Focuser/Willworker

[Sosthenes]

As the other thread is getting a bit polluted, let's talk about this new distinction between magic-users in IKRPG2. To get us started, what do we exactly know about this, i.e. what's in the article? And do we have any prior art for these terms? I do own the main Warmachine rule book, but have to admit ignorance of all the finer point, I just bought it cheaply for the pretty pictures. Is the difference between a normal spell-casting unit and a full-fledged Warcaster anything we can base this new dichotomy on?

Oh, and by the way?

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

There are lots of spellcasters in Warmachine that don't use Focus or Fury (which I imagine will be in the wilderness-themed book). They just have a Magic Ability stat (typically 6-8) that is used when attack rolls are necessary, and non-offensive spells just happen without any reference to Magic Ability. Focus Manipulation is specifically limited to models that can control warjacks. Based on the info in NQ #42, the distinction looks similar, but the magic system itself is more detailed. Spell stat blocks are the same as in WM (in fact one of the examples they give is a standard WM spell, Arcane Bolt); Focusers pay the cost in Focus while Willworkers gain the cost in Fatigue, and have an upper limit to that. No word on whether they can take damage to exceed their Fatigue limit. Focus Manipulators cannot spend/allocate more Focus than they have in WM, which may or may not establish a precedent for the IKRPG.

[Sosthenes]

So we basically have a spell point system, where focusers have X points, with a regeneration per "round" of X, whereas willworkers have Y points, regen of Z, with Y > X, but X > Z?

(aka. "size of the ship" vs. "motion of the ocean")

[Haugfather]

I would be surprised to see a complete regen of Focus every round. If a spell costs 2 points to cast and you have a Focuser with just 2 points and a Willer with a Fatigue of 10 that would mean 5 rounds until the Willer is spent and the Focuser just keeps on trucking. Now the limit of 2 might mean the Willer coudl have a a super killy spell that costs 5 on hand that might make him better. But without seeing the numbers for X, Y and Z. I can't say whether it is a good system of a flawed system.


As to the difference in window dressing between the two; paraphrasing from NQ "Willworkers use study to do things like casting spells from a spellbook. Focusers have a connection to the world around them that allows them to connect with 'jacks."

I am taking this to believe that while all Warcasters are Focusers, not all Focusers are Warcasters. That "connection to the world around them" may be the defining difference as to what careers will go with each Sub-Archetype much more so then the mechanic of Focus vs. Fatigue. I also seriously believe it will be the difference between a Wizard and Sorcerer. It would not be surprising to see that the old "Divine" careers are heavily towards Focuser.

[PG_Cloud-Gatherer]

So we basically have a spell point system, where focusers have X points, with a regeneration per "round" of X, whereas willworkers have Y points, regen of Z, with Y > X, but X > Z?

(aka. "size of the ship" vs. "motion of the ocean")

That's not necessarily supported by the article, but it seems like a reasonable guess. It's also worth noting that Focus Manipulation also allows you to use Focus to boost attack and/or damage rolls, regenerate or overboost the powerfield generated by warcaster armor, and hand out Focus to your 'jacks, so the "spell points" can also be used for a lot of things other than spells.

My guess is that Willworkers will have more Fatigue than a similarly-experienced Focuser has Focus, as you said, but also that Willworkers will have access to a larger and broader selection of spells, where Focusers will be able tap into their magical energy for more direct purposes.

Further muddying the waters, though, you have the Warmachine spell "Power Booster," which is known only by non-Focusers but gives Focus to a warjack if it doesn't have any. It's possible that Willworkers and Focusers can mimic each other's abilities and that each is simply more powerful or efficient with their own bailiwicks.

Incidentally, that's a fun word: bailiwick.

[Sosthenes]

I wonder whether this is really a worthwhile/important distinction anyway. The way it sounds, it's a warcaster vs. everything else deal. Sure, maybe the IKRPG focuses (hurm) on a tight integration with the wargame and thus warcasters will be rather common in your average party. If not, it seems like a part of the rules that's factored out of the equation for a lot of groups…

Which would be a bit sad, I guess. While I was hoping for a more featured innate/learned distinction (witches&wizards), I think you could do some neat things with focusing/willworkforfooding, outside of the polluting robot sector. It's a nice fit for some "cleric" archetypes, e.g. buffers vs. healers. Or "rigger" mechaniks with a bunch of servitors (vs. more MacGyver-like throwaway gadget types). And I always considered gun mages low-powered warcasters anyway, but you could easily have focused gunmages who enhance their magelocks vs. willywonka gunmages who cast lots of rays, sprays and balls, oh my.

[PG_ThatRickGuy]

I would expect it to be Warcaster vs Warlock, where the will worker uses some form of 'will power' to force beasts, where as the focuser uses 'focus' to boost/buy with jacks.

-Rick

[Saraminss]

I figure it will be more like focuses are your war casters and will users are like you rune shapers and greylods ... We know warlocks will be later so that is not a good comparison at all

[PG_cogrie]

My best guess would be that the difference will be somewhat like the difference between wizards and sorcerers in Pathfinder. Willworkers might have access to more spells, since they are relying on study and the "science" of magic, while Focusers, since they learn their magic intuitively, will have fewer effects they can produce, but produce the ones they do extremely well, or perhaps more frequently. There may also end up being a system where Willworkers will be able to push their bodies almost to the brink of death to cast their magic (i.e. taking points of damage once a set number of fatigue points are accumulated) while Focusers will have the ability to do more with their points, say boosting rolls or armoring up their power fields, but once the allotted amount of points are spent, they will have to wait for them to come back. Speaking of which, perhaps Willworkers will have more available fatigue points compared to a Focuser's focus points, so they can do more in a short period of time, but Focusers' focus points will regenerate more quickly than fatigue points will go away, allowing a Focuser to use more spells over a longer period, but less all at once than a Willworker. There are so many ways they could go with this distinction, it is hard to make an "educated" guess.

[Sosthenes]

Well, we do know that it isn't about the sorcerer/wizard deal, and it sounded like they were both on somewhat equal footing, i.e. balanced. (I'm guessing that Warcasters are now better than everyone else / superhuman / chosen / etc. not for being "focusers", but for being globdarn experienced/advanced focusers).

What we don't know is how closely tied the barebones focuser is to the warcaster dealio. This could range from "almost there", i.e. already tied to 'jack handling etc, to warcasting just being the endpoint of one of many "focused" paths. The latter would allow for effin' buff-mages without Iron Giants (or even magelock-bound gun mages, blessing priests and wolf-herding blackclads).

I'm a bit torn between wanting a mechanically sound core system with fewer moving parts (i.e. not a magic system for every class) and more thematically interesting backgrounds. But considering that it's a given that sorcerers won't be getting their own little set of rules, my hopes are dashed anyways, and I'd vote for the least amount of different subsystems to memorize. Not another, separate dichotomy for warlocks vs. ordinary blackclads/shamen etc. once the next books come out. (As much as I dislike the core D&D magic system, the end phase of 3.5 with its proliferation of silly, unprecedented magic systems got awfully confusing, all for the sake of selling books.)

[Iron_Peanut]

So we basically have a spell point system, where focusers have X points,with a regeneration per "round" of X, whereas willworkers have Y points, regen of Z, with Y > X, but X > Z?

aka. "size of the ship" vs. "motion of the ocean"

This has been my assumption. I think a lot of casting careers will be opento either type of spellcaster, giving both types access to the same spells (since spell list is determined by career). Even if this isn't the case, spell entries have a Cost listed which is paid in either Focus or Fatigue depending on your type.
I figured a Focuser would start off with a Focus score of 2 or 3, which would refresh at the top of every turn or something.
Alternatively, a Willworker might be able to absorb 20 points of Fatiuge before needing to recuperate. If it's for 8 hours, I might get upset. I'm thinking maybe a Willworker heals Fatigue at a set rate when not in combat or similarly stressful environments.
So a Focuser can throw Cost 2-3 spells down range with impunity, all day, every day, but the higher-Cost spells are out of his ability. A Willworker is able to bring the "big gun" Cost 4-5 spellsto the table, but he risks blowing his wad in doing so.
Upkeep spells also impact the two types differently. When a Focuser chooses to upkeep a spell, he's limiting his options - if he's Focus 3 andhe's upkeeping, he doesn't have access to all of his spells. A Willworker still has all of their options, but is burning through their fuel supply at an accelerated rate.

There's the blurb that says that only Focusers can interface with mechanika, but that doesn't make them limited to being Warcasters, it just makes Warcasters limited to being Focusers. Arcane Mechaniks also make their magic interact with mechanika. Gun Mage seems like another possible Focusers-only option.
Again, I think that most castingcareers will be open to both types. I don't think theFocuser/Willworker dichotomy has anything to do with how you learned (either intuitively or through booklearning) your magic, but how you're able to perform it. The Sorcerer career has already been mentioned as aspellcaster who learns magic though talent and practice independent of a formal education, and that could be paired with either mechanic.
In Dungeons and Dragons, there's this idea that anyone who is smart enough and completes the postdoc-level education in esoteric theory can become a wizard and learn to cast spells. I don't think this applies in the Iron Kingdoms, and that represents a mechanical change from the previous edition. You need to be Gifted in order to do magic.
Well, you need to be Gifted to do arcane Magic, at least. Right now I'm leaning towards the idea that divine characters aren't part of the Gifted-Focuser/Willworker system.

An idea that has been tossed around in other threads is that while Warcaster will be Focusers-only, Warlock will be Willworkers-only, and they'll be able to shunt their Fatiuge off onto their warbeasts. This is double-extra speculation though, since Warlocks aren't going to be detailed until the third book.

(I'm guessing that Warcasters are now better than everyone else / superhuman / chosen / etc. not for being "focusers", but for being globdarn experienced/advanced focusers).

Yeah. If you want to look at an inexperienced Focuser, take a gander at Cygnar's Journeyman Warcaster. Focus 3 is not nearly as impressive as Focus 6, or 5 even. And then if you really want to approximate a starting-level Warcaster, take away his warjack, his armor, his magic sword, and probably his hand cannon. All you have left is an Arcane Shield buffbot who can't hit the broad side of a barn with Arcane Bolt.

[Killj0y]

Interesting metaphysical implications.

Assume magical energy exists in abundance either around us, within us or in a parallel/concurrent dimension. the ability to Access that energy and the methodology is what determines our magical applications.

It would appear that in our current setting we're looking at a majority of casters who exercise magic by drawing either on their own reserves or on a finite amount of strain that allows them to draw energy through themselves from another source.

Existing in that same space are a plethora of buffer effects that either bolster one's personal energy or mitigate the necessity of drawing power through your own limited channels.

Infernals, Gods, and the like would occupy this particular section allowing divine casters and infernalists a much wider channel to access the same magical power without exhausting their personal reserves. The limits of such a channel are unique such as being unable to channel energy of an opposing alignment or having a limit on the quantity of healing energy that can be forced through the channel before side effects start to take hold.

These kinds of baseline metaphysics are an easy way to work the transfer of power but warcasters just break the bank on this kind of thing. Being a wellspring of arcane energy on a round by round basis is just too much output in a world otherwise governed by limited input.

It blows the whole scarcity situation out the window. If you're basing them on IK1.0 norms then they're doing the same things other casters are doing they just have a way of passing the energy they draw on to other sources like warjacks but I can't see any way to simplify the TT-rpg disparity in output without going cineamatic.

[Sosthenes]

In Dungeons and Dragons, there's this idea that anyone who is smart enough and completes the postdoc-level education in esoteric theory can become a wizard and learn to cast spells. I don't think this applies in the Iron Kingdoms, and that represents a mechanical change from the previous edition.

I don't think this is generally true in D&D. Sure, third edition theoretically allows anyone to add a level of Wizard, but the same is true for Barbarians (and it's pretty hard to suddenly become a Cimmerian by slaughtering kobolds). Apart from some prestige classes, third edition had a pretty large gap between fluff and crunch.

But let's not argue too much about that, the bigger issue is that in the Iron Kingdoms, Thamar's gift certainly made it look like everyone* could learn to be a Wizard, which doesn't seem to be true in the upcoming edition. Honestly, about everything I heard about magic in the new rules systems seems to be a rather bad fit for the Iron Kingdoms magic theory, or at least my view of it.

*) Assuming above average intelligence and willpower, which should be somewhat trivial for PCs.

[FrankJaeger]

But let's not argue too much about that, the bigger issue is that in the Iron Kingdoms, Thamar's gift certainly made it look like everyone* could learn to be a Wizard, which doesn't seem to be true in the upcoming edition. Honestly, about everything I heard about magic in the new rules systems seems to be a rather bad fit for the Iron Kingdoms magic theory, or at least my view of it.

I don't have the NQ magazines, so I might be missing something, but I don't see how this is true. The fact that you must choose the "Gifted" archetype to be a caster doesn't mean that you must be born that way.

[Iron_Peanut]

I don't have the NQ magazines, so I might be missing something, but I don't see how this is true. The fact that you must choose the "Gifted" archetype to be a caster doesn't mean that you must be born that way.

True, but you do have to create your character that way. I guess you could make a character that is Gifted but doesn't have any Careers that offer spellcasting, and then move into a spellcasting career later on. This seems like kind of a bad idea though, since you'll spend a lot of time saddled with an Archetype that might not serve you as well as one of the others. Even if you did do that, your character has had this "Gifted" mark on his sheet since you rolled him up - he was "born" with the potential to be a spellcaster.

[Sosthenes]

Well, I guess you could talk to your GM about letting him exchange your current "Hopscotch Savant" archetype with "Gifted" late in the game, once you discovered your urge for magic and now have the money for Wizard school.

But, well, let's wait and see if it's really presented that way. Given that this is the time when PP doesn't have to live with a third party system, I would expect a closer tie between rules and background, not the opposite. But maybe the line of reasoning was something like this: Sure, quite a few people who take "Gifted" actually are (sorcerers), and for most Wizard players it won't matter too much. And players who want to cast spells need to pay for this, mechanically. So let's just go with calling it Gifted. It's not like rules terms actually matter…

[jdripley]

I'm not as familiar with the IK lore as some here. Is it actual fact that Thamar gifted all of humanity with magic - i.e. every last human being is capable of magic if they put their mind to it - or is her gift to humanity considered more global - i.e. magic was given to humanity, therefore some humans now manifest the ability to use magic, but not EVERY human needs to be capable of using magic?

I also wonder how many instances of "boy, we all thought this was how PP envisioned the Iron Kingdoms because it was done such and such a way in the d20 system, but now we find out they had a very different vision and were shoving a square peg through a round hole back in the d20 days" we'll encounter.

[Sosthenes]

Unschooled in scientific principles and formulae, the undisciplined sorcerer relies on an inborn, innate connection to the arcane powers of the universe. While it is often ill-formed and poorly understood, it is impossible to deny the power wielded by these individuals, their command of magical energies has done much to make magic the respected and feared power it is in our day. Yet, this power is not the sole province of the sorcerer. With careful, meticulous study and firm will others can learn to harness and control these same powers. Magic can be taught and learned through the founding principles of science, and men can wield its arcane might.

There are similar references to the differences between sorcery and wizardry, and basically everything seems to imply that discipline, intelligence and willpower are all that's needed to master Wizardry. Granted, that's not something innate to every bumbling manure shoveler, but in itself not a supernatural gift, a X-Men like "mutation" of sorts. Just like there's no mythical endowment that's needed today to become a quantum physicist, but it might not be attainable by every Joe Shmoe.

Note that we have a "Gifted" template, not a "Highly Gifted" and "Lesser Gifted" variant, one for sorcerers, one for mere wizards.

And to continue the quote-fest: "[...]Clearly, they argue their own art has only a tangential connection to this "Gift of Sorcery" imparted as "a plague of Thamar on humanity." They insist their more analytical process was an invention of Sebastian Kerwin[...]The birth of sorcerers was likely a side effect of the true divine intervention of Thamar. Even when sorcerers were appearing all over Immoren they were relatively few among the total number of births. Sorcerious abilities were an aberration, like albinism or keen hearing."

The way I always interpreted was that magic is basically ternary in nature, based on race. Off, on and really on. Before Thamar's Gift, humans couldn't wield magic as we know it now. There were some people who used some loopholes, probably based around infernalism. The Morrdh and Thamar herself are the prime examples of that approach. Then, after Thamar threw the giant switch in the sky (a move not really appreciated by Menoth and his church), every human was potentially able to wield magic. Some few were able to instinctively grasp the basic concepts and wield magic without instruction or even a core theory. Whether this is similar to some mathematical savants or more a side-effect of the "switch-throwing" remains to be seen (i.e. whether the number of sorcerers since the Gift event are decreasing or not).

But nothing I've read this far points towards a supernatural requirement for wizardry or alchemy.

Note to myself: Connecting the gift of sorcery and being on the autistic spectrum might be interesting for my campaign. Alexia with Aspergers?

[Saraminss]

Gifted -adjective
1.
having great special talent or ability: the debut of a gifted artist.
2.
having exceptionally high intelligence: gifted children.

Why would this mean anything akin to a supernatural mutation?

[Saraminss]

Double post

[Iron_Peanut]

Top notch citation, Sosthenes. The thing I'm complaining about still stands - if you can pick up magic through booklearning whenever, why should you have to emphasize it at character generation?
Also I've always liked the Iron Kingdoms approach of not separating magic and science. I appreciate that magic in the setting is understood based on rational scientific principles rather than some ephemeral spiritual whatever.
RE: Menoth being mad about Thamar Gifting humanity with magic: As the Creator of mankind, I think that it might have been within Menoth's power to Gift humanity at any time - the gods of the elves and the dwarfs had done so long ago. He just had some reason for not Gifting humanity, and whether that reason was justified (magic use strengthens the Devourer in some way we don't know about), arbitrary (Menoth thinks magic is for dinks), or selfish (Menoth wants humanity more reliant on Him), I don't know one way or the other. I do know that Menoth doesn't like to be second-guessed, even if it might work towards the direct benefit of humanity or Menoth's interests. Just ask Hierarch Voyle.

Note to myself: Connecting the gift of sorcery and being on the autistic spectrum might be interesting for my campaign. Alexia with Aspergers?

People might be complaining the direction of the DnD 5e beta, but the direction of the DSM 5e beta is just as exciting and controversial! Aspergers probably isn't going to be a thing anymore, instead getting folded into Autism Spectrum Disorder. So maybe it'll be Alexia with Low-to-Mild-Grade Autism Spectrum Disorder. She does have a an inability to form close friendships and a difficulty understanding the feelings of people, possibly because she is intent on turning those people into skeletons.
I think spellcasters tend more towards sociopathic behavior - it's well known that wizards have no sense of right and wrong.

[Mr Fahrenheint]

I don't know if it's because of the portuguese translation or my horrible memory, but my knowledge about the IK history is a bit different:
-There were magical clerics of Menoth before the Orgoth invasion.
-Sorceres weren't just side effect of the gift. Sebastian had to study existent sorceres to develop wizardry.
Things that you forgot? Hallucinations or just misunderstandings of a Brazilian translator? WHO KNOWS?

The differences of Focuser and Willworker seem very simple to me. It's like having an epiphany is to thinking really hard about a question: One comes naturally in small quantities and the other requires effort.

Warcasters have that especial connection to the source of magic (or maybe it was a hallucination), so they can easily take energy from the quickening-equivalent of the kingdoms. Willers, on the other hand, need to force the energy out with their wills (oh, that explains the name), even if this ability is inborn.

[Sosthenes]

Why would this mean anything akin to a supernatural mutation?

Because of the friggin' "Gift" of Thamar. Considering the Iron Kingdoms lore, it's pretty clear that humankind wasn't able to cast spells at all until Thamar did something (hacked the celestial barriers, made a deal with the infernals, slept with Ganthet). Considering that, I'd consider anything termed "gifted" and related to magic from that point of view, and not meaning that someone's particularly good at multiple choice tests.

Top notch citation, Sosthenes. The thing I'm complaining about still stands - if you can pick up magic through booklearning whenever, why should you have to emphasize it at character generation?

Well, if you balance the careers to each other, you've got to get the basic investment to cast magic from some character creation element. And the basic archetypes would seem the way to go.

But I certainly agree with you, doing it that way does evoke a certain symbolism. Fluff and crunch is really, really hard to separate, especially in a non-generic system.

Also I've always liked the Iron Kingdoms approach of not separating magic and science. I appreciate that magic in the setting is understood based on rational scientific principles rather than some ephemeral spiritual whatever.

I generally tend towards more "romantic" innate, mystical magic (and dislike the arcane/divine barrier), but one of the primary reasons why I'm actually playing in the Iron Kingdoms is its mythology, theology and, erm, arcanology(?). In the D20 system, the sorcery/wizardry divide was clearly made for mechanical reasons, making it easier for a certain type of player. Just like barbarians are easier to level up and create than the feat-based fighter. Iron Kingdoms was one of the few games where this made sense regarding the background. Never mind that I just *love* in-game witches and the like.

I always disliked that in the end the only thing differentiating IK witches and wizards was the way the cast spells, it was still the same invocations in the end. Sadly, that still will be the case in the new edition of the game. Looks like I'll have to stick to my HERO conversion…

People might be complaining the direction of the DnD 5e beta, but the direction of the DSM 5e beta is just as exciting and controversial! Aspergers probably isn't going to be a thing anymore, instead getting folded into Autism Spectrum Disorder. So maybe it'll be Alexia with Low-to-Mild-Grade Autism Spectrum Disorder. She does have a an inability to form close friendships and a difficulty understanding the feelings of people, possibly because she is intent on turning those other people into skeletons.

Alexia is a particularly bad case. Never mind her sorcerous tendencies, she witnessed her mother's ritual execution at a really early case. Beyond any magical influence or not knowing your father, that's bound to mess you up. So looking at the autism/sorcery connection through her point of view probably won't help too much…

But generally, one could doe some interesting pop-psychology with the truly gifted. Maybe the connection to magic itself replaces or diminishes the connection to your fellow people (which could be somewhat supernatural/divine in a fantasy setting).

[HerrDeux]

There are lots of spellcasters in Warmachine that don't use Focus or Fury (which I imagine will be in the wilderness-themed book). They just have a Magic Ability stat (typically 6-8) that is used when attack rolls are necessary, and non-offensive spells just happen without any reference to Magic Ability. Focus Manipulation is specifically limited to models that can control warjacks. Based on the info in NQ #42, the distinction looks similar, but the magic system itself is more detailed. Spell stat blocks are the same as in WM (in fact one of the examples they give is a standard WM spell, Arcane Bolt); Focusers pay the cost in Focus while Willworkers gain the cost in Fatigue, and have an upper limit to that. No word on whether they can take damage to exceed their Fatigue limit. Focus Manipulators cannot spend/allocate more Focus than they have in WM, which may or may not establish a precedent for the IKRPG.

One of the staff has mentioned (sorry I can't definitively source it, but I think it was in the RPG panel discussion that was videotaped a few months back with DC and Ed answering the questions...or maybe it was in a No Quarter a couple issues back...or maybe it was a post by Simon) that spellcasters (at least some of them) would be able to cast more spells per day at an increasing risk to their physical (mental sanity?) well being. It sounded in some ways similar to the Pain of Healing for Clerics in the 3.5 IK, which I thought was a nice touch, as well as the risk of casting Necromantic spells and incurring damage (albeit subdual).

[Rapier]

I apologize for posting this again from the other thread, but it really belongs here.

My other concern from the current previews is that I want wizardry, sorcery and divine magic to be functionally and flavourfully different. One of the things I didn't like in warmachine/hordes was the simplifiying of magic down to a single magic roll system (Although the focus and fury mechanics are amazing). I understand that at the skirmish level the difference between a divine spell an innate spell and a learnt spell is rather irrelevant, what matters is the difficulty and the effect.

At the character level though, whether my character needs to prepare spells in advance, channel divine will through prayer or merely will something to occur is a meaningful distinction and I want a little more crunch from the iron kingdoms rpg (MK 2). In the DnD incarnation I always felt that divine magic and wizardry were actually a little too close (a fact of D&D in general not just the IK version) and I was hoping to see these three alternative magical routes split apart a bit more.

However Will weaver vs focus user vs (presumably) fury user - seems to imply that rather than teasing them apart they're actually solidifying them into only one mechanic system and just having different fluff to cover the effect. (if so I hope a future book will split them apart).

Finally on this point - in the old Iron Kingdoms it was necessary to have magical aptitude of some kind before going into Warcaster, access to I believe level 3 divine or arcane spells. (Specifically, Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Gun Mage, Druid - I think Paladins and Rangers lost their magic in IK D&D). This meant that focus use was construded as an advanced form of magical manipulation - not necessary better but requiring magical prowess to learn as well as (fluff-wise) the warcaster talent.

In the new IK rpg this has been split apart - it's now possible to be an innate warcaster with no representation of other ways to utilize magic. My question on this is - does this represent the origional intent of the designers better?

Now I'm interested in some of the points raised in this thread but I don't think that requiring a spell caster to take the gifted archetype should necessarily be read into too great detail. Ultimately it is a mechanical balancing rather than fluff based at that point in character creation. The three other archetypes are really more of how you approach things than what you do. Intellect, Skill and Might (Strength) as a focus all of which fit onto any career - gifted could either be viewed as not fitting in with those because magic isn't really comparable - although arguably using magic to achieve your aims is exactly what PP see the Gift of Thamar as being.

I.e. anyone can be born to be stronger, smarter more skillful or more magical. The archetypal choice is about which one reflects your character - although it's reasonable to argue that if you aren't magical you can't choose a career that requires magic. It seems equally lightly to me that some other careers might be limited. Maybe "Spy" can be gifted, intellectual or skillful but not really mighty. A gladiator could be Skillful or Mighty but not Intellectual (And possibly not Gifted because fighting with magic to back you up might be unfair).

So it isn't really the case that you can't became a wizard if you're Mighty because you weren't born with the Gift - but that you can't became a wizard if you're Mighty because that archetype reflects the attitudes and basic premise of your character - you're someone that goes for brute force and peak physical training through out life and so magic doesn't fit. Not - couldn't but doesn't.

Also it's worth noting that we don't know the list of all the bonuses available to the 4 archetypes. It's quite possible either at release or later that Gifted will have some abilities that reflect latent talent not unlocked yet - so that taking Gifted for the sake of taking Wizard as a 3rd or 4th career won't be sub-par choice.