I admit, I always figured they weren't, so I may have been playing that wrong for many years.

With working with my GM the question came up, so I am looking for some more clarification.
The enchanter is a different tradition than my character, so the Formula would have to be of a different tradition.
That part is clear and easy enough.

Once the focus is completed however, would that make it unusable for my character?

For the record, my character is a 5e Mystic Adept and does not have access to the Enchanting skill group.

Reagents are specific to tradition but foci are not. Go nuts!

If your Mystic has a mentor spirit, reagents used in direct relation to said mentor spirit can give you a 1 point deduction in the karma cost of bonding that focus; 2 points if the focus is made of nothing but materials related to said mentor spirit. Mentioned in Street Grimoire, page 230.

Beyond that, what Tecumseh said.

As a general thing, I'd go with Foci being tradition agnostic. The only time I wouldn't, is if the foci is something very specific.
you make a weapon foci, I can't see there being much difference between a shamanistic sword and a hermetic sword.

If your sustaining foci for a specific spell - invisibility - is hand woven from individually gathered feathers from various paracritters, with dreamcatchers woven into it, I might give either a bonus to a shaman, or an extra cost to a hermetic. Likewise, if the cloak was made with individual scraps all hand written with complex mathematical formula from a complex treaty on n dimensional physics as it refers to refraction of light - I'd go the other way. Mostly to add flavour and depth to the system, or to reveal something about the creator.

But if it came right down to it, a power focus is a power focus, and it probably doesn't care for flavour either way.

In the Enchanting Rules, Second paragraph of Step 1: Choose Focus Formula; Text bolded for emphasis



So yeah, the rules specify that Foci have a tradition.

And that was the part that brought up the question.

That makes it completely clear that the Formula has a Tradition. And that is sensible, as each Tradition has different ways of writing the same thing, kind of like a language.
It unfortunately doesn't continue the clarity to if the Foci has a Tradition.

It would makes sense, to be sure. But this is SR, and it doesn't always make sense.

I normally don't buy into "not explicitly forbidden" rules arguments, but a limitation like that does need to be explicitly stated. The fluff text assumes that foci are often spoils of war, and talks about young adepts getting Yantra tattoo qi foci because "they look pretty badass" (I assume that not all of these adepts follow the Tantric tradition). So I would assume that foci, which are rare enough already, can be bound regardless of tradition, although most awakened would probably prefer foci that fit their own particular tradition.

Except it isn't saying that the formula has a tradition, it literally says "the tradition of the focus." The formula is what is specifying the tradition of the focus. Foci definitely have a tradition.

Now, it is true that the rules are silent about any sort of penalty for bonding foci of traditions other than your own. But everywhere else, there is some sort of restriction based on tradition. Learning spells has a dice penalty if you are going outside your tradition, reagents function at half effectiveness, and you flat-out can't summon spirits that aren't a part of your tradition.

I've always pretty much assumed that you had to be the same tradition to bond a focus, but I did do some digging and couldn't find anything that explicitly states it as a restriction. I would say that it follows as a reasonable extrapolation of the differences between traditions, though. So I wouldn't get too angry at a GM if they hold that restriction on you...

Who the fuck is getting angry?

I was looking for other peoples interpretations.

And the majority don't agree with me, my GM, and you, and say that Foci are not bound by tradition.

So either we are the correct minority, or the rules might need an errata to make this more clear.

Can you agree to that?

I definitely think a lot of things could be clearer.

Also, going back your original post, and looking at the rules from the book (the part I quoted), I could also see a reasonable argument that someone could write a focus formula for a tradition that isn't their own. That is to say, the enchanter doesn't necessarily have to create foci tied to their tradition. (A Hermetic focus formula of a Shamanic focus, for example).

Looking back, I do remember having enchanters creating foci for people that weren't the same tradition as themselves. And that was while I was playing in a group that had been running since first or second edition. I wasn't the enchanter in question, so I don't know what sort of hoops that they might have jumped through. But they definitely weren't my tradition and they definitely crafted a focus for my character.

That is no longer Kosher.



It is clear that you can only make Foci using a Formula of your Tradition.

Now the question remains, is the finished Focus only usable by the same Tradition.

I think that is the intention...

But that is a fairly big change from previous editions that should be spelled out more clearly.

I'm not so certain that is true. We know that A) A Focus formula specifies the tradition of the focus. and that B) A formula that is written may be used only by others of the same tradition of the writer. C) You can translate a focus formula from another tradition to your own. (B and C are in the last paragraph of Step 1)

Now, the thing we don't know is if the tradition specified for the focus in the focus formula is automatically the same as the tradition of the writer. For example, can a Hermetic mage write a formula for a Shamanic Spirit focus? Or better yet, if a Shaman writes a spirit focus formula, if a hermetic mage translates the formula, does it automatically become a hermetic focus?

I think that since a formula specifies the tradition of the focus, that the creator doesn't have to be the same tradition. Yes, they would need to translate the formula to their tradition, but the tradition of the focus wouldn't change.

I think it should be possible for an enchanter to create a focus for anyone (otherwise the talismonger job gets even harder). Not necessarily easy, but at least possible.


Do you have a reference from a previous edition that was clearer? I don't recall anything being significantly different (at least from 4th edition). I never played 3rd or earlier, so I'm not sure about anything going back farther.

There's a reference in Magic In The Shadows (SR3) about psionics not being able to partake in rituals or use foci, but that's about it for what I can recall. Nowhere else have I read any such reference about limited focus bonding by the tradition of the creator.

And in SR5, without any listed penalties or prohibitions about "cross tradition" focus bonding, I'd say there is no such restriction. The closest thing in the section on foci is that the appearance reflects the tradition most of the time.

So you are saying that all Foci Formula should have two Traditions listed with it? The Tradition it was created for and the Tradition it is written in?

And hoofbeats can only mean zebras...

No, it is rather clear that the writer of the Formula writes the formula for their own tradition, and only members of that tradition can use it as written.

Did some more digging into further back books (I never played 3rd edition, but I have used the books sometimes for research). Found a very pertinent passage in the 3rd edition Core Rulebook. Again, bold is added for emphasis.



In the 4th edition Rulebook, an equivalent passage is as follows:



When I first started replying to this thread, I would have said that the bolded text from the 4th edition book was not very clear. I would have originally read it to mean "All the types of foci are available to all the traditions" or that tradition differences don't restrict your choice of foci types. But the text from the 3rd edition book is much clearer. They explicitly state that anybody can use any focus regardless of tradition.


So I'm actually going to change my stance, Foci might have a tradition, but that doesn't restrict anyone from using them.


EDIT: Oh, and just to include for clarity: The third edition rules for creating Foci also included the rule that the formula for creating them is restricted by tradition (in much the same way that it is in 5th Edition). So that section about needing to translate the formula to the proper tradition before using it to craft the focus isn't new and doesn't represent a more restrictive addition to the rules since that edition. I think the wording was gradually changed between editions, resulting in the explicit phrase allowing any tradition to use a focus to be slowly eliminated.

So, I think the overwhelming consensus is that Foci do have a Tradition they are part of, but that it has no bearing on game mechanics in anyway.

But that is based on a rule in 3e, that may have been intentionally left out of 4e, and then carried over to 5e (again, potentially intentionally).

Is that a correct summary?

If so, that sounds like a perfect Errata candidate.
Now if there was only a way to get it to the Errata team, with the Shadow Grid forums still down.

I make no assumptions about the intent behind an explicit statement no longer being present. Based on my observations, that particular statement slowly changed and was rephrased.

What I do know is that there isn't a statement in the 5th Edition rules that explicitly comments on the relationship between tradition and use of foci in the way that the 3rd edition rules do. Generally, a lack of a stated restriction means that there isn't one, but it is also reasonable to assume that there should be one. A clarification or errata does seem appropriate.

The restriction regarding the creation of foci (that your tradition must match the focus formula) existed before and hasn't particularly changed. I wouldn't take that inclusion as an indication one way or the other.

That is exactly how we run it...

Guess it falls to the tabletop then. Honestly never considered the finished product to be limited to a single tradition of magic.

Would really suck for those magicians and mystics that are a tradition of one, those misfits that don't conform to any paradigm of magic (even Chaos, the "Just-Do-It"/"Everyone-Gets-A-Trophy" tradition).

But then, what about adepts as they have no tradition?

Indeed... Table trumps all, in the end.

It was easy in 2nd and even 3rd Editions, since there were very limited magical traditions to choose from. as Magic becomes more prevalent, the Traditions have blossomed.
Since spells and Foci formulae are based in a Tradition, it makes total sense that the finished product adheres to That Tradition.
Yes, you can translate formulae from tradition to tradition, but then it is another Tradition for the finished product.

If you are a Tradition of one (or someone who does not conform to a traditional Tradition/world view), then you have it tough...
But then, that makes sense too, from a world building perspective.
Guess you are translating a lot of Formulae...

As for Adepts... We have always adhered to Traditions even for them (and you can even break them down by Ways too, if you are so inclined).
We use Tradition, then differentiation within Tradition by Ways, if any.

In the end, Adherence to Tradition means that you have to actually consider such things, because they have an impact on the world at large.
And mechanically, it constrains/focuses the power levels of the Awakened a bit... Which is also not a bad thing.

That is what makes me think it might have been done on purpose.

There is enough complaints about MagicRun™ and this would curtail it some.

I can't say for certain it was a deliberate change, but I can see it being done on purpose.

The only problem I have with that sentiment is the fact that in earlier editions we know that sharing Foci between traditions was explicitly allowed. Since 4th edition was introduced the differences between traditions have become smaller, more "Unified" as the term goes in setting.

If I hadn't found a direct quote saying that foci are usable by any tradition I would wholeheartedly agree that differentiation by tradition is warranted. But I think the changes in the way traditions work (becoming less strict) contraindicates a signal for foci to become more restricted. And without any verbiage or rules that indicate that there should be a restriction, I don't think there is supposed to be a new restriction in the setting.

Now, if GMs want to impose a restriction to make foci more difficult to acquire, or for some other reason, that is their prerogative. But I also that if you are going to impose that restriction, that the creation of foci for other traditions should still be possible. That is to say, an Enchanter should be able to make Foci of whatever tradition they want. Otherwise the market for Foci becomes too heavily restrictive, and the job of being a talismonger becomes either impossible to maintain for some traditions or overly stressed for others.

At a talismonger's shop:

Buyer: "Hi, I'm looking for a weapon focus, a sword, preferably an Ares One if you've got it."
Talismonger: "Yes, I happen to have a few."
Buyer: "And they're properly blessed?"
Talismonger: "Blessed? Oh, no. No. Most are Hermetic in their make, though I think I've got a few of the Shamanic tradition, and maybe one of Islam."
Buyer: "Nothing of Christianity?"
Talismonger: "I can get one, but the cost goes up fifteen percent and it'll be two weeks before I get it."
Buyer: "No, I can't wait that long."
Talismonger: "I'm sorry I can't help you, then. Too bad you're not a follower of the Dark Arts. I've got a particularly nasty one I've been trying to unload."

Corny, I know, but I do hope the point gets across.

And here are the problems with your (lack of) logic.

1) Earlier editions do not hold any sway over the current one. Sure, it can be used as a guideline, and how to rule on something, but that doesn't amount to a steaming pile of shit when it comes to what the writers intended for the current edition. Earlier editions did not have limits. 5e does. Earlier editions did not have wireless, 5e does. Just because it existed, or didn't, does not reveal the intention of the current edition.

2) Requiring a 3e rule book to properly rule a 5e game is ludicrous and ridiculous. Not to mention rude and disrespectful to any player who only started in 4e or later. It is truly sad that you even try to stand on that for a broad swath ruling for everyone who might read your posts.

3) Your opinion, in the end, isn't even worth the electrons used to print it on the screen. Your ruling is a table ruling. For that matter, so is everyone elses, without an official opinion being put forth.

SpellBinder, I actually like that particular concept. It does add a fun bit of selective shopping into something that normally gets glossed over. But as your example implies, it would suggest that particularly rare traditions would or should have a modifier to the availability or price of their foci. The Buddhist tradition, for example, generally discourages the use of foci, and there are several traditions in Forbidden Arcana that don't have access to the Enchanting skill group. I wasn't saying that applying a restriction on Focus use was wrong, or bad. Just that it fits in the setting that a skilled Artificer/Enchanter could make foci for anyone, given the proper time and research.



Titan,
And here is the problem with your (extemely rude) reply:

You originally asked for clarification on whether or not foci are restricted by tradition. You admitted that you never thought they were until recently.

1) There is no rule in the book that states that foci must be of the user's tradition to bind them.

2) The only rule related to Foci that restricts by tradition is in the creation (enchanting) of new foci, which states that the focus formula must have been written by someone of the same tradition to be able to use it (for enchanting).

I was using previous edition rules to look for insight and previous rulings and for in-setting material for continuity.

So by RAW, there is no such rule. And by precedence there is no reason to imply there should be such a rule.

Saying that my opinion is ludicrous and not worth printing is just rude and uncalled for.

Do you always wear your panties in a knot? Or do you do that whenever you need to feel important?

... I'm not the one being uncivil.

I've stated facts, quoted rules, cited proper sources and shown a good and proper progression of logic.

If you have to devolve into name-calling and provocation, then you aren't trying to have a discussion. You're just yelling at people and getting upset when they don't agree with you.

Entertainingly, I have absolutely no issues with the scenario that you presented. It is how we have always done it, so...