ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Nightbreed DOA on October 04, 2012, 05:13:43 PM
-
Do all rods have to be the same rectangular cylindrical shape as i have read in the novels? I created (in progress as i still try to understand the game) a character is a cowboy sorcerer who has a rod carved in a revolver shape so that he can use it to draw as if to use it in a shootout. I used the slots (Lore is at Great) like this: +1 offensive control, +1 Spirit, +2 offensive power. Hopefully did this right.
-
Elaine used rings and tattoos.
Focus items can be whatever shape you want.
-
I know, but i have never read or seen rods shaped differently, that's why i asked. ;D
-
The only real restriction to what focus items look like is the more powerful it is, the bigger it is. IIRC once you go past a +3 bonus, they start to lose practicality. I think the book says it would be like lugging around a basket ball sized object.
-
My concern is if you're allocating the slots right. You say it's Offensive Control+1, Spirit+1, and Offensive Power +2. For each slot, it has to be tied to one of offense or defense and a particular element.
So it would be Spirit Offensive Control+1, for example.
-
It also has to have the same bonus value across all the things it enhances:
If it enhances Spirit Offensive Power and Spirit Defensive Control (for example) it can't have SOP at +1 and SDC at +3-- they both have to be +1 or both +3.
I'm fairly certain they made this rule to make stronger foci actually stronger and not just a grab-bag of effects.
-
Actually, I think that's across different elements--like, you couldn't have Spirit Offense Power +1 and Water Defense Control +1, you'd need it to be Offensive Power or Defense Control +1 for both. I don't think that restriction applies to different types of bonuses within one element.
-
Actually, I think that's across different elements--like, you couldn't have Spirit Offense Power +1 and Water Defense Control +1, you'd need it to be Offensive Power or Defense Control +1 for both. I don't think that restriction applies to different types of bonuses within one element.
Correct sir. I'm paraphrasing, but YS page 278 you can split up points along the power/control offense/defense axis any way you want, but all elements attached to the focus item must all have the same bonus.
-
"All bonuses of an item always apply to all of the types on the item" could be interpreted multiple ways, I suppose. The fact that the very next page suggests a +2 offensive wind power +1 offensive wind control item does lend credence to Mr. Death's take.
But honestly it's a pretty dumb limitation either way so I prefer to ignore it.
Concentrating your bonuses into one item is already discouraged by the game, I see no need to make it a worse idea.
-
"All bonuses of an item always apply to all of the types on the item" could be interpreted multiple ways, I suppose. The fact that the very next page suggests a +2 offensive wind power +1 offensive wind control item does lend credence to Mr. Death's take.
But honestly it's a pretty dumb limitation either way so I prefer to ignore it.
Concentrating your bonuses into one item is already discouraged by the game, I see no need to make it a worse idea.
Yeah, that's the phrase I was going on-- but I went and looked it up after Mr. Death pointed that out, and he's right. It's just ambiguously written.
-
I think its more to limit the amount of elements that a single focus item can use. Making it so that you have to use multiple items for the different elements (much in the way that Dresden does with his rod, staff, and bracelet). This would limit the power you could pump into them because you have to use other slots for other items instead of having one item that can do everything.
Personally I preffer to make a bunch of enchanted item, the downside to those being that they have a limited number of uses.
-
This would limit the power you could pump into them because you have to use other slots for other items instead of having one item that can do everything.
Having multiple items increases the amount of power you can pump in, actually.
-
Having multiple items increases the amount of power you can pump in, actually.
I thought you couldn't stack bonuses from multiple foci on a given spell.
-
I thought you couldn't stack bonuses from multiple foci on a given spell.
You can't, but having a Glove of Offensive Fire Control and a Bracer of Offensive Fire Power isn't stacking.
-
Yep, someone around here had a pair of gloves that did that, looked pretty cool when he's swinging around +4 to Offensive Fire Power and Offensive Fire Control.
-
First thing I'd change if I wanted to limit the power of Evocation, by the way. I might still let you use two items, but I'd definitely not let you go past the max bonus for one item that way.
-
So yea I just looked it up RaR, a starting wizard would only have 4 focus slots. Putting more into refinement would increase that but the fact that you have to lose a focus slot to increase power or to add another element makes it fairly reasonable.
-
I've said before and I will say again, the easiest way to limit characters' power is to give them challenges testing the powers chosen.
For instance, wizards nuke... but what if they are beset by a group of relatively weak enemies from multiple zones all armed with projectile weapons or magic?
Each story should (ideally) force characters into roles they had not ordinarily accounted for. I believe every character should have a time to shine.
In the example mentioned above, if the gun toting normal becomes the hero of the combat scene while the wizard shields him or her, it is a powerful scene and one that will be talked about by a GM's players for weeks to come.
-
Hey, BumblingBear! Long time no see!
-
Hey, BumblingBear! Long time no see!
Indeed. :)
I've been busy with work and school. School is about to end and the new DF book is coming out in a month so... here I am again :)
I suppose I should start my in-person game up again too.
-
My understanding for focus item stacking is that there are two aspects to the item.
A) The element(s) affected (i.e. the traditional elements Fire, Wind, Earth, Water, Spirit)
B) The total bonuses given (Offensive Power, Offensive Control, Defensive Power, Defensive Control)
Add up the number of type A and type B, multiply them, and that's how many slots it takes to create. So a Fire,Wind,Water +2 Offensive Power, +1 Offensive Control focus would be A=3 Elements B=3 bonuses. 3*3 = 9 focus slots.
This seems to fit with the examples in the book. It would take the exact same number of slots to instead create three separate focuses for each element that provide the same bonuses to each, adding them all into one item is just a way to avoid needing a dozen different focuses depending on the element and what kind of bonuses you want, the Lore limitation prevents it from getting too silly.
I'm somewhat confused because some posters here seem to be implying that there is some inherent numbers advantage to splitting vs. combining your focus item slots and as far as I can tell there isn't (besides putting all of your power into one item and being separated from it). As to examples of a +5 Fire Offensive Power Gauntlet being broken... well, yea it's powerful but there is a reason it's able to stack directly like that instead of the +1, +2, etc. requirement that skills have. The reason being that it only affects one facet of one type of your evocations. Specializations affect your Power/Control directly for the elements and are subject to the stacking rules (you need a +1 in order to have a +2). Focus items cost exactly the same amount of Refresh as a specialization does, so without this inherent stacking bonus there is no point in getting them over a specialization.
Edit: Oops, now I see. They're talking about getting past the 'no stacking bonuses' rule by putting offensive Power on one focus and offensive control on another, thereby allowing a +5 to both. Yea, that is a nasty combo :p
-
Glad to find this thread. Have had the books since they came out and keep getting sidetracked on learning it.
I have a player who is playing a wizard and he wants to make a foci in the form of an eyepatch that would let him see through eyes of his pet ravens (not sure if he wanted to be able to control them too).
This seems to me like it'd be an enchanted item more than a foci, but I am not sure how such an item would be made or if it would violate the Laws. I told him the Law question would depend on the animal. If he tried it on a Foo like Mouse, it would be violating but a normal dog might not.
-
It's basically turning the animal into a symbolic link for a Divination ritual so by invoking it he could meet +2 of the complexity for such a ritual but it would cost him a Fate point because he's likely to have done it before and to keep on doing it, so no free tag. The patch could also be statted up as a dedicated foci for this ritual giving it another +1 to either the complexity or control of the spell on top of the focus slots he has already dedicated to it because he can't cast the ritual without it. It probably wouldn't be too high a complexity ritual either, since it's basically a skill replacement ritual for Alertness or Investigation.
It wouldn't violate any laws unless he's controlling the animal in question in which case it does risk breaking the No Thralls law. With animals that's not really a problem, since they're not human, technically even Mouse is free game because of that but it gets a lot more iffy.
As an enchanted item it would basically do the same thing, replacing Alertness or Investigation, but it would certainly work almost all the time and be a lot faster because it would only need an activation action. On the other hand the level of power of the spell would be set in stone so he wouldn't be able to boost it in order to make higher than normal checks, but even if his Lore was only 2 allowing for a Great (+4) effect that would probably cover most circumstances.
If he takes control of the creature he's scrying through for more than a Scene then points of Complexity and Power are going to have to be added to handle that increased Duration in both cases. With an enchanted item there probably wouldn't be much point in that.
Also depending on if he wants to take over the creature that's his scrying tool, unless the creature was specifically trained or willing to do that then points of power and complexity would have to be used to win the mental conflict that would inevitably ensue. I imagine with a regular old raven this either just wouldn't come up or it would be fairly cheap. If he's been doing this with the raven for a while now as long as he's not trying to get it to do things that goes against its inherent nature then control over it is hardly an issue at all, keeping those power and complexity costs lower.
-
You could model it as an item containing a Divination that lets you see through the animal's eyes. Complexity for that is up to you and the player.
I don't see a Law issue.
-
The law issue only came up if he was controlling the animal in order to control what it was looking at. Otherwise no, obviously no law issue.
-
I had a similar item in a game I played. I had 5 lore and made an enchanted item allowing me to do a 5 shift perception replacement roll flavoring it as looking through the eyes of my bird familiar. I used it for investigation replacement (when following people or looking for something) for alertness (getting a second pair of eyes on something really helps if you miss a detail in a quick look) and for Burglary (casing the bad guy's hideout by flying around it looking from all angles). It was quite useful.
We generally assumed that I did not have control over the bird, but could communicate simple desires (like scout this place, or follow that guy) and the bird, being my familiar, was willing to do pretty much whatever I wanted. I don't think this causes any problems with the laws.
-
Nope, not if its phrased as suggestions rather than orders. Also, I really don't want to kick off a law debate so I'm done commenting on law implications.
The main point is that it's a cool and useful idea and is a fairly easy idea to implement. I actually want to play someone who has "Ritual: Birds" at some point.
-
The law issue only came up if he was controlling the animal in order to control what it was looking at. Otherwise no, obviously no law issue.
I'm not seeing any of the laws that apply to mucking around with animals.
-
What size would an eyepatch be consider? Running it as a Foci, would it be 1-2 slots (Ring-sized) or 3-4 (Fist or Rod)?
-
What size would an eyepatch be consider? Running it as a Foci, would it be 1-2 slots (Ring-sized) or 3-4 (Fist or Rod)?
Probably ring-sized, since it's only about 2 inches across. You could probably get 3-4 slots with a Phantom-Of-The-Opera mask or something similar.
-
Hate to have to ask this, but could someone help me with the process of building an item? The one in question is the aforementioned Eyepatch. He has decided it to be a foci for Divination and the raven is trained so he would not have to control it. I am considering it to be 2 slots since it would be larger than a ring (the example given).
-
I don't think there's any mechanical process. You re-assign your focus slots at a milestone, and it's presumed that your character spent some downtime doing whatever is necessary to make the items.
Is that what you meant?
-
So all we have to do is say what it does and that's it? Unless it's like Harry's Blasting Rod where it actually allows him a an advantage like better control over his fire.
All this does is allow the player to see thru the eyes of the raven so it doesn't have a roll or anything to activate?
-
If all it does is allow sight through the raven's eyes (rather than, say, any other divination spell that may come up), I would suggest representing that as an enchanted item, rather than a focus item.
-
Not sure what you're asking, honestly.
Could you explain?
-
Harry's Blasting Rod gives him a shift when doing Fire magic.
The item my player wants is an eyepatch which specifies his Divination to allow him to see thru the eyes of a trained raven. I am trying to figure out HOW to write it up.
-
Do you know what an Enchanted Item is?
Serious question.
-
Sure. Would that be a better way to go?
One problem with "Quick and easy" systems is that you tend to overthink and end up complicating things.
-
The only difference being a reduced cost(assuming you dont increase useage and power) and a limited number of uses.
-
It's not a limited number of uses; it's a limited number of free uses. Subsequent uses merely require stress expenditure.
-
It's not a limited number of uses; it's a limited number of free uses. Subsequent uses merely require stress expenditure.
Thats not true. Subsequent uses are simply evocation of the same nature. The enchanted item has a set number of uses and after that it is drained. Such as Harry's ring. In Dead Beat he was too tired to use spells and he had run out of uses on his ring and hadnt been able to recharge it. They refference that an enchanted item is a "spell in a box" once its out its out.
-
Someone else want to drag up the page reference for Lavecki, here? I'm away from books tonight.
-
Thats not true. Subsequent uses are simply evocation of the same nature. The enchanted item has a set number of uses and after that it is drained. Such as Harry's ring. In Dead Beat he was too tired to use spells and he had run out of uses on his ring and hadnt been able to recharge it. They refference that an enchanted item is a "spell in a box" once its out its out.
Something in the books is not evidence against the rules of the RPG.
Tedronai's right. A practitioner can use an enchanted item after its charges are gone by using mental stress.
-
Sorry my bad. I have been doing some stuff wrong with my enchanted items apparently. Pg 280 of YS. I stopped looking at 279 where it said "spell in a box". Appologies again
-
Sure. Would that be a better way to go?
I think so.
Just decide how many shifts looking through a bird's eyes takes, make an item with at least that much power.
-
I think so.
Just decide how many shifts looking through a bird's eyes takes, make an item with at least that much power.
Seems like it'd be a fairly standard scrying spell to me. Divination, p. 275, and Extended Divination, p. 297. You'd need a spell complexity of your raven familiar's Conviction +4 for it to work, provided there weren't any Thresholds in between the two of you.
-
I dunno if I'd use Conviction +4 for an unresisted spell. Seems inappropriate for mental strength to make you a worse wizard's familiar. I'd probably just pick an arbitrary complexity of 5 or so.