ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Watson on September 12, 2011, 01:40:48 PM
-
I have done some thinking around the four powers Evocation (-3) vs Channeling (-2), Thaumaturgy (-3) vs Ritual (-2).
My conclusion is that it feels like Channeling is not as limited compared to Evocation, whereas Ritual is very much more limited compared to Thaumaturgy. What I mean is that a person using Channeling can do all types of actions (Attack, Block, Counterspell, Maneuver) that a person with Evocation can do (except that the person with Channeling only have one element to work with, which is more or less color). But if you compare Ritual and Thaumaturgy, a person using Ritual is limited to only one kind of Thaumaturgy (which I see as a much bigger limitation than only having one element to work with) and both “lesser versions” cost on less Refresh than the equivalent “full version”.
I don’t see it as a real problem and the two “lesser versions” of the powers do not necessarily have to be equal, but I thought it would be a good topic for some discussions.
Anyone else that have noticed the same thing?
-
On the other hand, the free 1 point of specialization for full evocation can be a pretty big deal. On the ritual hand, you are still theoretically able to pull off 'big' rituals without needing to have full thaumaturgy. So if you just want the power to, say, make peoples hearts explode, you can just pay 2 points for ritual, and do that.
-
I would agree that Channeling is less affected by its restrictions because creativity can make up a lot for the loss of most elements. Further, many spells work more or less the same for each element, at least rulewise.
On the other hand, thaumaturgy is much more powerful, so I see the point in restricting it more than evocation.
-
Note: The below is a house rule, and not a perfect one... we may be tossing it, in fact.
One of the things my group did to help balance what you're seeing is make evocation elements matter more... but that caused a ripple effect of other problems.
Multi-element wizards are more versatile and therefore more useful/more powerful with what we've done... but foci vs specialization are no longer balanced, and some other minor problems have reared up.
-
Yes, if you are creative enough, you can do a lot with channeling only one element. On the other hand, if you have a GM that is equally creative, he will still compel the hell out of you. Or you might just get more opportunities to self compel, either way, you'll end up with a pile of fate points.
I see that being true for ritual vs. thaumaturgy as well. Granted, some specialisations are better for some things than others, but that is equally true for channeling different elements.
Both channeling and ritual will leave blind spots in your arsenal in comparison to their more expensive counterparts. You can minimize but not eliminate those blindspots by creative use, but it is eliminated by buying the full power. I see them both pretty much en par.
-
The specialization bonus for Evocation/Refinement is more useful than for Thaumaturgy/Refinement, so that's what I think makes it even out.
-
Evocation compared to channeling:
1) One free specialization - which essentially is half a refinement.
2) Channeling can never take specialization through refinement.
3) Evocation further reduces the cost of all types of sponsored magic by 1.
4) Chanelling is only meant for those with unrefined or limited magical gifts - minor talents. If you are something more, you should have Evocation.
#1 means that the actual cost increase is negligible between Evocation and Channeling. #2 and #3 are significant bonuses. #4 means that the mechanical comparison makes no sense. If you are a powerful spellcaster, you should have Evocation. Only minor talents have channelling, thus making the difference mostly a moot point.
-
Evocation compared to channeling:
1) One free specialization - which essentially is half a refinement.
2) Channeling can never take specialization through refinement.
3) Evocation further reduces the cost of all types of sponsored magic by 1.
4) Chanelling is only meant for those with unrefined or limited magical gifts - minor talents. If you are something more, you should have Evocation.
#1 means that the actual cost increase is negligible between Evocation and Channeling. #2 and #3 are significant bonuses. #4 means that the mechanical comparison makes no sense. If you are a powerful spellcaster, you should have Evocation. Only minor talents have channelling, thus making the difference mostly a moot point.
Good points, I just wanted to add something to #2. Point for point specialization bonuses are worth a bit more than focus item slots because with focus items you need to specify not only the element and either power or control, but also whether it is for offensive or defensive magic. So to mimic the effect of a +1 fire power specialization, you would need to purchase two focus items, +1 fire offensive power and +1 fire defensive power. However this advantage slowly dwindles as you add more and more refinements because specializations need to follow a ladder while focus items do not.
-
This is one of those "gaming vs style" issues.
As gamers, we tend to see the most effective usages for points but sometimes style (the feel and mood of what you're trying for) is equally important.
Thaumaturgy vs Ritual is a big example of this, but a much bigger one is the Fae as a whole. Their weakness (iron) is common and well known, taking it to -3, so as gamers it makes sense to spend 4 points on toughness. Since the catch can't take toughness below +1 buying 4 points of toughness costs the same 1 refresh as buying the two point version - yet stylistically the 4 point version doesn't make sense for most Fae.
Part of the problem is low number of refresh used to buy powers. Sometimes I feel like multiplying everything by 10 (so each stunt would cost 10 refresh and feet in the water would start with 60 points of refresh) and then reworking the powers so that some of them cost 5 or 7 or maybe 37... Giving a wider point spread so that the differences between Thaumaturgy vs Ritual isn't equal to adding Cloak of Shadows to a character...
Of course then we'd be looking at more of a GURPS system and complicating the heck out of things, changing the feel of the system. Making FATE less streamlined and more numbers heavy...
To get back on topic, there are only two reasons for a PC to take Ritual:
1) It fits the character's overall theme, or
2) he can't afford to take Thaumaturgy.
Richard
-
Ritual can be better for the hyper-specialized Crafter who just has to have that extra half-Refinement. But only if he's at a low enough Refresh level that specializations aren't necessary.
Multiplying powers would be interesting, but it would have the drawback of making the Refresh - FP connection less clear.
-
Don't forget Theme-based Rituals. Some of those can do most, if not all of the things Thaumaturgy can do, despite the thematic differences. And also consider that unless you take Channeling: Spirit, you can't do a veil, a very good example of a limitation of Channeling.
-
To get back on topic, there are only two reasons for a PC to take Ritual:
1) It fits the character's overall theme, or
2) he can't afford to take Thaumaturgy.
#2 here is right on the money. Isn't there even a sidebar comment where we're told we can simply upgrade to Thaumaturgy once we get the Refresh?
-
My conclusion is that it feels like Channeling is not as limited compared to Evocation, whereas Ritual is very much more limited compared to Thaumaturgy. What I mean is that a person using Channeling can do all types of actions (Attack, Block, Counterspell, Maneuver) that a person with Evocation can do (except that the person with Channeling only have one element to work with, which is more or less color). But if you compare Ritual and Thaumaturgy, a person using Ritual is limited to only one kind of Thaumaturgy (which I see as a much bigger limitation than only having one element to work with) and both “lesser versions” cost on less Refresh than the equivalent “full version”.
I don’t see it as a real problem and the two “lesser versions” of the powers do not necessarily have to be equal, but I thought it would be a good topic for some discussions.
Anyone else that have noticed the same thing?
Regarding evocation / channelling - don't forget the element is an aspect. It can be invoked or compelled when appropriate. Take a fire attack as one example - the mage could invoke the fire aspect for extra damage to a black court vampire and an animated stone gargoyle could invoke the same fire aspect for a bonus to defense. If the mage were over water and attempting to throw fire spells around, I might compel the fire aspect as being overwhelmed by the water.
Point is, evocation elements matter. It simply relies on the aspect use and the GM (usually).
With thaumaturgy / ritual, it can be just as flexible as any single evocation element. Read Ghost Story to get an idea of what an ectomancer can accomplish. To avoid spoilers, I'll use biomancy as an example: wards would involve animals and plants, either pets or those around the dwelling; divination would consist of following an animal or looking through an animal's eyes; summoning would probably either use an animal as sacrifice or host or be limited to summoning animals; etc. The basic list of what you can accomplish (YS262) hasn't changed, it's just how you accomplish it and how much the method affects the narrative (i.e. do you use relevant aspects).
-
Their weakness (iron) is common and well known, taking it to -3
Think you meant +3 but it really should be a +4. +2 each for extremely common and being probably the most commonly known Catch after blampires and Loup Garou. Ask any three people on the street what kills fairies: one won't know and will look at you like you're weird, one will say AIDS because they're a jackass, and one will say iron.
Yeah, I know you can only use 3 of the +4 with 4 points of toughness powers but it's still there in case you upgrade later.
-
I was thinking of the final math. Since the Catch is subtracted from the cost of the power I usually think of it as a negative.
And if it could be worth 4 points then it makes buying 2-points of toughness even a worse buy. Assuming cold iron is worth 4 points as a catch:
2-points of toughness costs 1 point.
4-points of toughness costs 1 point.
6-points of toughness costs 2 points.
Point wise, what sense does it make to buy anything except the 6 point version? Yes doesn't make sense for every fairy to have that level of toughness. Theme wise, the 2 point version makes more sense for most fairies but point wise the inner min/max'er in me says 2 refresh for 6 is a much better deal than 1 for 2 or 4.
Richard
-
Well, let's say a Fae uses the Catch of Iron at +3, but splits the bonus across Inhuman Toughness and Inhuman Recovery, for a total of -1 refresh? Does that seem more reasonable than Supernatural Toughness?
-
Exactly what I was going to bring up. I have players that have done exactly that, though not as fae and not with iron. They had other powers they wanted so the six point toughness wasn't an option and the combination of toughness and recovery appealed to them more than a bump up to Supernatural.
-
I still consider it a design flaw.
I really like the houserule where the expected likelihood of The Catch being relevant determines the rebate provided.
-
All catches are equally relevant. How often they're actually put into play depends on how much of an evil bastich the GM is. Personally, I don't care if a character's catch is Meteor Strikes. If I need them to take a beating they can't instantly recover from for the story, they're going to. If it's interesting to the story but not essential, I'll let them enjoy their powers for the most part and occasionally throw them a curve ball to keep them honest. If it doesn't really matter to the story, it doesn't really matter.
-
I still consider it a design flaw.
I really like the houserule where the expected likelihood of The Catch being relevant determines the rebate provided.
I agree, but approach from a different direction... if it has a high rebate, that's the player telling me it's common and should come up often. It's not unreasonable to unclude a lot of iron in your game, and I'm just doing what the player wanted me to. ;D
-
All catches are equally relevant. How often they're actually put into play depends on how much of an evil bastich the GM is. Personally, I don't care if a character's catch is Meteor Strikes. If I need them to take a beating they can't instantly recover from for the story, they're going to. If it's interesting to the story but not essential, I'll let them enjoy their powers for the most part and occasionally throw them a curve ball to keep them honest. If it doesn't really matter to the story, it doesn't really matter.
I use their catch as a guideline. If the catch is a +0 or +1, then it won't come up often. If it's higher, the can expect to see it with some regularity. If it's 4 or more, they can expect a lot of attacks to include it.
-
Interesting... Would you allow someone not to take the full value of his toughness? For example, Fae have have iron as their catch. If a Fae linked PC had 2 points of toughness then the catch would only be worth one point while if another PC had 4 points of toughness it would be worth 3 points. Would the two of them face different levels of iron use, or would the person with 4 points of toughness be allowed to treat iron as a 1 point catch (so he would pay 3 points for his power) and encounter it as rarely as the other PC?
To get back on topic, the difference between a 2 point power (Channeling, Ritual) and a 3 point power (Evocation, Thaumaturgy) is usually much greater than the benefits you get from a 1 point power. The power growth seems almost geometric, or closer to geometric than linear.
Richar
-
If I had two fae (or even two anything with identical catches) in my game at the same time, I'd probably split the difference, and slide the occasional fate point in the direction of whichever player suffered more as a result.