Reactive Evocation block

[Watson]

In the rule book (YS253) there is an optional rule where, if the GM allows it, a practitioner can replace his regular Athletics roll to avoid being hit with a defensive block evocation (like raising a quick shield). I think this is an interesting rule and want to get some comments on my thoughts about it. The rules say that this replaces the PC’s standard Athletics roll, which raises some questions.

1) Would it be allowed to use this “reactive evocation block” in an exchange that you have already acted? (I would say no)

2) In case the block is overcome, the rules say that there is no other defense roll allowed (“no defense aside from that”). Would that mean that the difficulty to attack a target (whos block has been bypassed) will be Mediocre (+0)? (I would say yes)

3) Would it be possible to do a reactive evocation block by using an enchanted item (designed to create a defensive evocation block)? (I would say yes)

4) The same question as 1) above, but done by activating the enchanted item from 3) - Would activating the enchanted item reactively (once you are attacked) use up your action in the current exchange (i.e. you can't do this in case you have already acted this exchange)?

Note that the enchanted item in 3) and 4) is designed to do a block (not act as armor).

[Tsunami]

Let me start by defining what i mean when i say "reactive evocation block"

It's an evocation used as a defensive roll. It does NOT linger on, it does NOT work on more than one attack.
Be Attacked, cast defense, see result.
Be attacked again in the same round, cast new defense, see result.

It's a magical defense roll. That is different from an evocation block.
Just like mundane Defense rolls are different from mundane blocks.

That said, here are my takes on the questions:

1) Would it be allowed to use this “reactive evocation block” in an exchange that you have already acted? (I would say no)

Sure you get to use it, just like you'd get to defend against in a mundane way after having acted. Instead of mundane defense rolls, you get to use a magical defense roll.

2) In case the block is overcome, the rules say that there is no other defense roll allowed (“no defense aside from that”). Would that mean that the difficulty to attack a target (whos block has been bypassed) will be Mediocre (+0)? (I would say yes)

Yes, and No.
This means that the Magical defense REPLACES the mundane defense. You do not get to defend using a normal skill, hence no other defense.
The Magical defense does however reduce the shifts generated by the attack, just like any normal defense roll would.

3) Would it be possible to do a reactive evocation block by using an enchanted item (designed to create a defensive evocation block)? (I would say yes)

This is the whole point of defensive enchanted items. It's precisely how they work.
Plus, when done with an enchanted item, the reactive block produced by the item is IN ADDITION to your defense roll, be it magical or mundane. Giving you the chance to choose whatever defense turns out to be higher.

4) The same question as 1) above, but done by activating the enchanted item from 3) - Would activating the enchanted item reactively (once you are attacked) use up your action in the current exchange (i.e. you can't do this in case you have already acted this exchange)?

Nope, it would not.

Note that the enchanted item in 3) and 4) is designed to do a block (not act as armor).

Defensive items sporting a Block can be used as either block or armor, depending on whichever effect is more beneficial at the time.

[crusher_bob]

1) Would it be allowed to use this “reactive evocation block” in an exchange that you have already acted? (I would say no)

The whole point of this is to help keep your squishy wizard PCs alive.  The main limiter on the use of evocations is in the mental stress involved, so might as well be generous in how and when evocations can be used.

So, I allow one of the more generous interpretations of reactive blocks:
Generating them is a non-action
Unless they are broken, they last until the end of your next action, which may mean that your block persists into the next exchange

2) In case the block is overcome, the rules say that there is no other defense roll allowed (“no defense aside from that”). Would that mean that the difficulty to attack a target (whos block has been bypassed) will be Mediocre (+0)? (I would say yes)

No, the block subtracts damage as normal.  But under 'normal' evocation blocks, you can roll your defensive skill (normally athletics) and take whichever result is higher, you defensive skill roll or the evocation block you are under.

Note that this rule also prevents you from making the baddies easier to hit by 'protecting' them with a very low power evocation block.

3) Would it be possible to do a reactive evocation block by using an enchanted item (designed to create a defensive evocation block)? (I would say yes)

Yes, activating an enchanted item is a non-action.  You can even activate two different defensive items against the same attack, using one to provide a block and the other to provide armor.  (In addition, remember to roll your defense first, since if you get a +4 result on the fudge dice, you might end up with a better result on your defensive skill than the block provided by your magic item.)

4) The same question as 1) above, but done by activating the enchanted item from 3) - Would activating the enchanted item reactively (once you are attacked) use up your action in the current exchange (i.e. you can't do this in case you have already acted this exchange)?

No, activating defensive items is a non-action.

In addition, any defensive magic item can act as block or armor when activated.  Though note that once activated, the chosen type of defense persists, so you can't change from a block to armor without paying for another item activation.

[Watson]

OK, two slightly different views on the "reactive evocation block". Thanks, I'll think about it a bit more...

[BumblingBear]

The whole point of this is to help keep your squishy wizard PCs alive.  The main limiter on the use of evocations is in the mental stress involved, so might as well be generous in how and when evocations can be used.

So, I allow one of the more generous interpretations of reactive blocks:
Generating them is a non-action
Unless they are broken, they last until the end of your next action, which may mean that your block persists into the next exchange
No, the block subtracts damage as normal.  But under 'normal' evocation blocks, you can roll your defensive skill (normally athletics) and take whichever result is higher, you defensive skill roll or the evocation block you are under.

I'm all for wizards being more powerful, and it is actually thematically more appropriate to do it this way.  Harry has popped a shield multiple times before a bad guy could pull a trigger.

That said, if wizards didn't have to take any mental stress for reactive blocks and the block stayed viable until his or her next turn, why would the wizard have any motivation whatsoever to cast a real shield during their turn? 

I would make one tweak to your rules.  I would say that sure, a wizard can use a block for free as a defensive action, but they cannot use rote spells.

Eliminating rote shields from a reflexive block may allow the wizard to get around mental stress, but not of they have to take backlash or fallout.

I think that would be a fair compromise and add an element of randomness.  Otherwise, a wizard could just use a powerful rote spell on a defensive action for an instant "I win" button.

[Tsunami]

Where do you get the impression that there would be no mental stress inflicted?
The "reactive block" cast as evocation would inflict mental stress just like any other spell.

And disallowing rotes is somewhat counterintuitive.
Being spells that you can do very well, they should be the first ones allowed to be used reactively.

The only way to get around stress for such blocks, or any other spell, would be to use an enchanted item.

[BumblingBear]

Where do you get the impression that there would be no mental stress inflicted?
The "reactive block" cast as evocation would inflict mental stress just like any other spell.

And disallowing rotes is somewhat counterintuitive.
Being spells that you can do very well, they should be the first ones allowed to be used reactively.

The only way to get around stress for such blocks, or any other spell, would be to use an enchanted item.

I'm not sure who you're talking to here, but if it's me... I was responding to someone else's rules. 

[wyvern]

For yet another look at this sort of thing, how I deal with it is as follows:

1: Most normal wizards just make sure they've got a defensive magic item or two; a shield ring, or an armored coat, or whatever; something that can be brought up at a moment's notice.

2: Some wizards will pay a point of refresh to be able to actually bring up a full defensive evocation when they're under attack, following all the normal rules for evocation, though doing so takes up their next action.  This is essentially a stunt - consider all the stunts like riposte that let you use your next turn's action to do something reactive right now.

3: Some wizards will spend even more refresh to achieve greater defensive mastery; perhaps not needing to use up their next turn; perhaps allowing them to just use discipline as their defense skill entirely; and so on.

[infusco]

I think the point he was trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether or not a wizard uses a Rote spell for a reactive block since even Rote spells cost a minimum of 1 mental stress.

I think the optional rules as written in the sidebar on page 253 are fine as is. It's already more limiting than a regularly planned block since you can't extend it past 1 exchange, you can't roll a defensive roll on top of the shield's block, you can't use it as armor, and, at least the way I see it, you can't extend the block to cover your allies. All of those options require the kind of concentration that would require you to spend an exchange doing so. Likewise, you can't *reactively* extend the duration.

[BumblingBear]

I think most wizards could benefit from a mortal stunt using one of their magical abilities as a defensive skill.

So far the coolest I have seen is using Lore to dodge because the character sees the attack coming a split second before it actually does.

[infusco]

I think most wizards could benefit from a mortal stunt using one of their magical abilities as a defensive skill.

So far the coolest I have seen is using Lore to dodge because the character sees the attack coming a split second before it actually does.

I like that one. Mind you, stunt granted trappings are usually more limited than regular ones, so I'd say that you could use Lore as a base defense against magical attacks only.

[arete]

I am also very liberal with evocation blocks.  I play more along the lines with crushing_bob.  I let evocation spells be cast on the defensive just like normal, because the faster my wizards run out of mental stress the better.

I also see it as a survival issue.  How else are wizards suppose to live against things with supernatural speed?

[Sanctaphrax]

I don't allow reactive evocation blocks. Wizards are probably the most or second-most powerful thing in this game and don't need anything to make them stronger.

There are a couple of Discipline stunts in the master list that allow reactive blocks. I am uncertain of their balance.

And yes, it is a survival issue. Unlike arete, I like the squishiness of wizards.

[jybil178]

Well, thematically, for the most part I'd only allow a reactive block under certain conditions...

But first off, trying to gain interpretation off that tiny little sidebar is annoying.. >.<  Technically, it may have nothing to do with reactive block's..  Harry might just be asking a mechanics question...  A very poorly worded one at that...

Now, Harry has been known to get a shield up in time before a faster opponent could act.  But there have been times he hasn't.  For the most part, he only seems able to bring up the shield in time for an exchange when he is prep'd or at least very cautious...  I kinda see this as a Navel Gazing Maneuver of Alertness, that you have to choose to either tag for the initial Alertness roll, or tag to get a chance to bring your shield to bear before you would normally get a chance to react.

I would also see this block as your action for the turn.  You just barely managed to put up a protective barrier, opting to sacrifice your ability to dodge to act out of turn, that most likely just saved your life.  Congratulations.  Its the next person's turn now.

But I also see that the player could decide to extend the shield his next turn possibly, but again, that would be taking up the entirety of his turn to keep his shield powered up for a few more exchanges.  Maybe I'm being a bit to stern on this, but there isn't really a lot to go on...

[infusco]

Incidentally, I'm assuming the reactive Block is thrown up *before* the enemy rolls to hit you, right? Would be considerably unbalanced if you knew exactly what he rolled and can hence throw up a precisely shifted Block to compensate.