Author Topic: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks  (Read 5257 times)

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« on: November 13, 2010, 07:05:02 PM »
Can a spellcaster use an evocation to block all (or almost all) of the actions of a target without invoking or tagging an Aspect?

This is a question that arose on the Custom Spell Compilation Thread. You need to invoke or tag an aspect in order to grapple someone, and I believe that the same should apply to grapple-like blocks with magic. My main reason for believing this is that if you can block all actions with a spell, then there is really no point to blocking a select class of actions. And so all blocks with magic would be grapples, which (at least in my opinion) makes the game less interesting.

However, it has come to my attention that not everyone agrees with me. I made this thread so that we could discuss it without sending another thread way off topic.

If somebody could come here to state the opposing opinion, I would appreciate it.

Offline Ala Alba

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 428
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #1 on: November 13, 2010, 08:01:43 PM »
IMO, if the block is against everything, then anything can break it.

Offline Alatain

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #2 on: November 13, 2010, 11:57:23 PM »
The way I am looking at it, an evocation block can be either against every action of one type of a single person (all physical, all magical, all mental, etc.) or it can be against every action that is brought to bear against you specifically for the duration.

So, you could grapple the one guy, but his friend might punch you. Or you could put up a shield and block attacks against you from both of them until your spell goes down. It is all a matter of what you want at the time.

Alatain

Offline noclue

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #3 on: November 14, 2010, 12:17:29 AM »
A block has to be specific and clear about who it's intended to affect and what types of action it's trying to prevent. But it can prevent more than one of them--up to all of them--as context permits (YS210). The key is context. What is the fictional context of the block? What is the target attempting to do? If he's firing on you and you put up a wall of flame to prevent him from firing on you...well it would prevent him from attacking you, and from putting most maneuvers on you. But it wouldn't prevent him from moving away from you, or hiding from you, or picking up a gun.

Offline Alatain

  • Participant
  • *
  • Posts: 13
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #4 on: November 14, 2010, 02:12:04 AM »
Yes. I should have been more specific about the thematic side. A block of any sort can only block things that it logically could block. Grabbing someone with pure force and slamming him against the wall will probably stop him from running away, or actively fighting you in a physical way. It would not, however, stop him from using mental powers or socially berating you to goad you into a one on one fist fight...

A spherical shield will stop multiple people from hitting you, but still allows those other types of attacks. And it allows attacks on unprotected friends.

A lot of it is thematic viewpoint and logic. In my eyes, this game is not supposed to be power-gamed in illogical ways (aside from the illogical ways endemic to the setting, IE. Fairy laws, the accords, etc). Treat it as a good way to develop a good story in a urban fantasy genre and it will work fine. 

Offline mostlyawake

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #5 on: November 14, 2010, 04:40:59 PM »
Well let's use a good example here to get at the question the OP is asking.

First, to the OP, it's generally assumed that you'll be putting a specific block on everyone in an area (say, a block versus movement, resisted by might, by turning the ground into quicksand with a potion that I just listed on another thread), OR, a block on one person, which can block EVERYTHING they are trying to do, depending on context.

So let's give it good context: The block is a mental attack, fogging the character's mind so that he takes no action.  Despite the lawbreaker implications here, this clearly should block any type of action the character might take.  To give it some stats, we'll say it's applied at strength 8 and lasts 3 rounds (because the caster somehow spent 10 shifts on it).  So, ANY action of ANY type attempted by the victim suffers and 8 strength block, until something breaks it. And we'll say that the target got a chance to resist with discipline at casting.

That's more than normal grappling does, which isn't going to shut down everything (just close to it. It interferes with spell-casting, which can be done purely mentally, so there.  But it maybe wouldn't interfere with, say, using knowledge skills (which means, making declarations and such).

Our spell now does that as well.

So the only thing left is: should it require invocation of an aspect to place, like a grapple?

My answer is no, because it's magic. This isn't logically inconsistent; it's just a different set of rules. The grappling rules have that provision to make it a little harder to grapple, and to reflect the need for getting into position in some way.  This is needed because grappling quickly becomes a "win" button in most games, and because it's hard to break (a non-grappler is going to have a hard time breaking it).  However, our spell can be broken by ANYTHING, so the victim can just default to his highest skill and roll that to try and get free. Thus, it's easier to break than a grapple.  Also, while you can add duration via a second "spell", the caster is still burning through mental stress quickly to keep this up... thus it cannot be sustained as easily as a normal grapple.  

So, really, you're looking at a different set of rules (magic vs physical) and, truly, a different effect with different strengths and weaknesses. Despite the similarities to grappling, I see no reason to impose the "need to invoke an aspect" rule on such magic blocks: they already take more to land, are broken more easily, and can't be maintained as long as normal grapples.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #6 on: November 14, 2010, 05:51:53 PM »
Magic really is an excuse to be able to do anything, and according to the section on blocks anyone could prevent one person from doing anything with a block. The just have to come up with a good reason. Taser or dazer are a good ones but "It's magic" works for anything.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #7 on: November 14, 2010, 07:33:44 PM »
Well, it seems like I'm on the wrong side of this argument. So I'll have to let my players block everything with evocations.

That doesn't mean I'm convinced, it means I'm bowing to popular opinion. There have been three arguments here that would have convinced me, were it not for a few problems. They are:

1. Magic "grapples" are more vulnerable than physical ones because they can be broken by anything.

This argument makes sense, but as I understand it physical grapples can also be broken by almost anything. Athletics to wriggle out, Intimidation to scare the guy off you, Weapons force the guy off with a knife, etc. Is my interpretation wrong?

2. Your ability to grapple magically is limited by the context, and by the methods you can use.

Magic in this game is so open-ended that there will almost never be a situation where you can't justify a magical grapple.

3. You can either block something specific for multiple people, or everything for one person.

This is the best of the three arguments, in my opinion. The only problem is that zonewide blocks cost two shifts extra, no matter what they are blocking. It might be reasonable if this penalty was waived for narrowly focused blocks. Does that sound fair to you?

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #8 on: November 14, 2010, 08:52:14 PM »
I may have a solution to the problem you have with the third argument but it involves getting super extra rules-lawyery. Technically the book says:

Quote
2 shifts of power allow the effect to cover
multiple allies within the same zone (typically
the same zone the wizard occupies). Covering
multiple zones requires 2 additional shifts
per zone.

So by the book a wizard can extend a block that prevents all actions committed by their own allies only for an extra 2 shifts. Use this or don't as you desire.

Edit: Personally I'd just rule that using a offensive block on non-willing targets in one zone is a little more difficult than shielding a bunch of willing targets (I.E. allies).
« Last Edit: November 14, 2010, 08:55:45 PM by sinker »

Offline noclue

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 333
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #9 on: November 14, 2010, 11:48:24 PM »
the book is talking about protecting allies, not restricting them.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #10 on: November 15, 2010, 05:58:48 AM »
But technically that's all it ever says about extending an evocation block to multiple targets, offensive or defensive.

Offline mostlyawake

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #11 on: November 15, 2010, 04:09:25 PM »
The line about blocking all actions versus one target or one type of actions versus all targets is straight out of the block section for YS, but I don't have the book on me ATM to post it for you.

My point about breaking magic to block is that literally ANY skill would work... you could say "I want to shake this fog off with endurance, discipline, conviction, lore (to understand it), scholarship (to mentally comprehend how your mind is being affected), athletics (i do a fe jumping jacks to clear my head)... literally ANY skill would work. So your scholar with a stunt in forensic science could roll like a +7 base by reciting the parts of the human body to shake it off... and so on. 


Offline babel2uk

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 214
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #12 on: November 15, 2010, 04:52:35 PM »
The line about blocking all actions versus one target or one type of actions versus all targets is straight out of the block section for YS, but I don't have the book on me ATM to post it for you.

Page 210:

Quote
Generally speaking, if the block can affect more than one person, it can only prevent one type of action. If the block only affects one person, it can prevent several types of action—up to all of them—as context permits. You can’t use a block to prevent someone from making a defense roll.

Offline sinker

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 2115
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #13 on: November 15, 2010, 05:07:16 PM »
The line about blocking all actions versus one target or one type of actions versus all targets is straight out of the block section for YS, but I don't have the book on me ATM to post it for you.

I'm aware of that and that applies to all blocks but for evocation blocks specifically it states that 2 shifts of power allows you to target all allies in one zone and that's what Sanctaphrax was worried about. Players would be able to prevent all actions to all targets in one zone simply by adding two shifts of power, thus shutting combat down with ease. Except it specifically state allies only.

My point about breaking magic to block is that literally ANY skill would work... you could say "I want to shake this fog off with endurance, discipline, conviction, lore (to understand it), scholarship (to mentally comprehend how your mind is being affected), athletics (i do a fe jumping jacks to clear my head)... literally ANY skill would work. So your scholar with a stunt in forensic science could roll like a +7 base by reciting the parts of the human body to shake it off... and so on. 

And actually this is the best thematic argument I came up with yesterday against being able to extend an offensive block by simply adding two shifts to the spell. When a wizard shields it's usually a constant structured effect. It's usually one construct (sphere, wall, etc) that rests near the target and since there's no time to react to an attack the shield is constantly at a certain output. You can see how it might be relatively easy to expand that to multiple willing targets, add more constructs. Just a little more concentration and effort.

Now imagine using a offensive block against multiple unwilling targets. Let's say we are using force to hold them in place. Each person is resisting but none of them are resisting in exactly the same way. This one's a runner so he has strong legs you need extra force in that area to hold him, that one is a dock worker, he's got a strong upper body, etc. You have to do all this while trying not to crush any of them. Just like you said with your mind fog earlier people are going to resist in entirely different ways. One person's going to worry that they're losing their intellect and are going to recite mathematical equations (scholarship) another recognizes it for what it is and uses arcane knowledge to counter it (lore) a third is worried they will lose their loved ones and are going to try hard to remember them (That's a tough one. Discipline? Conviction?....Contacts?).

Anyway you can see how it's a whole different animal.

Offline mostlyawake

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 233
    • View Profile
Re: A Question About The Rules For Evocation Blocks
« Reply #14 on: November 15, 2010, 06:56:53 PM »
I'm aware of that and that applies to all blocks but for evocation blocks specifically it states that 2 shifts of power allows you to target all allies in one zone and that's what Sanctaphrax was worried about. Players would be able to prevent all actions to all targets in one zone simply by adding two shifts of power, thus shutting combat down with ease. Except it specifically state allies only.



Some spells, by effect description, work best as an area effect offensive block.  Icing the floor is a good example: no reason this couldn't be done, but the effect works best as a zone-wide block versus movement (athletics).  The seem reasonable to allow such "extension".  Besides the rule stating that you just can't block ALL actions from multiple people, it seems unreasonable to extend the total block to everyone, for the exact reasons you give: they will be resisting different ways, and it's just too hard of a spell to pull off.