Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

From: Brian Moore <mooreb@*****.FAC.COM>
Subject: Re: effects of multiple power Foci
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 1997 19:02:27 -0500
FYI: I'm the mage that prompted the second question about Power Focus
and Familiar being used together. But I've never (yet) considered
using multiple Power focuses. We don't use Focus Addiction in the
game, but my character has rarely (if ever) exceeded the limit.

> westln@***.EDU said:
>
> I am looking for some feedback on the idea of a mage using multiple power
> foci.
>
> Lets say a mage owns and is bonded to two +1 power foci. When he activates
> both of them does he get a net bonus of +2 or only a +1. I am inclined to
> rule that only the higher bonus apply. I cannot find anything in the rules
> that touch on this topic.

I've looked through the rules myself, and can't find anything that
would prevent this. There are rules for max number of focuses active,
but no reference to multiples of the same type. It does take more time
to activate (and deactivate) multiple small focuses than it does to
activate a single large focus. Given that the karma and nuyen cost is
equal either way, I'd be inclined to allow multiples. But I would make
sure the total Force was reasonable. I probably wouldn't allow a Force
10 Power Focus, and I wouldn't allow 10 separate Force 1 Power Focuses.

> A related question:
> A mage has a power focus, and a familiar with aid power(Gr pg 69). The aid
> power means the ally acts as a power focus. Should one add the bonus for
> each or just take the better of the two?
>
> For game balance i prefere the take the higher of the two, but I'm having a
> hard time convincing others in my gaming group. What's your opinion on
> multiple power foci?

I'd allow the Familiar and the Power Focus together. Yes it may mean
a mage with a rather high Magic Rating and Magic Pool, but it was
probably paid for with lots of Karma.

If you're worried about game balance, you have a few options.

1) You can keep the game static (no karma, no money, no advancement),
but that gets real boring.
2) You can put arbitrary limits on advancement to keep the power
level fixed (your current preference), but that makes the game feel
artificial. And it can demoralize the players (or at least me) to
know that my characters can't advance AT ALL in certain areas because
they would exceed those arbitrary limits.
3) You can allow normal character advancement, but take it into
account when GMing. Let the PC mages have familiars and Power
Focuses, but give them to the bad guys as well. (Actually, almost
all of the bad guy mages in the modules have had Power Focuses, even
when we were just starting.) All the PCs have 100 to 150 reputation
and a lot of money, they SHOULD be able to get more than Wired
Reflexes I, or a Force 3 Power Focus.

P.S. If any of you use Focus Addiction, I'd recommend ignoring the
rules and rolling your own. Focus Addiction is caused by using more
Force Ratings worth of focuses than you have Magic Rating. Familiars
and Power Focuses can increase Magic Rating, but they probably
shouldn't help against Focus Addiction. (Maybe we need Familiar
Addiction too!) If you get addicted to focuses, you have to use them
when casting spells. That means a mage with a decent weapon focus
and a few spell locks has to activate them to cast spells! Focus
Addiction may be a good way to prevent Focus Abuse (unless you're a
Phys Ad, or Conjuring Adept, or ...), but it has some huge logical
flaws.

--
Brian Moore, mooreb@***.com | I wrote up a nice script to truncate all News&
First Albany Corp. Sysadmin | Mail sigs that are greater than 4 lines long.
standard disclaimers apply | It is still in beta testing due to an off-by-

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.