Regarding Potent Magic (Mysteries RE and/or Houses of Hermes: Mystery Cults):
Potent Magic applies it's bonus to whatever your chosen field is. So, what do you do about Potent Magic (material X)?
Say your Potent Magic is "wolves". Should your Potent Magic apply to Lab Totals for Potent Spells using an animal bone (specifically, a wolf bone) for its Material-derived Potency bonus? At that point you can expect to use your Potent Magic for any spell or effect that harms animals, since in each of those effects you're using wolf bone.
What if it's more broadly-applied, say with "wood"? At that point you can expect to use it in the vast majority of your lab inventing, since it's usually trivially easy to find some kind of wood (hazel, oak, apple, etc) to use for its Shape/Material bonus in regards to either items or Potent spells.
Where do the various STs draw the line?
EDIT - More succinctly: how do you utilize Potent Magic when the focus of the Virtue is usable as a material or shape?
Isn't this essentially the same discussion that revolved around Minor Magical Focus (swords)?
The whole point is to make sure the focus/potency is about as applicable as the Magical Focus guidelines and examples. That's up to the troupe to decide. It really needs no further rules. If your troupe decides that having you invent any spell with a wolf bone component is equivalent in its applicability to slightly less than a TeFo combination... well, lucky you. For my part, I'd limit any such focus/potency to spells/effects that heavily involve the focus area: a spell that summons many creatures, including wolves - no; a spell that summons wolves - yes. A spell that produces fire in wolf form, with a wolf bone as a focus - no, that's just cosmetics.
Same thing here. That's the definition of a focus, after all. Else, it becomes very similar to a focus in "enchanting any Te/Fo combination" and make by far material focuses the best focuses out there (and maybe the best virtues), especially for a verditius with Elder Runes.
I agree. Still, We consider that if you do use the focus/area of potent magic you can apply the focus even if you could reach the exact same result with different focuses.
Example: Creo Animal effect that creates a hide cloak. If you have a focus with wolves and you create a wolf cloak, you get to use your focus.
Same if you invent a spell to shoot fangs (wolf) at your enemies. You could reach the same effect with (say) deer antlers, but you are using wolf fangs and you have a focus in wolves.
Others do not agree with that, but we find that this helps A LOT in spell personalization and to create a feeling of difference between magi.
Those example Focus virtues in HoH:MC really were a doozy, weren't they? It's pretty clear that this was the intent in HoH:MC, so I suppose the real question is whether to toss those examples entirely.
Has there ever been any official FAQ or errata dealing with them?
Pretty clear, yes and no: A focus in sword is useful either way, it's the "wooden wand" that lacks usefulness unless you allow it to be an über focus.
AFAK, there wasn't never an errata, which, IMO, is sad.
Someone once proposed a partial solution along the lines of this:
When taking a material focus, choose wether it applies to spells cast or enchanting effects in it.
If enchanting effect, the focus applies to every effect wich matches the material bonuses to spell casting. Thus, wooden wands could act like a focus to any effect which projected bolts or missiles, controlled, repelled or destroyed things at a distance. Still pretty powerful IMO, especially for a minor focus, but at least it leaves out Intellego, Muto, and a whole lot of Creo.
What is actually wrong with a focus in "wooden wands"? I realize that if allowed broadly it means that practically any effect can be enchanted into a wand and claim that the focus is applicable, because the effect uses a wand. However, is this really a problem?
Sure, it means that the character with this focus will spend a lot of time inventing effects to put in wands. But doesn't this just help to create stories?
If you limit the focus, so that it only applies to missile type effects, then the character will still spend a lot of time inventing effects to put into wands, but now all of these effects will be of a narrow sort. This means that the character will be narrower in focus, which shuts-down story opportunities.
I didn't talk about just missile bolts (Which, btw, IS a minor focus), but "projected bolts or missiles, controlled, repelled or destroyed things at a distance".
That's about 4 minor focuses:
Projecting missiles (Any Cr or Re spell from Pilum of Flame to Vilano's sling)
Controling Things at distance (This could very well be argued to be a major focus)
Repelling things (All those ward vs materials, plus "blow away" like effects)
Destroying things (Pe form).
I don't see it at all to be restricted. Do you?
The virtue's name is FOCUS, not "Super Enchanter" (There are Elder Runes for that, and your über focus is waay better). Which is probably why the description of Minor Focus begins by "Your magic is particularly attuned to some narrow field"
So yes, IMO, a Focus should be limited, if only to give flavor and add personalisation to characters with otherwise similar arts.
You'll note also that, even with a focus in bolts, NOTHING forces him to instill only these types of effects. He'll just be better in these, and thus famous for his expertise on these matters.
Or what do you think of all these magi with a minor focus in Aging? This is pretty restrictive. Should they be allowed unlimited focus, too?
What about the magus with Major focus in Creating Images or Emotions that find out his sodales is doing as well with his minor focus (and better everywhere else) as long as it is in an item?
This isn't at all about stories, but about munchkinism.
I dunno, but I see more flavor in "this magi is good for creating wands that throw PoF, cast unseen arm, give you a ward vs terram and can destroy a castle at a distance" and "this magi is a great maker of enchanted swords that can block any single attack, be it physical or magical, and can also do great damage to anything human or animal" than in "these magus is good with wands, this other is good with swords".
While the first all have their specialty (dare I say focus?) and are famous for it, the later 2 are very interchangeable, which, IMO, is pretty lame, boring, and don't further stories in any way.
Would you let someone use it with a wooden wand that cast, say, Eyes of the Cat on targets? If not, why not?
Would you let someone use it on a wooden wand that used an Intellego Vim effect that traced out the border of faerie regios? If not, why not?
Also, what about if someone developed a spell that destroyed wooden wands? Would they be able to use the focus with that spell? If not, why not?
What about it? It seems like a fine focus to me.
As long as it is in a wooden wand, not just any old item.
I'm not sure that magi necessarily explicitly know about things like Foci, and especially the distinction between Major and Minor. I think that all this magus will know is that the other one is great at creating wooden wands. Either way, maybe he could work himself up into a homicidal rage about it, or maybe he would sulk, or maybe he would just think it was really neat, and want to either learn how to do it himself, or get the other magus to create some wands for him. It's your saga, how do you think magi should react when they discover that another magus is better than them?
Some foci are sometimes better than others. Why does that have to be an issue?
It isn't like the "wooden wand" focus doesn't have its downsides, it is quite expensive to use in terms of vis (as you are forever making wands), for example. And there are only a few circumstances when the focus can be used with a Casting Total, you mostly only get to use the focus on laboratory activities (apart from a few odd spells that effect wooden wands). In some sagas these two factors would make the focus quite restricted indeed.
A personal example. I've created a Sahir like my Ex Miscellanea Magi. With his Minor Focus in Jinn any Spells thinked about spirits of three realms (Faeric, Magical and Infernal) but between their type Jinn are more easy having a great casting total, but i maked the spells thinking in theirs elemental correspondences and requisites, combined with my Elemental Magicv (Very Common virtue in my Tradition). The spells are versions of ward vs supernaturals beings of one realm, work against any being based in Aquam, Ignem, Auram and terram, but work better in Jinns, having better Totals and penetration.
For other side, in the swords and wolves theme, many spells work in the way that a affect in all creatures or objects (the example of the ritual for cure animals or The Invisble Porter). In the lab any focus is difficult to aply, but yes in the spellcasting.
Enchanting... depends... I think taht you can work mor magin in that type of matter, in you are enchanting a wolf bone in anny way you could win very totals in lab, but first you need that bone, second you are a specialist in animal, and is possible that you don't have very highs any different Form to Animal, but since a bone still being in the area of effects... It's a very personal opinion.
All the same for Potent Magic.
Other example should be a spell taht break the blade of Swords, a PeTe effect. If somebody attact you with other weapon with blade you could still casting the spell, but if you used you focus in the design, you posibly have a really poor spellcating total, ut if a Faeric warrior atact you with a ice sword, you apply the spell cating requisite of aquam, but you can use the focus. I see all that very compensate, or not?
If you design a generic PeTe effect that breaks metal objects, then a Focus in swords would not count when you were inventing the spell, but it would count towards your casting total if you happened to be trying to use the effect to break a sword.
On the other hand, if you design a PeTe that specifically breaks (metal) swords, then the Focus in swords would apply when you were inventing the spell, and (to your casting total) when you were casting the spell to break a sword. However, you couldn't use this second sort of spell to break, say, a metal lance --- because a lance is not a sword.
You still haven't answered if you found the above focus to be restricted. It's no fair to ask questions if you don't answer them
As I said, this is not my idea, but what I remembered of someone else's solution. It is not perfect, but still, I think it to be way better and more flavorful than the "absolute focus" you seem to favor.
So, according to this rule, I'd say:
No, as this is neither projecting a missile, controling a thing at distance, repelling or destroying something. Still, this does not mean that he can't create such an item, just that he won't have the benefit of the focus.
Cf 1.
As you get to chose between a spell focus and an enchanting focus, yes if you'd chosen the spell focus (Like Focus in Jade with jade-based spells), no if you'd chosen the enchanting focus (like, focus in enchanting Aquam effects - a whole form!!! - into Jade items).
Are you sure?
Due to your previous reasoning, I'd say that all of the effects created by this character would "be of a narrow sort. This means that the character will be narrower in focus, which shuts-down story opportunities"
I find it to be a fine minor focus. But I also think your argument fail when finding this very narrow focus fine, while finding the much broaded focus above (although limited to effects instilled in wooden wands) limited. If you say that the second should be allowed near-unlimited focus, else the stories be limited, a similar reasoning should apply to the first, wouldn't it?
I was talking about players.
You've got, on one side, a major focus limited to a part of a form (Emotions and Mentem). On the other, a minor focus limited only by the fact it has to be wooden wands. Woooot!
I much prefer the option when you're good at enchanting a whole form (Aquam) into jade items. Or "projecting a missile, controling a thing at distance, repelling or destroying something" into wooden wands. But not other effects. This is also, IMO, much more magical and mythical. Yet again, YMMV.
Sure, some foci are better than others. This is also why there's this distinction between major and minor. I don't see any reason for a minor focus to be a whole lot better than a major one, especially if you also apply it to spells.
Say, Ardath has a minor focus in Obsidian, with obsidian-based spells, as a minor focus should work. But then, she should also be able to enchant supra-powerful effects in obsidian items, more powerful in, say, CrMe than her sodales with a major focus in Weather? To me, this is just ridiculous and wrong.
There are easy ways around the vis cost if you want to make an enchanter, even if it is just Charged Items. And if you're playing an item crafter, you will only do enchantments anyway, so the cost is minimal.
Also, don't forget that this reasoning don't apply to the sole "wooden wands" but also to Swords, or any "material" focus, like the above-mentioned obsidian.
Then again, YMMV. You find it fine, I find it disturbing and too powerful. And don't buy the "story" argument, as explained above.
If you want to be generally good with wooden wands, a Special Circumstances (another minor virtue) "when enchanting wooden wands" would be, IMO, more appropriate and balanced.
I'm not sure I understand.
Do you mean you use the focus as an "universal focus", but with a requisite appropriate to the focus, like Herbam for a focus in wooden wands?
Sorry by my english.
I say that you can aply the potent/focus when you are enchanting an object that is between your focus/potent becaus you are using magic on a object of that focus. Your magic is focused on certains arts surely then don't break all limits that.
I think that the enchanting project is magical then...
Edition.
Sorry, can somebody help in my doubt of more down?
Fixer - "wooden" wands is actually a tremendously powerful thing just because of all the varying effects that the wood as a Material can have. You're just focusing on the "wand" part.
Where is this rule about choosing between a spell and an enchanting focus? If "wooden wands" is a focus, then it applies to both enchanting and spells (although obviously, there are more enchanting applications).
Yeah, sure Aging is a narrower focus than "wooden wands" and gets you less story opportunities. That doesn't make it bad in and of itself, however.
My point is that artificially restricting "wooden wands" makes that focus narrower, and creates less story opportunities with that particular focus. The argument is not that all foci should have equal story opportunity.
Some foci are just better than others. That doesn't mean that the good ones need to be crippled, or that the less good ones need special help. It is just the way that things are.
Coming in late to this one, but I'm with Richard. A focus is an area of magic at which you are particularly proficient. The adoption of a focus by a magus really brings a lot of flavour to the character and it's perfectly valid to have an enchanter of wooden wands gain the benefit of a focus in wooden wands. It seems highly counter-intuitive to me to prevent a focus in something like wooden wands.
The notion that a magus with a focus in "fireballs" is up for a pissing match with the enchanter of wands over who can create the better bang in any given season is laughable. In a good way. There's both humour and drama in a situation like that.
The bottom line is that you can apply the focus rules any which way you like, but I'd advise against raining on someone's parade and limiting their wooden wand focus to some kind of arbitrary decision on what magic is wand-y enough.
