Reactive Evocation block

[jybil178]

Most definitely..  I would say if you are so late in the action, you are just now seeing their results to their attack, then you are too late in the action to attempt to change your attempted defensive counter-measure.

[BumblingBear]

If a wizard has to use a point of stress to throw up a block, I don't think it is unbalancing to let them throw it up whenever they want - including as a free action.

[jybil178]

If a wizard has to use a point of stress to throw up a block, I don't think it is unbalancing to let them throw it up whenever they want - including as a free action.

Thus throwing out the whole idea of the rules we are describing for a Reactive Evocation Block, hehe..

[infusco]

If a wizard has to use a point of stress to throw up a block, I don't think it is unbalancing to let them throw it up whenever they want - including as a free action.

Well, a defense roll is essentially a free action. But to paraprase jybil178, knowing the result of an attack roll before declaring a Block is essentially like waiting for the bullet to rupture your liver before deciding how strong you wanted that shield to be. Hindsight is 20/20

[crusher_bob]

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.

They'd still take stress as normal for a reactive block,that's why I gave the reactive block the 'normal'
 duration.  Rote spells cost a minimum of 1 stress, just like all other evocations.  The only difference is that you don't have to make a discipline roll. 

So it's normally good to have a rote defense, yes.  But that's because the power of the block called up is based on the power of the evocation you are using and since you'll probably be calling up an amount of power near your  control, and excess control on a defense doesn't get you anything, it's a good idea to have your most powerful 1 stress block as a rote.

[Watson]

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.

I like this one. It also explains the question why a Wizard ever would do an Evocation Block in non-reactive way. The question remains whether the Wizard is allowed to do this, if the effect remains to the next exchange in case the shield is not penetrated, if he has already taken an action this round. If so, he'd be allowed to cast two Evocations in one exchange.

I'd say that if the Wizard have already taken an action this exchange, he is not allowed to do a reactive evocation block. I mean, he already had the chance to delay his actions (YS199) and act later (perhaps casting a "proper" Evocation Block just before he is attacked, but chose to do something else instead...).

[crusher_bob]

I don't like this option because it reduces duels that involve wizards into 1 stroke samurai type duels; which is not really how the duels involving Harry have been described.

[BumblingBear]

Well, a defense roll is essentially a free action. But to paraprase jybil178, knowing the result of an attack roll before declaring a Block is essentially like waiting for the bullet to rupture your liver before deciding how strong you wanted that shield to be. Hindsight is 20/20

Why would a wizard use the weakest shift they could?

They would use the largest shield they could for 1 stress (that's what I would do).  That way if the attack is greater than the shield strength it soaks up the most amount of damage, and if it stops the attack, it has a greater chance of stopping any other attacks.

Plus, on the player's action, they could choose to extend the shield for longer.  Why in the world would someone make a shield for any less than at least their most powerful rote shield?

If someone really wanted to make a crunchy rule for reactive blocks, I think that only allowing a rote shield would be fair.

[infusco]

Why would a wizard use the weakest shift they could?

They would use the largest shield they could for 1 stress (that's what I would do).  That way if the attack is greater than the shield strength it soaks up the most amount of damage, and if it stops the attack, it has a greater chance of stopping any other attacks.

Plus, on the player's action, they could choose to extend the shield for longer.  Why in the world would someone make a shield for any less than at least their most powerful rote shield?

If someone really wanted to make a crunchy rule for reactive blocks, I think that only allowing a rote shield would be fair.

Who said anything about weakest shift? We're just saying that the decision to throw up a Block is a reaction to being attacked, not a reaction to actually being struck. In fact, given that no additional defense roll is possible, you'd HAVE TO make a decision on whether to throw up a shield before the attack roll to determine which defensive method you're using to protect yourself, either a magical Block or an applicable defense with Athletics/Fists/Weapons.

And I agree, someone can choose to extend it longer, but doing so would follow the usual rules for Prolonging Spells (YS259) and hence cost a standard action instead of being a reactive free action.

As for whether or not a wizard can toss a fireball and then cast an Evocation Block in response to being attacked in the same round, I'd say I'd allow it. The Block in question is more limited than a standard action Block and still costs a stress point, so if the wizard want to defend reflexively, I'd say go for it.

Mind you, as a GM, I'd only allow for a reactive Block like this if the defender was ready for such to happen. If caught totally by surprise, then no go. So basically, anything that would give someone a Mediocre (0) score to his defense roll would prevent an Evocation Block from happening.

[BumblingBear]

Who said anything about weakest shift? We're just saying that the decision to throw up a Block is a reaction to being attacked, not a reaction to actually being struck. In fact, given that no additional defense roll is possible, you'd HAVE TO make a decision on whether to throw up a shield before the attack roll to determine which defensive method you're using to protect yourself, either a magical Block or an applicable defense with Athletics/Fists/Weapons.

And I agree, someone can choose to extend it longer, but doing so would follow the usual rules for Prolonging Spells (YS259) and hence cost a standard action instead of being a reactive free action.

As for whether or not a wizard can toss a fireball and then cast an Evocation Block in response to being attacked in the same round, I'd say I'd allow it. The Block in question is more limited than a standard action Block and still costs a stress point, so if the wizard want to defend reflexively, I'd say go for it.

Mind you, as a GM, I'd only allow for a reactive Block like this if the defender was ready for such to happen. If caught totally by surprise, then no go. So basically, anything that would give someone a Mediocre (0) score to his defense roll would prevent an Evocation Block from happening.

I pretty much 100% agree with this.

This is why it's handy for a wizard to have at least one protective enchanted item for when they ARE caught unawares too.  Wizards usually tend not to be the best dodgers or alert people around.

[infusco]

I pretty much 100% agree with this.
This is why it's handy for a wizard to have at least one protective enchanted item for when they ARE caught unawares too.  Wizards usually tend not to be the best dodgers or alert people around.

Would the enchanted item only react to a Surprise attack if it still has 'charges' left, or would you rule that it can still be used for that 1 stress point indefinitely when caught by surprise? Personally, I'm voting for the former.

[BumblingBear]

Would the enchanted item only react to a Surprise attack if it still has 'charges' left, or would you rule that it can still be used for that 1 stress point indefinitely when caught by surprise? Personally, I'm voting for the former.

Agreed there too.

[Watson]

If feel that I have received some very good and constructive feedback on the question about reactive evocation blocks. Two questions remain (for me):

1) In case the reactive evocation block is bypassed by an attack – is the practitioner allowed to throw up a second one (I would say yes, costing another bunch of stress...)?

2) The reactive evocation block replaces the practitioners normal defense roll - would it mean that the defense value for a second attack, if the block is bypassed by the first, equals a) the practitioners Athletics-value (i.e. value, no roll), b) defaults to Mediocre (he is not allowed to defend at all) or c) is the fact that the reactive evocation block replaces the regular defense only applicable to the actual attack triggering the reactive evocation block (given that the there is a second attack and that the first bypasses the reactive evocation block)? I would rule that the practitioner uses his Athletics value for other attacks, but is not allowed to roll (i.e. not allowed to invoke aspects etc).

[infusco]

If feel that I have received some very good and constructive feedback on the question about reactive evocation blocks. Two questions remain (for me):

1) In case the reactive evocation block is bypassed by an attack – is the practitioner allowed to throw up a second one (I would say yes, costing another bunch of stress...)?

2) The reactive evocation block replaces the practitioners normal defense roll - would it mean that the defense value for a second attack, if the block is bypassed by the first, equals a) the practitioners Athletics-value (i.e. value, no roll), b) defaults to Mediocre (he is not allowed to defend at all) or c) is the fact that the reactive evocation block replaces the regular defense only applicable to the actual attack triggering the reactive evocation block (given that the there is a second attack and that the first bypasses the reactive evocation block)? I would rule that the practitioner uses his Athletics value for other attacks, but is not allowed to roll (i.e. not allowed to invoke aspects etc).

1) Hellz no! A reactive block replaces another defensive roll. Regardless whether or not it costs another stress, someone can only reactively defend once. Otherwise, someone else could claim that he should be able to roll Weapons to parry if his Athletics roll to dodge a sword blow failed.

2) While you cannot reactively defend more than once against a single attack, you are allowed to defend against as many attacks as you receive. So yes, if your Evocation block fails, you can then defend against subsequent attacks using other (logically used) skills. The only reason to cast a reactive Evocation block in the first place is to simply replace another skill you think might be too weak to defend with.

[bitterpill]

If you extend a reactive evocation block does it function like a normal block from that point onwards so that you can use other skills if it is bypassed.