Proactive block mechanics?

[devonapple]

Would it be acceptable for a spellcaster PC to spend a Fate Point to invoke their High Concept in order to Declare that they get a shield spell up in time? How would most GMs feel about that?

In the fiction, assassins have successfully ambushed a particularly popular spellcaster, who didn't manage to get a shield spell up in time and had to rely on enchanted clothing to stop the worst of the damage. The spellcaster didn't see an attack coming, so even a "fast as thought" spell wasn't enough.

[Moriden]

Anyways, as was already mentioned those rules were for evocation and it sounds like that was the initial problem. Blocks and simple actions created with Thaumaturgy cant be extended in the same way.

What about if you have sponsored magic?

[jybil178]

What about if you have sponsored magic?

Then you are attempting to use thaumaturgy, at the speed of evocation, using a rule specifically for evocation, and attempting to gain the full access to thaumaturgy's normal duration...  What this is, is a blindspot in the rules.  Blindspots cause bad things to happen.

But back to the original topic, were you attempting to talk about a block as in one of the actions you can take with evocation?  I only ask, because I'm not certain if you were talking about Evocation Veils, or Thaumaturgical Veils.  Because if I recall, neither of them ever add or do anything to your stealth score.. They instead provide a real Block for perception related challenges, so someone would need to have a high enough Alertness in order to spot someone with a good Veil up.

Second, and this is actually kind of important..  Before you ask how to replace a skill with a spell roll, or casting, or any other kind of alteration to the natural way a character should work, you should really go into HOW you want to do such a thing...  Do you plan to use Biomancy to change your character?  Do you rely on your sponsor for all the technical know how of how living stuff works?  I could easily imagine a somewhat disappointed sponsor, leaving those indebted to them stuck in whatever lesser forms they may have taken, as a form of punishment, even if for a short period of time... Or just a whim, depending..

[luminos]

Pricing thaumaturgy requires a judgement call, so I'm not going to say there is a wrong way to do it.

However, that spell is massively overpowered.  Due to the nature of the probability distribution of 4dF, skill does not scale linearly as it increases.  By the time you've hit 12 with a skill, you've got to the point where you outclass deities.  A 12 in multiple skills makes you practically unassailable.  To even get that kind of power temporarily is plot device ascension ritual territory. 

Consider these alternatives:
-  thaumaturgic maneuver that can be tagged number of times equal to shifts/3, with the scope of what it can be tagged for being very limited, and only tagging it a max of once per action.  I'd consider it fair to have a 12 shift spell give one of those for four free tags. 
-  Total thaumaturgic transformation, using 29 shifts to take yourself out and give yourself fancy new abilities.  This can be on the edge of plot device power, and might be enough to justify a single skill at 12 for a period of time.
-  A smaller self-transformation.  I'd price the complexity at either 8+2x the number of points the powers you take are worth, or just 2x the points of the power, and require several fate points be invoked for effect.

[Drachasor]

to the OP, by RAW I think if you want multiple checks, you need to multiple the shifts by the times you want to be able to use it.  If you want to make a skill check at +10, 10 times, that's 100 shifts.  Very expensive.

I think it is ok, however, to allow checks more like a block for very limited and controlled situations.  If the use is highly specific, such as seeing through Faerie Illusions, then that seems more acceptable to me.  Though, perhaps that IS broken even though it is in the books -- I'm a bit undecided, honestly.  Certainly the example magical item looks fine, but the fact you could easily make it as a thaumaturgy and a 10 shift effect lasting all day...that doesn't seem so cool if you are in a faerie-heavy story.

[jybil178]

Yeah...  Thats the major problem though.. We have a very rich universe, and plenty of lore and precedent to take away from.  But the game is based around a system, and there will always be people who try to beat the said system, and it will always have a chance of breaking from the natural norms of the setting.  All you can do, is keep your bats in hand, ready to beat away at the munchkins as they come crawling up the trash heap

[Drachasor]

Yeah...  Thats the major problem though.. We have a very rich universe, and plenty of lore and precedent to take away from.  But the game is based around a system, and there will always be people who try to beat the said system, and it will always have a chance of breaking from the natural norms of the setting.  All you can do, is keep your bats in hand, ready to beat away at the munchkins as they come crawling up the trash heap

I don't think it is fair to say anything effective or even too effective is the work of munchkins.  Often it isn't clear what is appropriately powerful, what is too weak, and what is too powerful until some playtesting is done.  Take the enchanted item build, let's assume it is too powerful (to me it isn't clear), does that mean someone doing it is a munchkin?  I'd say not, for it is certainly a very reasonable concept, and it isn't unreasonable to try to implement that concept as effectively as possible.  If it is too powerful, that's a problem with the rules when you get down to it.

Similarly, I am not sure whether or not the item that lets you get an awesome check on seeing through faerie illusions is OP or not.  If it is, I don't think it is because the designers were being munchkins.  If it isn't, I don't think a player is being a munchkin if they want to make a similar item for something else that seems reasonable, but in practice is OP.

[BumblingBear]

I don't think it is fair to say anything effective or even too effective is the work of munchkins.  Often it isn't clear what is appropriately powerful, what is too weak, and what is too powerful until some playtesting is done.  Take the enchanted item build, let's assume it is too powerful (to me it isn't clear), does that mean someone doing it is a munchkin?  I'd say not, for it is certainly a very reasonable concept, and it isn't unreasonable to try to implement that concept as effectively as possible.  If it is too powerful, that's a problem with the rules when you get down to it.

Similarly, I am not sure whether or not the item that lets you get an awesome check on seeing through faerie illusions is OP or not.  If it is, I don't think it is because the designers were being munchkins.  If it isn't, I don't think a player is being a munchkin if they want to make a similar item for something else that seems reasonable, but in practice is OP.

I think the real test is whether a character is doing something as a character concept or that is thematically appropriate or trying to max their "power".

Either way it doesn't concern me too much because in the Dresdenverse, there is ALWAYS a bigger fish.

[Moriden]

Okay i think the original example may be something some people are getting hung up on lets rephrase it.

1] you can use a block instead of a defensive skill roll, when doing so with evocation the strength is equal to one shift a level and you can use it an extra time per shift put into duration also for some reason called persistence.

2] when useing a block in place of a defensive roll with thumaturgy, it works as above but the base duration is scene, you use the time duration chart instead of +1 round, and the block does not go away after it is breached as per the ward/veil rules.

3] can you use a "block" instead of a non defensive roll [ie alertness for initiative, fists to attack,might to lift or break things]? My current understanding based on some of iago's older posts is yes, but there may not be a lot of RAW to support this.

4] can you use the magic system to gain a +x to a skill roll instead of a "block"? Again some of the moderators earlier posts and a few examples in the book support this  however there is clearly no listed system for how you would do so in the book.

5] when using thaumaturgy at evocation speeds and methods which duration system do you use? and can you then use the evocation method to boost its duration.

6] when creating a "buff" spell is it most appropriate to use "blocks", aspects, or the temporary powers rules, or some combination of them all as appropriate?

to the OP, by RAW I think if you want multiple checks, you need to multiple the shifts by the times you want to be able to use it.  If you want to make a skill check at +10, 10 times, that's 100 shifts.  Very expensive.

Go check the evocation building blocks section again, theres no examples of how to get a + anything [unfortunately] though you can clearly get more then one use of out a block by one exchange per shift, my question is weather they need to be consecutive or not, i personally want to say no, and that you also have to spend successes on the thaumturgy duration chart to extend the spells duration. permitting you to get the effext y times over z duration.

Would the player be happy running into a warlock pulling the same trick? Sauce for the goose and all that...

Yes. and in fact i use similar effects in the games i run. i do not however use "plot level" npcs instead preferring to stat them so its likely just a difference in preferred scale. What im trying to get peoples opinions on is more if its RAW then if its balanced. myself and the relevant gm have already discussed most of these topics extensively and figured out what will and wont be allowed in that game.