This is a new thread designed to centralize my response to a bunch of stuff about crafting that's come up in other threads. You guys type way too fast for me to try and get to you all individually.

Regarding Always-On Effects

So, here's the deal: when you're talking about what you can and can't make an "always on" effect, some interpretive dirty work is required. You have to look at what the nature of the effect is, how it manifests in play, and then ask yourself what makes natural sense. (Note: That means there might be differing answers. I'm okay with that.)

So, let's look at blocks and Armor. The rules say that an evocation block is something you manifest and can pay for duration on, but once it's bypassed, it vanishes. That presents an immediate issue for a persistent enchanted item, because once you defeat the block, what happens? Does it go away permanently? Does it get turned back on again later? Where does the power come from to reconstitute the block?

So, probably, an "always on" block is not possible. The nature of the action contradicts the idea of persistence. Hence, Armor.

Now let's talk about attacks. How do you have an "always on" attack? That wouldn't be like a gun, it'd be like a gun that never stopped shooting. Evocation attacks require a process of gathering power and then releasing it. There's no "perpetual motion machine" for magical energy, just like there's no real way to make a gun with unlimited ammo. (Even though we shunt mundane firearm ammo off into a matter of narrative color, the analogy still works.)

So, if it's me, no persistent blocks, no "always on" attack items.

(I know, I know. What about the Warden Swords? Here's the deal: the Warden Sword doesn't expend energy to attack. Its damage comes from the fact that it's a sword. So it's a sword that has persistent spell effects on it, allowing it to ignore other enchantments. Even the counterspell ability, you have to be casting a counterspell to get it to work, because the sword expends no energy. Make sense?)

About Requirements

You don't have to have Crafting spec to craft. You just have to have slots. Crafting spec just lets you do it better.

About Armor and Stacking

So, the rules say that Armor ratings are based on what the armor is ideally supposed to be protecting the wearer from. There's an implication there that the ratings could be situationally variable under different circumstances. So if we're talking about a big honking Kevlar vest that's Armor:2, we're also saying that it's designed to protect against bullet impacts. A quick Google search reveals that Kevlar isn't so good against the stabbity stuff. I'd also argue it isn't going to do a damn thing against an evocation attack.

So, a lot of times, there isn't any stacking simply because the way you're defining the protection in the fiction suggests that situationally, stacking wouldn't occur. So there's that. How you want to deal with stuff like Michael's mail/Kevlar combo armor or whatever is up to you. I'd have it as side-by-side bonuses (Armor:2 vs. X and Y). Whatever. It's all good. (I'd also have that add to the difficulty of Resources/Contacts rolls to acquire any.)

Armor and Stacking Continued: The Numbers and Stuff

In Fate, a difference of one shift (or one step on the ladder) is bigger than you probably think. It can mean the difference between just taking stress and taking a consequence. It can be the difference between being able to take a consequence and being taken out. It can mean the difference between succeeding and needing to invoke an aspect to succeed. These thin lines manifest in actual play all the time.

So, you have to understand, stacking one armor benefit on top of another has a much bigger impact than it might seem from the numbers. Moving from Armor:2 to Armor:3 is a big step in weight class.

Let me do a quick example. Let's say you have Armor:2, and my Weapon and skill are such that I can inflict stress on you if I roll at least a 0 on the dice.

Without the influence of aspects, I have a 61.7% chance of doing that.

Now you upgrade to Armor:3. That means that now I need to roll at least a +1 on the dice to damage you.

Without the influence of aspects, I have a 38.3% chance of doing that.

That is a huge jump, which has a big cascade of effects on how things turn out. There's a 23% greater chance I'm going to have to spend a fate point to affect you now, every time I roll against you. And we're assuming your defense total stays the same here for simplicity - but in real play, it doesn't, because you roll every round and spend fate points of your own, further exacerbating the effects of this simple probability gap.

So, when I tell you that any stacking changes things significantly, I'm not exaggerating.

Armor and Stacking Continued: System Intent

Fate is not a physics simulator. It functions poorly in that regard. That's just a simple fact about it. It relies on abstraction. So you make trade-offs when you're talking about situations like this.

On the one hand, we don't have stacking rules by default. The default assumption is the same as for blocks - you get the benefit of the highest applicable rating to your situation. On the other hand, we also don't have rules for armor ablation over time, which is a very real issue that faces real-life body armor manufacturers.

If I'm going to go out of my way to say that you can layer different types of protection for cumulative effect, then I'm also going to want to know when one of the contributors to the stacking has been damaged enough that they're no longer actually contributing. You don't get to be specific about the one and handwave the other - that would privilege the defender way too much.

(I know, I know... but what about Weapon ratings stacking? There seems to be no restrictions on that! Doesn't that privilege the attacker? Absolutely, yes, it does. The Dresden Files is gritty. Fighting is scary and nasty. You're going to get hurt. It's not an action movie, even when you have powers. So there's that.)

The problem from a design perspective is, if you open up one of those cans of worms, you have to accept the fact that if you're going to be fair about it, you have to open the others associated with it. That road has led, through the process of this game's development, to a whole lot of stuff I consider not fun. I chose to spare you folks that pain.

The Post-Soapbox Solution

That said, if you really must, you could try this: vary it off of the "complementing a skill" rules on YS page 213-214. So, if you have two sets of protection at different totals that would apply together against the same source of damage (oh fine, like ensorcelled Kevlar), you can add +1 to the highest rating. But only +1, for the love of everything holy. So two Armor:2 values stacked give you Armor:3, not Armor:4.

So I thought Focus Items are an exception to the column rule.

Oho! You're right. See? Tired.

So, +2 strength.

Base item strength becomes 8 shifts.

It doesn't actually change the armor effect - you need 12 shifts for a permanent Armor:3. So if you're smart, you keep the 8 shifts.

However, that does leave you 3 slots free to keep for enchanted items or potions. And those items default to 8 shifts.

So, there's that.


-Lenny

Maybe that warrants a clarification somewhere, particularly since the Crafting specializations are already an exception to the rules?

It does indeed. I didn't intend to stop a person who wanted to use their foci to boost crafting instead of blowshitups or something else more proactive.

So noted.


-Lenny

I feel compelled to note that YS325, on environmental effects, explicitly mentions a flamethrower.

Yes, as a nod to the idea that a willfully targeted hazard should just be resolved as an attack most of the time, according to me. But that's just it, right? According to me. I get where Deadmanwalking is coming from - he wants what he wants. And that's awesome. I'm just happy that the system can hold up to the demand thus far.


-Lenny

How many shifts would you need with the ongoing damage houserule?

For a normal guy? (Two stress boxes, Mediocre Endurance skill.) Not a whole lot, if we take the Orbius spell as an example. 5 shifts for Superb effect, so he can't resist even with a +4 roll. 7 more for stress track, Mild, Moderate, Severe, and Extreme consequences, then taken out. So, 12 shifts total.

Here's the counterbalance, though: concession. With the killing spell, you do not cash out, pass go, or any of that - you just die. With gradual damage, the option of concession exists to say, "I don't die, but I'm out for the foreseeable future," any time before you succumb to the final blow.


-L

1. PC jumps off house roof to attack two thugs below. Thug 1 gets it in the back, down but conscious, thug 2 drops gun in surprise

Hey, not to risk more confusion, but the rules also have one other concept to cover what you're talking about here: supplemental actions. Basically, that means you can take a penalty to your main action in order to do more than one thing on your turn.

This would be a perfect example: jumping off the house is movement, so you'd take a -1 penalty to the attack. (Probably you wouldn't be able to attack them at the same time unless you had a stunt, but let's not worry about that right here.) This is sort of like paying a shift in advance - it's like saying, "Hey, that cool thing I could do if I rolled an extra shift? Let me just pay for it up front with a penalty." So then, when you succeed, you can just do both.


-L

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