[Critias]

Scawire, what is it you hope to gain from continuing this discussion?  Your mind is clearly made up that it works a certain way.  If your group agrees, what's the point in sticking around and arguing it?  Their opinions are the ones that matter, not ours or that of the book.  If you think it should work that way, in your game it works that way.  Arguing about it isn't going to change what the book says or what anyone else in this thread thinks, and that's okay, if your group likes to play it that way, that's no problem.

[All4BigGuns]

Every single person on these forums is here to tell you, you are wrong dude.  Accept it.

When it says "all forms of magic ability", it means it gives bonus dice to all tests. Why is this so hard for you? Mechanics change, that's the point of new editions. Magicians are just fine, they don't need the full Attribute boost.

It doesn't matter how you see it. Sorry.

Unless you're the GM I guess. In which case you are free to overpower Magic as much as you want.

His problem is that it worked that way through the first three full editions and suddenly doesn't any more. Honestly, it is bull-drek that that alteration was made to Power Focus without a reduction in the cost to bind it or any good explanation for it (and no, claims of supposed "balance" are not sufficient since such is VERY subjective).

As to the comment on losing Magic for things other than Essence loss, such were always optional rules if memory serves.

[emsquared]

Where I come from, the price of consumer goods are generally determined by supply and demand. Has it gotten easier to make foci? And has the number of people wanting them shrank? Those are the primary relevant issues there. And I can't say I know the answers either.

And that wasn't his problem. You'll notice he was debating the meaning of the 4E RAW. It's silly when person-x comes along, asks for input, doesn't like what they receive, and proceed to rail against it even when everyone's saying the same thing. He didn't want objective input. He wanted his view affirmed.

[All4BigGuns]

Where I come from, the price of consumer goods are generally determined by supply and demand. Has it gotten easier to make foci? And has the number of people wanting them shrank? Those are the primary relevant issues there. And I can't say I know the answers either.

And that wasn't his problem. You'll notice he was debating the meaning of the 4E RAW. It's silly when person-x comes along, asks for input, doesn't like what they receive, and proceed to rail against it even when everyone's saying the same thing. He didn't want objective input. He wanted his view affirmed.

Possibly, but he could also have been wanting a GOOD explanation as to why that was changed (and as I said, the "balance" claims aren't good enough for the reason I gave above).

As to cost, I didn't say a word about the monetary cost. That's fine as it is, but without it increasing Magic in the way it did for the previous three editions, the KARMA COST to bind them should have been reduced. (A reduction to x5 or x6 would have been sufficient reduction, but x8 is just ridiculous without that benefit.)

[mtfeeney = Baron]

If you set it up to actually increase your magic score, then the karma to bond it should be increased dramatically.  If you have 6 magic, it'll cost 35 karma to get to 7(not including initiation costs).  Currently, for 35 karma you can get a rating 4 power focus.  Increase magic by 1 or increase it by 4 for 3 less karma?  Easy choice, and decidedly uneven.

[All4BigGuns]

If you set it up to actually increase your magic score, then the karma to bond it should be increased dramatically.  If you have 6 magic, it'll cost 35 karma to get to 7(not including initiation costs).  Currently, for 35 karma you can get a rating 4 power focus.  Increase magic by 1 or increase it by 4 for 3 less karma?  Easy choice, and decidedly uneven.

No it shouldn't. It cost LESS to bond in Third Edition and it gave that benefit. With the increase in bonding cost (from x5 to x8) it should have kept that benefit or been left at the same bonding cost.

Note- Had thought it was x8 before, but just rechecked my SR3 core book.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

So you're saying that since it did something in a previous edition, it should do the same now?  Regardless of whether it's balanced?  Or you think that it's fine to buy 6 Magic and a rating 8 Power Focus for total of 14 magic at the cost of 75+64 karma(139 total) as opposed to buying 14 magic which costs 495 karma? Plus 8 initiations.

[RHat]

Didn't 3rd have rules for burning Karma, such that a lesser amount could actually be more valuable?

Also, actual balance is not subjective.

[All4BigGuns]

So you're saying that since it did something in a previous edition, it should do the same now?  Regardless of whether it's balanced?  Or you think that it's fine to buy 6 Magic and a rating 8 Power Focus for total of 14 magic at the cost of 75+64 karma(139 total) as opposed to buying 14 magic which costs 495 karma? Plus 8 initiations.

Considering that passing through a Ward would make one lose 8 Magic-Equivalent, yes.

Also, actual balance is not subjective.

"Balance" is and should be always subjective, as the only metric that should ever matter for it is the table one is playing at. In no way should such things be "hard-coded" into the system itself, lest the system turn into a bland and boring game like The-Game-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

Assuming the rating 8 power focus lost the Force x 2 roll vs the mana barrier's rating x 2?  Sure.  He would temporarily lose the use of it until he activated it using 1.5 seconds of concentration.

[All4BigGuns]

Your point? The point still remains that it is not a sure and permanent thing.

Had there been a good and solid setting reason for it not to do so any more, that would be one thing, but there wasn't, so it should have remained. Period.

[mtfeeney = Baron]

That's not something you can really end with "Period.", since it's just a statement of your opinion going against the game designer's opinions.

[Critias]

Your point? The point still remains that it is not a sure and permanent thing.

Had there been a good and solid setting reason for it not to do so any more, that would be one thing, but there wasn't, so it should have remained. Period.

Even assuming that your opinion is correct, the fact remains that it did not remain.  So when someone asks us how they work -- not how we think they should work, not how they used to work, not how we might want to houserule them into working -- well, we tell them how they work.

[Jareth Valar]

OK. Been reading all of the arguments about cost and karma and all that. I think the biggest thing being missed is, IMHO, the value of the Magic attribute between editions.

In all editions Magic is a limiter of the force of the spell you can cast and spirit you can summon.
In all editions it was used for certain astral tests and vs wards.
In older editions it was the radius for area spells. In 4th, based off force
Magic loss was the rule back then, now it's optional much harder to boot.
Also in older editions it was peripherally added to spellcasting rolls (being averaged with 2 other attributes for spell pool). Now you add the entirety of your attribute to all tests.

Magic means more in 4th ed than in earlier editions. Therefore, a power focus is more potent in 4th. Probably why they chose to increase bonding costs and change it's game effect (add directly to Magic). That, and the fact that in older editions, it was very difficult to get spells at a significant force. In 4th, it's nothing to see a force 12 spell.

Regardless, as everyone else has already posted. It is what it is now.  Follow the rules as is or make your own up. Either way, peace. 

[emsquared]

As to cost, I didn't say a word about the monetary cost.

Yep, sorry, missed the "binding" part of your OP.

Regarding the Karma cost to bind, I really don't see what your problem is, other than - "They changed things and I don't like it, because I don't!". Even if your demand for justification beyond this silly thing called balance was legitimate (which it's not - balance is not subjective, a Vanilla release should try to be consistent within itself and balanced with regards to that consistency, people can house-rule away what they don't want), I'm pretty sure others already touched on the reason with the rising Mana, no?

Not only does a Power Focus do the job of 4 other Foci which separately would cost you 75% more Karma than just the Power Focus, it also does the job of a 5th otherwise non-existant Foci in boosting Enchanting. This discount is directly between the "discounts" given by a 3 constituent Skill Group and a 4 constituent Skill Group, while in fact still boosting 6 Skills and exceeding normal Skill augmented maximum levels and generally is just more awesome than any other way to augment any Skills in the game at all for those 2 reasons.

Most characters have 1 Attribute to resist much of the worst of Spells, what can possibly make you think that Magic needs more help? The Magic mechanic is dis-balanced, by definition (on the side of Magic), at it's very core.