ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Mal_Luck on April 09, 2010, 12:28:48 AM
-
Are there any requirements for joining the White Council? For instance, could a powerful Focused Practitioner join?
Can a Focused Practitioner have a Wizard's Constitution or the Soulgaze ability?
Why can't a Focused Practitioner use Refinement to increase the power/control/complexity of their Channeling/Rituals?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*UPDATED* I'm attempting to make an enchanted defense item somewhat similar to Harry's coat.
I've got 4 Enchanted Items slots and Good(+3) Lore, I want to make a collar/necklace that creates an always-on Earth-based electromagnetic field to STOP incoming bullets of most handguns of at least all Weapon:2 (Which means I need Armor:2?)
I think I can do this by using 1 slot to make the item, and 1 slot to increase it's strength to 4. Then I halve that to make it always-on... so it has Armor:2, but only the character that made it can use it?
Would I need to do something special to make it so it only affects metal?
-
1. No, I don't think so. There are a number of tests (probably spanning Evocation and Thaumaturgy), AND a minimum strength requirement.
2. Sure. Especially if they're young and "working their way up" to being a full Wizard.
3. Because having a specialty in something, when that's the only thing you can do, get's a bit unbalancing fairly quickly. Also, if they were good enough to get Refinement, they'd be good enough to have full Evocation and/or Thaumaturgy.
-
The requirement to joining the white council is being able to preform magic to a certain standard and variety. Largely focused practioners cant join simply because they lack versitility. A powerful focused practioner might have a wizard's constitution or a soulgaze ability though that would be more of a personal preference on wether or not the gm would allow it(i would). And my take on why they cant use refienment is because they are already refiened if you will, again though you might house rules to allow something like that.
Edit enchanted item: I think your basicly right on those accounts and maybe if you specificly only wanted it to affect metal i think that would be a more story line thing than actually costing more, like maybe if someone shoots a stone arrow at you no bonus or something like that.
-
If I'm doing the math right, IF a Focused Practitioner were able to use the Refinement Ability to increase power/control/complexity he could only use it a maximum of 3 times in that way. +1/+2 Power/Control(or vice versa) for the chosen type of elemental Channeling and +1/+2 for Complexity/Control(or vice versa) for chosen type of Ritual.
Even though I'm still learning rules for the Dresden RPG, that doesn't look to overpowered.
-
Actually...you're right. Huh. I guess my second reason (if you're good enough to get Refinement you're good enough to have Evocation or Thaumaturgy already), though I can see arguments for the other side as well.
-
And if the Focused Practitioner only had Channeling (or only Ritual), he'd only be able to have 1 Refinement. +1/+1 Power(or Complexity)/Control, since he can't have +2/+2.
I might house-rule this. If your pigeon-holed into one specialty, you might as well be great at it.
-
From my research, it seemed clear that focused practitioners who don't open themselves up to the full spectrum of magic have a kind of glass ceiling on them - like, they can't amass the kind of ability the Council would take seriously, something Harry's often chided them for in the books. So you get a weird sort of tiering, where no focused practitioner can be as good as a full wizard with the same specialty. They're sort of like oWoD sorcerers and hedge wizards (shout out to all the people I just dated myself for), except we decided one damn magic system was enough. ;)
So, that's why no other forms of refinement for focused practitioners. However, what you do at your table is between you and your peeps. :)
[EDIT: Harry chided the Council, not the practitioners. Oy.]
-L
-
Hmm, I was impressed by how much Binder could do with his focused practice...
Btw. did anyone stat Binder?
-
Hmm, I was impressed by how much Binder could do with his focused practice...
Btw. did anyone stat Binder?
No. Also bear in mind, that with a couple of Focus items, Binder Could easily have had something like 6 each in Control and Complexity for Summoning and Binding with Great Lore and Discipline and a couple of +2 Rings.
-
Hmm, he can take Refinement for additional Items.
So one Refinement means +2 for an Focus. Maximum for his Foci is his Lore skill.
OK I see how he can get quite high...
-
Hmm, he can take Refinement for additional Items.
So one Refinement means +2 for an Focus. Maximum for his Foci is his Lore skill.
OK I see how he can get quite high...
Yeah, if you assume he's got a dedicated ritual room somewhere with two +4 Items in it, one each for Complexity and Control, he only needs Great Lore and Great Discipline, plus, say, Good Conviction, to manage 8 Complexity and 8 Control on bindings casually and be able to do them at that level with perfect reliability in three rolls. Make that 4 or 5 rolls if he sticks a couple Aspects worth of prep on it and gets to Complexity 12 or 16. This only costs him 5 Refresh (2 for Ritual, 3 for Refinement), though it is handicapped by foci that powerful needing to be large, obvious, and obviously magical. On the other hand, it's thaumaturgy anyway, so he might not care about that.
-
You really really cannot generate a magnetic field strong enough to deflect bullets.
Mythbusters had an ep about it.
Well, in a magic universe I suppose you could, but it's going to screw over everything nearby.
-
*UPDATED* I'm attempting to make an enchanted defense item somewhat similar to Harry's coat.
I've got 4 Enchanted Items slots and Good(+3) Lore, I want to make a collar/necklace that creates an always-on Earth-based electromagnetic field to STOP incoming bullets of most handguns of at least all Weapon:2 (Which means I need Armor:2?)
I think I can do this by using 1 slot to make the item, and 1 slot to increase it's strength to 4. Then I halve that to make it always-on... so it has Armor:2, but only the character that made it can use it?
Sadly, no. Armor is equal to half the shifts you get...so 1 in this case.
Would I need to do something special to make it so it only affects metal?
Hmm. There's no set precedent, but I'd allow it as a disadvantage upping the level of the item. Probably even allow it to double the protection (cancelling out the Always On factor) since it's so limiting. Making it the Armor 2 you wanted. :)
That's obviously my opinion only, but metal only is actually a really bad downside, considering it doesn't apply to the hands and feet the vampires use to beat you to death.
-
It would be an nice object for an Fairie...
but I would'nt double the end result, I woul use +1 to the end result (and in this case would be the same).
-
It would be an nice object for an Fairie...
but I would'nt double the end result, I woul use +1 to the end result (and in this case would be the same).
I wasn't exactly doubling, so much as countering the normal halving for being always on. I'd say a one use item that can apply to whatever I want, and one that's on all the time but with an extremely narrow focus are about equivalent.
-
Which would result in an max. +4 Bonus at Char. Generation.
If thats possible, I would be - as an player - thinking about layering that +4 Armor Bonus.
One Item against Metall Weapon.
One Item against Death vegetable Matter. (like Wood)
One Item against NeverNever Goo
But even without this, for an Changeling with Supernatural Recovery: Catch Iron...
An +4 Armor against Metall Weapons would be a must have. (+3 is still very nice).
If the Char. in question doesnt have X Recovery or X Thoughness, then its not as big a problem.
But the moment you have such a Char...
-
Sadly, no. Armor is equal to half the shifts you get...so 1 in this case.
Armor wearable by everyone.
p279, "The strength of an enchanted item may be reduced by one to make it usable by someone other than the caster, such as a magically armored coat that anyone can wear."
From my understanding, that means you'd only halve it if others could use it. I suppose the item in question could only be powered by being in contact with it's creator's magical aura, so those other than the creator who try to wear it would get none of the benefits.
I'm considering just metal and maybe electricity(Air or Earth-based) and spirit(the electromagnetism would be magical in nature after, but I see no reason it would deflect/impede a direct Earth, Wind, Fire, or Air attack). And since it would only work for the creator when using it, maybe only work while he was wearing it (to counter the effect it would have on other things nearby) maybe even require a charge time (like at least 5 minutes after putting on)?
Maybe I should just downgrade it to a multi-use item, I could get rid of my extra Enchanted Items slots that way... Enchanted shield/armor type items are giving me a headache.
-
No. Check out p. 252 for how to calculate spell based armor, and p. 279 for the following:
"The uses-per-session limitation may be removed by halving the base strength, rounded down; so if you have Good (+3) Lore, you could create a one-use-per-session item with an effect strength of Good (+3), or an always-on item with an effect strength of Average (+1).
The strength of an enchanted item may be reduced by one to make it usable by someone other than the caster, such as a magically armored coat that anyone can wear."
These are seperate and cumulative. So a coat that provides armor 1 and anyone can wear requires Superb Lore to get in one Enchanted Item Slot. To provide Armor 2 you'd need the equivalent of Lore 8 (9 if other people can wear it).
-
Not Lore 12?
I thought that -1 is at the end?
(12 / 2 = 6 / 2 = 3 -1 = 2)
-
I think it's before the halving. Raising via extra item slots is before, I'd assume this is, too.
-
What's the difference between a Block and Armor? For a defensive item that's always on, I'd use Armor.... For a spell I'd use Block.... correct?
Can you even make an always-on Block enchanted item?
-
A block is more binary. It stops an effect cold or it breaks.
Armor always absorbs some impact.
-
Why can't a Focused Practitioner use Refinement to increase the power/control/complexity of their Channeling/Rituals?
If I'm doing the math right, IF a Focused Practitioner were able to use the Refinement Ability to increase power/control/complexity he could only use it a maximum of 3 times in that way. +1/+2 Power/Control(or vice versa) for the chosen type of elemental Channeling and +1/+2 for Complexity/Control(or vice versa) for chosen type of Ritual.
Even though I'm still learning rules for the Dresden RPG, that doesn't look to overpowered.
I suspect that the reason has to do with sorcerers, not focused practitioners. If FPs could get Refinement x2, why couldn't sorcerers get more (not that I would necessarily make that argument)? But if sorcerers can get more than Refinement x2, what separates them from a wizard?
I do agree that letting FPs would not, from what I've absorbed, be overpowering. I would think that, in fact, it would go along with Harry's comments that they're not featherweights and can do things in their fields that he can't figure out. I wouldn't mind seeing an Evil Hat dev give an explanation for this rule (if they have, I haven't seen it; would appreciate a link).
-
The rhetoric in the series certainly points at the FP and Sorcerer as being impressive, but not necessarily being very *deep* in their practice. Refinement is, as you've sussed, meant to be the way this is distinguished. If a FP is looking to spend another couple refresh on spellcraft, the expectation is that the advancement path is FP -> Sorcerer -> Wizard, rather than FP -> FP with more Refinement. (There are alternative paths, of course, where the FP ability sets evolve into something more like Sponsored Magic, but I'm talking main sequence here.)
That said, you won't *break* things (much, at least) by allowing greater amounts of refinement, for the "lesser" practitioners, but you'll also muddy the waters of those distinctions. If muddying those waters is attractive to you, do it! Harry's speaking from the perspective of the White Council; even if he thinks they're a bunch of fuddy-duddies, that doesn't mean he hasn't been soaking in the rhetoric, and maybe the rhetoric is wrong. On the other hand, series reality so far points strongly (if not 100% consistently) at the wizards as at least one weight class above the other kinds of practitioners, so keeping those distinctions unmuddied may give you an experience closer to what you get in the books.