More Spell help... water

[Lanir]

Sounds like you're leaning towards it just being a maneuver to place a scene aspect then. You should talk it over with your GM in this case. An aspect that affects someone doesn't always have to be fully powered by the characters. An aspect of "It's freaking dark" on a scene doesn't require a character to tag it to make it difficult for a normal person to have difficulty doing sight-based actions. The GM invokes it and the difficulties raise, simple as that.

[Becq]

I haven't implemented it yet, but am toying with the idea that a block lower than your target difficulty still grants +1 to the difficulty (perhaps to a limit of one or two such blocks for a given action).  It just doesn't make sense for the block not to count at all, but alternatively we don't want to make such a block all powerful that it locks down an unlucky caster in an imbalanced way.

Interesting idea.  Perhaps you could use the 'combining skills' rules to say that the block is modifying your defense skill.  This would only work if the block rating was above your base skill level (before the dice roll), but would give you a +1 to your defense roll if it was (and would still count as a block instead if your roll was low).

Another option is to adapt the enchantment item patch, and allow the block to be used as either a block or as a form of 'armor', whichever is better.  In the case of 'armor' it would subtract from the effect generated by the spell (but wouldn't cause an outright failure).  For example, say Harry casts a 6-shift block against spellcasting on Morgan.  Morgan tries to shake the earth under Harry, placing a "Knocked Down" aspect on him.  He easily bypasses the block rating, and gets two shifts more than he needed, which would normally make the aspect sticky.  Instead, the block counts as armor 3, subtracting three shifts from the effect.  That reduces the spell to it's base effect, a temporary aspect, with no stickiness.

Dunno how well this would work out, but it might be interesting.

[vultur]

Even if one goes with 'magically created water doesn't short out magic like regular running water', using water evocation to block magic still makes sense -- water has an entropic aspect in the Dresdenverse. If Carlos can have a water block against attacks that erodes them, I don't see why a water block against spells that erodes their energy shouldn't work -- even if it doesn't work on the running-water-shorts-out-magic principle.

However, it does seem from the books that locking down another spellcaster's magic is hard -- when Eb's locking down Mavra, it's treated like something difficult even for him, and there's no way Mavra's even close to Eb's power level -- so a block vs Discipline makes sense to me.

[Ala Alba]

Uh, unless I'm wrong, even if you beat a block, the value of the block is still subtracted from your roll. Thus, even a block versus Discipline of 4 could really ruin a spellcaster's day. At the very least, they'd either have to lower the power of their spell by four, or hope for a very good roll.

Otherwise, placing the sticky aspect "Constantly Drenched With Running Water" means that GM is obligated to compel the Spellcaster's high concept and prevent him/her from using magic.

[SuperBunnyBun]

If I were to make a spell using water to ground someone, it would probably involve more the wind element.  And would require an ample water supply nearby.  A pool, river, fire hydrant, what have you.  And would basicly just scoop a large bit of water, and drop itself ontop of the wizard.

basicly would create a water-tight shield around water, move it through the air, and then basicly drop it over the wizard so he would then be within the barrier.  not only should this greatly reduce any magical abilities, but you get to drown them too!

Course the barrier would require a great deal of concentration, so the caster would be completely open to attack, and the barrier would only be solid to water, so other physical objects could pass right through it. (leaving gunfire a viable option to the target)