focused Practitioners can't be better at what they do than generic Wizards who focus on the same subject - yet those Wizards can do everything the FPs can and more.

And that's not even touching the idea that focus items are really sort of 'training wheels' that compensate for magic users' limitations instead of granting true bonuses as in the game.  That's just a convention issue that I'm basically willing to accept for sake of simplicity.

FPs can't even pick up bonuses by invoking Aspects, because Wizards will have their own magic-related Aspects that will serve just as well.  The FPs aren't actually focused.  They are merely limited.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: polkaneverdies on July 09, 2014, 07:34:03 PM
Ghost story heavily implied or outright stated, that mort was actually strong enough to count as a wizard. He had simply fudged his test results in the same manner as Elaine to avoid be long pulled into the War.
 So the Mort vs Harry example would seem to be a heavily specialized wizard compared to a generic wizard. A focused practitioner vs a generic wizard might play out differently.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 09, 2014, 07:45:58 PM
You're kind of comparing apples and oranges there. Focused practitioners as the RPG template talks about them and focused practitioners as they are used in the book aren't 100% the same. To the RPG, they are defined as being weaker than wizards, because that's all we knew for a long time (the RPG goes up to Small Favor).

Ultimately, the RPG implies that once you are upgrading from being a focused practitioner, you are going to become some sort of wizard with the appropriate powers.

Now of course, that doesn't always have to be the case, but like I described above, there's a ton of possibilities to do what you want to do. You just don't get anything for free.

I see where "items are training wheels" comes from. They are tools, and Harry quite often refers to them as that. And that's exactly what they do in the game.

Looking at Mort and Harry, the most important difference is that Mort is "Chicago's resident ectomancer", while Harry is "not so subtle". Their area's of expertise are totally different, and even if Harry has similar numbers, that doesn't mean he automatically gets to do everything he wants. If a character has a high craftsmanship skill and a "Carpenter" aspect, he wouldn't automatically get to be a master blacksmith as well, just because he has a high craftsmanship skill.

Is there a particular character you can't seem to build in a way you want? Maybe that'd be a better way to solve your problem than trying to argue in the abstract.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 09, 2014, 08:01:53 PM
Is there a particular character you can't seem to build in a way you want? Maybe that'd be a better way to solve your problem than trying to argue in the abstract.

A magical practitioner who doesn't have the breadth of a wizard - and who can't do anything at all outside of a very narrow theme - but who has an advantage within his specialization.  Who is better at what he does than any wizard of roughly comparable experience and training.

I don't know - I suppose the right stunt could simulate this, in the same way that stunts are used to represent how (the book's example) a heart surgeon is distinct from a doctor, or a doctor distinct from someone who merely has lots of medical knowledge.  But heart surgeons can still do generic surgeon-y things.  They are limited in their mastery, not nearly as much in their general ability.

I want to be able to make a thematically-limited mage that isn't hamstrung within that limit, but empowered.  With the existing rules, even with the restrictions taken out and ignored, that isn't possible.  Any [something]-mancer, no matter how experienced, is going to be inferior within that field to a wizard who is experienced with the subject magics.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 09, 2014, 08:23:12 PM
Let's compare:
Evocation costs 3 refresh and grants you 3 evocation elements, 1 point of specialization and 2 focus item slots.

Channeling costs 2 refresh and grants you 2 focus item slots, but you can take 1 refresh of refinement, giving you 2 points for specialization.

So with the same amount of refresh spent, the focused practitioner has more power than the wizard, even if the wizard specializes in the same field. If you ignore the specialization stacking rules, this will never go away, if they spend the same amount of refresh on it.

But raw numbers don't mean nearly as much as what's around them. As a GM, I would allow the pyromancer a lot of different things than I would the wizard. The pyromancer is living by fire, thinking like fire. He could take "physical immunity to fire" as a power, if he likes, because his understanding of the element in question is just that good. I would hesitate to allow a regular wizard to take something like that. Or an aquamancer could take the aquatic power, something that a regular wizard would have a hard time explaining as well.

The problem is, "empowered" is a very broad phrase, and I don't really know what you mean by it, if I haven't covered it already. There's a million ways to address specific issues, but it's hard to do that if the issue is as vague as you are describing it.

So "I want to create a pyromancer that has an edge over a wizard in a firefight" is something that can be addressed, but "focused practitioners need to be empowered" isn't something I can work with.

I'm not trying to mock you or anything, far be it from me, I'm just trying to get to the core of your issue.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 09, 2014, 08:48:31 PM
Even under bog-standard canon rules, Mort's a better ectomancer than Harry. His skills might be a point or two lower since Harry's a much higher-Refresh character, but unlike Harry Mort has relevant focus bonuses.

But yeah, once a bunch of Refinements come into play full spellcasting is just better than Channelling/Ritual. So a dedicated focused practitioner should generally have Sponsored Magic or some kind of custom Power or just strongly-focused Evocation/Thaumaturgy.

I've known PCs with Evocation who never cast outside their favourite element, so it can definitely work.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 10, 2014, 08:35:30 PM
Let's compare:
Evocation costs 3 refresh and grants you 3 evocation elements, 1 point of specialization and 2 focus item slots.

Channeling costs 2 refresh and grants you 2 focus item slots, but you can take 1 refresh of refinement, giving you 2 points for specialization.
 

No, Channeling doesn't permit taking Refinement for specialization.  It can only get you more focused item slots (or enchanted item slots if you trade them in).

By the numbers, a FP can be better than a wizard who doesn't pay any attention to that field (at least with Evocation, Thaumaturgy grants you access to all kinds of ritual magic) but can never be better than a wizard whose bonuses are placed in that field.  If I've understood the rules correctly, granted.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 10, 2014, 08:36:12 PM
Even under bog-standard canon rules, Mort's a better ectomancer than Harry. His skills might be a point or two lower since Harry's a much higher-Refresh character, but unlike Harry Mort has relevant focus bonuses.

Oh?  What focus items does Mort have?
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 10, 2014, 08:57:55 PM
Honestly, I don't know. But he has the focus slots, he must have used them on something.

Assuming we're talking game Mort rather than novel Mort, of course. Novel Mort might not even use foci - the books seem to emphasize them a bit less than the game, in my experience.

PS: You might want to look in the canon character thread on the Resources board, there are some Mort stats there.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 10, 2014, 09:07:05 PM
No, Channeling doesn't permit taking Refinement for specialization.  It can only get you more focused item slots (or enchanted item slots if you trade them in).
I thought we'd agreed to hang those rules. ;)

Quote
By the numbers, a FP can be better than a wizard who doesn't pay any attention to that field (at least with Evocation, Thaumaturgy grants you access to all kinds of ritual magic) but can never be better than a wizard whose bonuses are placed in that field.  If I've understood the rules correctly, granted.
Like I said, the rules are assuming that a focused practitioner is not just a wizard who is specialized in one field, but someone with less overall magic, so if they were to spread it out, it would too little overall to actually do any magic, that's why they are specialized like that. Wizards just have a larger reservoir of magic to draw from, so even if they do a sloppy spell, there's more than enough to make it happen. But even if you keep to the specialization rules, you can have a lot of bonuses on items, which will be more than enough in most cases.

And then, of course, there are aspects. I touched on it before, but maybe let's take an example. We have a wizard who is specialized in fire magic, a warden maybe, with 3 points in fire specializations and maybe 2 points in items, so overall, not a newbie. And then we've got a fire dancer, with 6 points in items, just to make them equal in refresh spent.

Now when it comes to slinging around fire, the warden is probably going to be better, granted. That's his job, after all. But lets look at more subtle usages. Like going into a burning building and getting out a group of kids. The warden would have to use brute force to will  the fire away, and I would have the fire resist him at a skill of 5 or 6. But the fire dancer is so used to playing with the flames, that for him, this is a whole lot easier, maybe a roll of 3 or 4. Instead of forcing the fire away, he dances with the flames, lulls them in, calms them down, etc., and so he creates a path for the kids to escape.


But ultimately, if you want to create a character like the one you are looking for, you'll have to do a bit of work on tweaking things, because the focused practitioner from Your Story just isn't the same as the kind of character you have in mind. You could look at the custom power list, especially the "incite effect" section, it might be the power you're looking for.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: vultur on July 11, 2014, 03:53:41 AM
Even under bog-standard canon rules, Mort's a better ectomancer than Harry. His skills might be a point or two lower since Harry's a much higher-Refresh character, but unlike Harry Mort has relevant focus bonuses.

And, if so, they're only higher in the later books. Harry is Conviction-focused, which isn't that important for thaumaturgy. His post-Storm Front stats are only Good Lore and Discipline. As of the last few books, yeah, he's probably got a Superb in at least one of those (and probably Fantastic Conviction) but that would have taken him quite a while.

If Mort has, say, Great Lore and Discipline, Ritual (ectomancy) gives him two focus item slots. If he has a +1 control +1 complexity item, he can draw one shift of power per exchange with no risk. Plus, he probably has Ghost Speaker to do some basic 'ectomancy' without even having to use a ritual (yeah, he doesn't have that in OW, but...)

So he's definitely better at ectomancy than early-books Harry.

(And it's probably even more lopsided, since a lot of the stuff Mort does might run into a "Not So Subtle..." aspect compel for Harry. He has the Spirit evocation to do veils, but until Changes, he really doesn't.)


Like I said, the rules are assuming that a focused practitioner is not just a wizard who is specialized in one field, but someone with less overall magic,

And that does seem to be the general rule in the Dresdenverse. There's one possible exception but (SG SPOILER)
(click to show/hide)

Mort is impressive, but I think a full Wizard who spent all his time and focus into ectomancy would be better.

Quote
But ultimately, if you want to create a character like the one you are looking for, you'll have to do a bit of work on tweaking things, because the focused practitioner from Your Story just isn't the same as the kind of character you have in mind.

Yeah.

Channeling doesn't technically allow it, but the real mechanical issue IMO is the Refinement pyramid. You could at least get to "+1 power, +2 control" or "+1 control, +2 complexity" before running into problems with that though. That, plus focus items, will get you pretty far.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 11, 2014, 06:34:33 PM
I've seen the suggestions for specialist mages using Sponsored Magic with abstract concepts, somewhat like the way the game handles big-N Necromancers.  But I never got the impression that Mortimer was a servant of ghostly powers, just a guy who cared.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: potestas on July 11, 2014, 10:39:26 PM
Ghost story heavily implied or outright stated, that mort was actually strong enough to count as a wizard. He had simply fudged his test results in the same manner as Elaine to avoid be long pulled into the War.
 So the Mort vs Harry example would seem to be a heavily specialized wizard compared to a generic wizard. A focused practitioner vs a generic wizard might play out differently.
I just reread the book he is in no way like a wizard extremly limited. The fact of the matter is the rules for the game suck and do a lousy job representing the stuff in the book. Also harry is a sucky wizard, hes strong thats it. His ability to actually do wizard stuff also seems limited. The book makes it lok like you need to learn spells the game lets you describe you stuff as spells so escentialy  you know all spells game sucks and that is why  we have crap loads of house rules.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 12, 2014, 12:12:55 AM
Nope. I actually like this game's magic system a lot.

I have loads of house rules mostly because I like to tinker. There are some things I think are flawed, but obviously I like this game enough to choose it over everything else.

I've seen the suggestions for specialist mages using Sponsored Magic with abstract concepts, somewhat like the way the game handles big-N Necromancers.  But I never got the impression that Mortimer was a servant of ghostly powers, just a guy who cared.

That's what Self-Sponsored Magic is for. Mechanically identical (more or less) to Sponsored Magic, but no actual sponsor.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 12, 2014, 01:02:36 AM
We have a lot of house rules, because the game designers actively encourage players to make up their own rules to fit their playstyle.

Nowhere in the novels does it say that you need to learn spells. Magic is you imposing your will on reality, and that's covered pretty well by the game system. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it actually does a pretty good job at covering the dresdenverse as we know it (or at least knew it up to that point).
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: potestas on July 12, 2014, 02:26:55 AM
We have a lot of house rules, because the game designers actively encourage players to make up their own rules to fit their playstyle.

Nowhere in the novels does it say that you need to learn spells. Magic is you imposing your will on reality, and that's covered pretty well by the game system. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it actually does a pretty good job at covering the dresdenverse as we know it (or at least knew it up to that point).
in the first book he had to work out how the heart spell was done. Dresden has maybe 4 or 5 spells. He has rarely used any thing beyond those.he Implies others can. The game system actually only has 3 spells block, attack, and maneuver.  Thats it it blows. Basically you dont have to anything else. I block him from seeing, iblock him from moving. As far as mechanics go its a bore. The rule system has stripped away all the game and left you with a couple of people debating what happened how it hapened and another other person pissed that it wasnt done his way.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 12, 2014, 03:10:51 AM
What are you talking about? I can't follow that last sentence at all.

As for the contention that it's boring...that's FATE. It's got little to do with the spellcasting system in particular. I can understand why you'd want a more complex system, but for me (and lots of other people) part of the appeal is that practically everything can be modelled in a few simple ways.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: PirateJack on July 12, 2014, 03:47:43 PM
in the first book he had to work out how the heart spell was done. Dresden has maybe 4 or 5 spells. He has rarely used any thing beyond those.he Implies others can. The game system actually only has 3 spells block, attack, and maneuver.  Thats it it blows. Basically you dont have to anything else. I block him from seeing, iblock him from moving. As far as mechanics go its a bore. The rule system has stripped away all the game and left you with a couple of people debating what happened how it hapened and another other person pissed that it wasnt done his way.

That's the entire appeal of the FATE system for me. It's simple, quick and you only have a few differences between mêlée and magic when it comes to mechanics. Besides, RPGs are just a complicated way of letting multiple people make up a story; the mechanics are there to introduce a bit of chance into the mix so that, yes, a debate between people over what happened and how.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 12, 2014, 05:53:01 PM
Nowhere in the novels does it say that you need to learn spells. Magic is you imposing your will on reality, and that's covered pretty well by the game system. I'm sorry if you don't like it, but it actually does a pretty good job at covering the dresdenverse as we know it (or at least knew it up to that point).

Overall, I'd say your last claim is true.  But on this particular issue, the rules do NOT do a good job of representing the novel's version of Dresden's world - not up to the point of Small Favor, and definitely not after that point.  There are other points where the rules also break down - such as Spirit evocation being so much more option-heavy and thus more powerful than the other elemental evocations.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: potestas on July 12, 2014, 08:45:06 PM
Overall, I'd say your last claim is true.  But on this particular issue, the rules do NOT do a good job of representing the novel's version of Dresden's world - not up to the point of Small Favor, and definitely not after that point.  There are other points where the rules also break down - such as Spirit evocation being so much more option-heavy and thus more powerful than the other elemental evocations.
in all the novels hd has to understand how to do something before he can do it storm front good example
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 13, 2014, 04:59:05 AM
Not sure what you're trying to say there, potestas.

Overall, I'd say your last claim is true.  But on this particular issue, the rules do NOT do a good job of representing the novel's version of Dresden's world - not up to the point of Small Favor, and definitely not after that point.

Sorry, on which particular issue?

Learning spells? Focused Practitioner capabilities?

There are other points where the rules also break down - such as Spirit evocation being so much more option-heavy and thus more powerful than the other elemental evocations.

I suspect that comes from a misguided attempt to emulate the novels, actually.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 13, 2014, 06:08:24 PM
in all the novels hd has to understand how to do something before he can do it storm front good example
I believe you've got things a bit backwards here. What you are eluding to above with attack, defend and maneuver, those are not spells, those are the 3 standard actions of Fate, they count for everything you do in the game, not just spells. If a character has a high craftsmanship skill, that doesn't mean he can do everything crafty, he'd still need an aspect describing what exactly it is he can do. Or a high scholarship skill doesn't mean you know everything there is to know, it's going to have to be subject to your aspects, again. They are a big part of this, and I feel like you are totally ignoring them when it comes to this.

So just because I have thaumaturgy, doesn't mean I know everything that might be possible to do with magic. I know what is reasonable for my character to know, based on who he is and what he's done in the past. So in your Strom front example, I agree, that from a purely mechanical standpoint, Harry would be able to do the heart exploding spell. Or I should probably say "a" heart exploding spell, as there are a lot of ways to pull something like that off in the dresdenverse, as each wizard is going to do it a bit different. Regardless, it's not something Harry has ever attempted, or even thought about much. He could ask Bob and do some research, if he had to pull it off, but that's going to take a lot of time and effort, just like in the novel. And even now that he knows how to work a spell like that, he doesn't use it, because that's just not who he is.

There's a lot more to the game than just the pure numerical mechanics. I've vetoed a lot of spells, just because they didn't fit or would take way longer than just "putting up a few aspects". Like the book says, it's about the story of the spell, and that can make all the difference to how it is going to feel.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: toturi on July 14, 2014, 06:41:44 AM
If a character has a high craftsmanship skill, that doesn't mean he can do everything crafty, he'd still need an aspect describing what exactly it is he can do. Or a high scholarship skill doesn't mean you know everything there is to know, it's going to have to be subject to your aspects, again. They are a big part of this, and I feel like you are totally ignoring them when it comes to this.

So just because I have thaumaturgy, doesn't mean I know everything that might be possible to do with magic. I know what is reasonable for my character to know, based on who he is and what he's done in the past.
So following this line of reasoning... just because your character has high Alertness doesn't mean he can react quickly unless he has an Aspect for it? A character with high Athletics cannot make use of that unless he has an Aspect stating he dodges bullets for a living? Or he can only use Athletics to dodge bullets but not punches?
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 14, 2014, 02:03:30 PM
So following this line of reasoning... just because your character has high Alertness doesn't mean he can react quickly unless he has an Aspect for it? A character with high Athletics cannot make use of that unless he has an Aspect stating he dodges bullets for a living? Or he can only use Athletics to dodge bullets but not punches?
Well, sort of. The thing with dodging and defense rolls is that they are (partially) passive. It's just as much about how you move around in general, as it is about actively moving away from harm. I would question a high athletics skill if the aspects don't match up, though. That doesn't mean there have to be detailed explanations, but a general sense of how good he can be. Usually, that isn't even a problem, because the character idea will bring forth both the aspects and the skills, so they will more often than not match up anyway.

But it's different when it comes to active use of a skill. You can be an elite soldier with high athletics, but that doesn't mean you can do a backflip, or navigate a laser grid with your nimble cheerleading skills. You might have another way to use the skill, but you'll describe it differently. And that's exactly my point. I don't want to prohibit people from using their skills, I want them to use their skills in a way their character would actually do.

For example, I had a player with a wizard that was specialized in plant based thaumaturgy. But when it came to creating a trap for someone, he started talking blastwaves and explosions, etc. I stopped him and reminded him of what his character is actually about, and he switched that up and it became a vine trap instead. Mechanically, it was pretty much the same, Fate doesn't have many different actions, after all, but it felt a whole lot different, once the spell was cast.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: blackstaff67 on July 14, 2014, 02:25:38 PM
in all the novels hd has to understand how to do something before he can do it storm front good example
I rather equate the Thaumaturgy in the game with reverse engineering something you've see done" "Okay, I don't know HOW he did it, but knowing that he DID do it and that it CAN be done is half the problem right there."  You go quickly (with Bob's help) into theory (and possibly gray and not-so-gray areas of magic) to figure things out.

Regarding emulating the books: Please keep in mind JB wasn't writing the books with the intention of having a game be based off them; he was writing to tell a story.  If the game can't perfectly emulate the books, that's fine with me; it still captures the nature and feel of the Dresdenverse.  I'm too lazy to link to it but in the "Other game systems" thread I was going to use West End's D6 system for my own home-brewed DFRPG before I ran into this particular set of rules.  Feel free to use that as well, it's free online, but be prepared to do some serious math for the magic spells (says the voice of experience).
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 14, 2014, 07:50:49 PM
I suspect that comes from a misguided attempt to emulate the novels, actually.

[grits teeth]

That is the point of this roleplaying game.  If I were not interested in emulating the novels, I'd have no reason to adopt and learn yet another RPG rules system.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 14, 2014, 07:58:14 PM
I disagree, for the record, but I don't think this is a good place for that discussion.

Regardless, if your novel-emulation gives you bad rules then you did it wrong. There's no reason why you can't have both good rules and a novel-like game.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 14, 2014, 08:31:23 PM
Precisely.  Which is why I'm trying to figure out the rules-changes necessary to permit this system to represent characters like Mortimer.  I don't see the point of your comment.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 14, 2014, 08:37:32 PM
Precisely.  Which is why I'm trying to figure out the rules-changes necessary to permit this system to represent characters like Mortimer.  I don't see the point of your comment.
The problem is, that you only claim that a character like Mort isn't possible, but other than that, you don't have any examples on where the rules clash with your vision of how Mort should look like in the rpg. There have been a dozen and a half versions of Mort on this board, I think, so it is obviously possible to put him into numbers, so please understand that your argument is quite confusing.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 14, 2014, 08:57:11 PM
The problem is, that you only claim that a character like Mort isn't possible, but other than that, you don't have any examples on where the rules clash with your vision of how Mort should look like in the rpg.

I've already given examples.  Early-books Mort is barely seen, and so easily fits inside the rules.  The Mort we see in Ghost Story is another matter entirely, and he has considerable powers despite not fitting the mold provided for Focused Practitioners.  The rules provided don't permit characters like Mort to exist.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 14, 2014, 09:05:27 PM
That Mort didn't exist when the RPG was written. And he can easily be modeled by giving him "Mimic Abilities" coupled with "Human Form" (to limit the use of powers to times when he is linked with a ghost) and a list of ghosts he might have access to.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 14, 2014, 09:17:38 PM
That Mort didn't exist when the RPG was written.
  As I mentioned in the very first post.  Nevertheless, the fact that the novels have expanded our understanding of the Dresdenverse means that the RPG is no longer adequate for producing the 'feeling' of the novel's setting.

Quote
And he can easily be modeled by giving him "Mimic Abilities" coupled with "Human Form" (to limit the use of powers to times when he is linked with a ghost) and a list of ghosts he might have access to.
  That might be an adequate representation of a single power; he has others not readily represented by the rules.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Taran on July 14, 2014, 09:19:22 PM
You could give him Ghost Speaker?  Then he can do 'at will' what a normal wizard can only do with the time and effort of a Ritual.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 14, 2014, 09:24:46 PM
he has others not readily represented by the rules.
What powers are you referring to? I've yet to run into a power that was impossible to model with the system, one way or the other. I kind of get the impression you want to dislike the system. Which is fine, but if that's the case, please tell me, so I can stop bothering to try to give you a solution.

If you want help getting a sheet for Mort that matches what you have in mind, I need to know what exactly is on your mind. Otherwise, there's really not much I - or anyone - can help you with.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 14, 2014, 10:01:26 PM
You could give him Ghost Speaker?  Then he can do 'at will' what a normal wizard can only do with the time and effort of a Ritual.
  Certainly I think that's required - he seems able to see and converse with ghosts without expending effort of any kind.  It would probably also explain how he's been able to develop his spellcasting without having any (other) magical senses.  As Harry has pointed out previously, anyone could learn to do magic - but without the ability to sense its flows, it's like the blind learning to paint.

He doesn't seem to use any focus items at all.  Yet he's clearly capable of pumping power into a rapid ritual - and of conducting that ritual without physical aids, not even a physical circle.  Harry isn't skilled enough to simply imagine the circle and let that be enough.

The suggestion to adapt Sponsored Spellcasting, removing the need to have a particular sponsor, isn't a terrible one.  It's a bit of an awkward kludge, but it would at least provide a rules basis for Mortimer managing ritual effects "with the speed of evocation".  Fast enough to manage some simple effects within combat, in fact.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 14, 2014, 10:23:38 PM
You really should look at the canon character stat thread on the Resources board.

I don't see the point of your comment.

Which comment?
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: toturi on July 15, 2014, 01:57:54 AM
But it's different when it comes to active use of a skill. You can be an elite soldier with high athletics, but that doesn't mean you can do a backflip, or navigate a laser grid with your nimble cheerleading skills. You might have another way to use the skill, but you'll describe it differently. And that's exactly my point. I don't want to prohibit people from using their skills, I want them to use their skills in a way their character would actually do.

For example, I had a player with a wizard that was specialized in plant based thaumaturgy. But when it came to creating a trap for someone, he started talking blastwaves and explosions, etc. I stopped him and reminded him of what his character is actually about, and he switched that up and it became a vine trap instead. Mechanically, it was pretty much the same, Fate doesn't have many different actions, after all, but it felt a whole lot different, once the spell was cast.
I disagree. All of the trappings of the skill are available to the character. If some of the trappings are to be made unavailable to the character via their Aspects, then it is/they are a Compel/s.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on July 15, 2014, 12:30:01 PM
I disagree. All of the trappings of the skill are available to the character. If some of the trappings are to be made unavailable to the character via their Aspects, then it is/they are a Compel/s.
I'm not talking about trappings, I'm talking about how those trappings are used. Michael and Charity both have high craftsmanship skills. Michael is a carpenter, but he doesn't know how to work with metal, that's why Charity builds and repairs his armor. But Charity is no carpenter, so it's up to Michael to do anything related to that. Yet both of them are using craftsmanship with all its trappings. If Michael's player started to say he is now building something complicated out of metal, I would remind him of who his character can do, and he would be able to solve his problem with craftsmanship, just as he had planned, but in a carpenter way instead.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: JGray on July 15, 2014, 10:41:28 PM
I am curious. Wouldn't a simple house rule to the Refinement power, allowing focused practitioners to buy specialties for their chosen field, fix any issue with modeling Mortimer as portrayed in later books?
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: PirateJack on July 15, 2014, 11:12:57 PM
Not really, because specialisations require more than one element to give you more than a +2 in anything (+1 power/+2 control in Ectomancy, for instance).
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Taran on July 15, 2014, 11:20:26 PM
Not really, because specialisations require more than one element to give you more than a +2 in anything (+1 power/+2 control in Ectomancy, for instance).

You could allow sub-specialties.  Summoning (ectomancy); Binding (ectomancy); Wards (ectomancy).

Because, technically, you can do any of the types of Thaumaturgy as long as it fits 'theme'.  So, I'd allow an ectomancy to have 'wards' except those Wards are represented by Shades and ghosts that patrol an area (ward) and attack intruder(landmine/reflecting damage).

Then you can have ectomancers that are very, very good at a specific type of ectomancy.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on July 15, 2014, 11:23:20 PM
Thematic specialists can craft in their chosen field. So buying crafting specializations makes some sense for them.

But honestly, upgrading to Thaumaturgy costs only 1 Refresh and comes with a specialization. So you might as well just do it.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: toturi on July 16, 2014, 03:25:40 AM
I'm not talking about trappings, I'm talking about how those trappings are used. Michael and Charity both have high craftsmanship skills. Michael is a carpenter, but he doesn't know how to work with metal, that's why Charity builds and repairs his armor. But Charity is no carpenter, so it's up to Michael to do anything related to that. Yet both of them are using craftsmanship with all its trappings. If Michael's player started to say he is now building something complicated out of metal, I would remind him of who his character can do, and he would be able to solve his problem with craftsmanship, just as he had planned, but in a carpenter way instead.
I still think it is a Compel. Michael wants to repair his armor, if the GM thinks he should do it in carpentry way, he can offer a Compel. Which Michael's player can buy off.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on July 16, 2014, 03:29:02 PM
I prefer to exercise the option to make people define what sorts of things they can do with skills like Craftsmanship or Performance.  If they try something outside those bounds, they get perhaps a +1 for general experience, and that's all; if you're practiced in watercolors and line drawing, you can't suddenly burst into song and expect people to be impressed.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: vultur on July 18, 2014, 02:59:03 AM
Has somebody already posted Deadmanwalking's stats for Mort as of GS?

http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16552.msg1772582.html#msg1772582

Personally, I'd give him Superb Discipline and Great Lore (and lower his Investigation) and make his focus item something small and portable like a ring so he can always have it. Those changes would make him quite impressive.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Midas on July 31, 2014, 03:39:46 AM
I still think it is a Compel. Michael wants to repair his armor, if the GM thinks he should do it in carpentry way, he can offer a Compel. Which Michael's player can buy off.
This is like saying that because I can hang drywall means I can install cabinets. Sure they both deal with building a house but they are very different specializations. The ability to hang drywall has absolutely no bearing on understanding how to install cabinets. They are different professions, such as carpentry and metalworking.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: solbergb on July 31, 2014, 01:32:57 PM
In my opinion, skills like Craft, Perform and Scholarship should be limited by aspects, just as magic is.

You'll be better at, say,  Craft carpentry because you have "Our Savior was also a Carpenter" as an aspect, anything vaguely related to carpentry in Craft can be done but doesn't get the benefit of invoking the aspect, and it can be compelled against other uses of Craft to harvest fate points if the GM thinks you're trying to do something too far from your character background.  You can then say "no, I apprenticed under a wielder when I was 20" or "I assist my wife with the armor, I'm not in her league but I know my way around metalwork" and pay a fate point to resist the compel, and that expansion becomes part of your story.

Stunts like Doctor or Demolition Expert obviously also inform the breadth of your skill (a demo expert likely knows a bit of chemistry as part of whatever scholarship they have, even if their college degree was in romantic poetry)
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: toturi on August 03, 2014, 02:52:39 AM
This is like saying that because I can hang drywall means I can install cabinets. Sure they both deal with building a house but they are very different specializations. The ability to hang drywall has absolutely no bearing on understanding how to install cabinets. They are different professions, such as carpentry and metalworking.
No I am saying that because you can do it all (unless you have an Aspect or Aspects that relates to the situation) you can install cabinets. Having a high Craftsmanship without any Aspects to compel means you can do it all.

A master carpenter has an Aspect relating to carpentry and a high Craftmanship.

A master metalworker has an Aspect relating to metalworking and a high Craftmanship.

Some guy with a high Craftmanship and no related Aspects/or a more positive/less limited Aspect can do everything.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: solbergb on August 03, 2014, 03:18:48 AM
Yeah.  Although it's unusual not to have something in the aspects related to your highest skills.

Eg, my Master Contractor who's about 60 and actually can do damn near anything related to maintaining or building a house might have a 4-5 craft and no aspects other than his high concept.   He'd have more trouble repairing a car than hanging drywall or installing plumbing, but he could actually probably figure it out, it'd just take longer and maybe require tools and information (eg, repair manual for that model) that he wouldn't have normally.

If the GM compelled his Master Contractor to make him unable to craft something not-house-related he'd spend a fate point and buy it off if he really wanted to repair a car, or take the fate point if he was willing to essentially say "I could, but I don't have the tools or the manual".

Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Midas on August 03, 2014, 04:09:01 PM
No I am saying that because you can do it all (unless you have an Aspect or Aspects that relates to the situation) you can install cabinets. Having a high Craftsmanship without any Aspects to compel means you can do it all.
This seems like a broken loop hole. No one is "able to do it all."

I would agree that given enough time, someone who is crafty could potentially figure out how to do something. However, their work would not be professional work.

So if one of my players has a high craftsmanship, and has never made/repaired armor before. I would let him make repairs, but there is no way that they would be great unless he had an aspect like "Jerryrigging Genius."
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: solbergb on August 03, 2014, 05:14:41 PM
I'd agree that the "fate point to buy off compel" situation would result in a jury-rigged result, or take more time than usual or something.  But for story purposes it'll work well enough, and really you should be providing an in-character reason for why you can do it (as my "I help my wife with the blacksmithing" example of Michael Carpenter buying off the compel with a fate point)  The later need to do it "right" will happen off-camera, or it'll become a running joke (like Harry's failed attempt to re-hang his steel door).

The person with high craft who did want to "do it all" would undoubtedly have some aspect that supported that (eg, I'm 2000 years old, I've studied a bit of everything...might be compelled to hint he's out of date, with option for fate point spent against the compel to indicate that he's actually kept up in that field)).   Or say, someone who wanted to speak a lot more languages than one per point of scholarship might have a "gift of tongues" aspect to invoke for effect if there's any doubt she can speak a given tongue (you make it part of your story....or you harvest a fate point to explain why this particular language is NOT one you speak)
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on August 03, 2014, 05:50:25 PM
A master carpenter has an Aspect relating to carpentry and a high Craftmanship.

A master metalworker has an Aspect relating to metalworking and a high Craftmanship.

Some guy with a high Craftmanship and no related Aspects/or a more positive/less limited Aspect can do everything.
That feels a bit like putting the cart before the horse. To me, the aspects come first. I describe who my character is and what he can do through his aspects. A master carpenter can do master carpentry, a master metalworker can do master metalwork. They don't need skills for it, it's what they do. Likewise a "Jack of all Trades" could do everything, but as the proverb continues, he's "master of none", so he can't just do the same things as the other two.

To me, skills don't necessarily reflect a mastered craft, they reflect a way to influence a scene. Granted, they often correlate, but they don't have to. Resources, for example can just as well mean you have a load of money to throw around, but it can just as well mean that you have learned how to get the most of what little you've got. Athletics can mean someone who moves around quickly, never stopping, or it can mean someone who has learned to move with incredible precision, so he doesn't have to move an inch more than he has to. And so forth.

So in your examples, all three of the characters can solve a situation with crafts, that's not what I'm opposing. What I am opposing is the description of how they do it. If they are described as one thing and act like another, there's a disconnect for me that simply doesn't match. It's like if there were a whole book of Harry doing accounting. It just doesn't fit who he is.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sanctaphrax on August 04, 2014, 09:14:20 PM
But if someone loses a capability because of their character concept, they should be compensated through Compels.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on August 04, 2014, 10:49:14 PM
Per the rules, you get only seven permanent Aspects.  Characters are often more complex than that - and some kinds of characters have 'hidden Aspects' when it comes to certain parts of the game, like wizards with unintentional hexing.

If someone wants to establish a detail that serves as a very specific Aspect for a particular topic, I'd have no problem with them doing that.  Harry's inability to speak Latin properly early in the series would be a good example - it's not part of his core seven, but it's a very obvious disadvantage that probably gets him a FP at several points.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: narphoenix on August 05, 2014, 12:06:27 AM
Per the rules, you get only seven permanent Aspects.  Characters are often more complex than that - and some kinds of characters have 'hidden Aspects' when it comes to certain parts of the game, like wizards with unintentional hexing.

If someone wants to establish a detail that serves as a very specific Aspect for a particular topic, I'd have no problem with them doing that.  Harry's inability to speak Latin properly early in the series would be a good example - it's not part of his core seven, but it's a very obvious disadvantage that probably gets him a FP at several points.

The idea is in theory sound, but in practice isn't used that often.

I'd pawn the Latin compels on his Trouble, actually. Because of his DOOM OF DAMOCLES and later the fact that he suffers from THE TEMPTATION OF POWER, he's left alienated from the rest of the Council. This would keep him from learning the language in the best way, immersion, and instead force him to rely on crappy correspondence courses.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on August 05, 2014, 03:49:51 PM
The fact that Justin DuMorne permitted Harry to use pseudoLatin for his spell activation phrases is also relevant - wizards aren't supposed to be fluent in the language they use for that purpose.

I suspect it's something that Harry can't easily change - that in practice, you can't use French for a particular spell one day and Mandarin the next.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Sammael on August 06, 2014, 07:51:39 AM
I would just go for "Specialized Practioner" as a higher, evolved, form of Focused Practitioner. I´m guessing their going for something like it in the Paranet Papers.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on August 06, 2014, 08:57:57 PM
Note:  the Bigfoot-themed sort stories suggest that what word you use with a spell isn't all that important.  'Smagt' is used for a particular combination of force and air magics.

It's still not clear whether another word could be substituted for that one and have that spell work properly.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: PirateJack on August 06, 2014, 10:59:15 PM
It's explicitly stated a few times that the words you use for an incantation only matter in that they provide some insulation against the power you're trying to channel through your mind. As long as they're disconnected (or you are) enough from your regular language/mindset then you're good to go. Any relationship between one spell and another's incantations comes purely from the Wizard rather than as a rule of magic.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on August 06, 2014, 11:22:30 PM
Yes, but once you've linked a word with a particular spell, can you change that word?  We have no direct evidence or testimony on that (very specific) topic.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: solbergb on August 07, 2014, 02:11:36 AM
Given that Fuego is pseudo-spanish where most of the rest of Harry's stuff is Pseudo-Latin, I'd say changing isn't easy.

Although you know.   Fuego!  Pyrofuego!!   Burn!!!   It can be adjusted at times for your non-rote effects.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Haru on August 07, 2014, 02:15:45 AM
Although you know.   Fuego!  Pyrofuego!!   Burn!!!   It can be adjusted at times for your non-rote effects.
Not only that, it works the other way around as well. If you have a rote attack spell weapon:4 named "Fuego", for example, you can easily yell Fuego when doing a weapon:3 spell, or a weapon:9 spell, or a maneuver to set the door on fire, or when throwing around fireballs to put up a block of fireball barrage. Every time you're doing the same thing, throwing around fireballs, so simply "Fuego" will work nicely.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: Melendwyr on August 07, 2014, 02:44:50 PM
In my headcanon, changing the activation word for a spell is something like changing the locks and ignition switch in a car.  It's certainly technically possible, but it's so much work that most of the time the payoff isn't worth the effort, and so no one does it casually.
Title: Re: I am dissatisfied with 'Focused Practitioners', particularly Mortimer (spoilers)
Post by: bobjob on August 07, 2014, 03:26:39 PM
An interesting thought: because of how Harry learned to cast spells (apprenticed to Justin DuMorne as a warlock enforcer), it's possible that DuMorne encouraged pseudo-latin or latin in his spells. It didn't appear Harry or Elaine were ever intended to meet the White Council, who hold their official meetings in Latin. Harry showing up there and forced to speak latin might actually cause him to cast a spell instead.