Reactive Evocation block

[infusco]

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.

Yup. But remember that extending it, just like regularly casting a Block, is a standard action. You can't extend and attack at the same time. Mind you, according to the sidebar text, the reactive block lasts until the end of your NEXT exchange, so you wouldn't necessarily need to extend it on your next action.

[Watson]

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.

In regards to 1); I should have been more specific - I meant whether a practitioner, that got his reactive evocation block bypassed by an attack, is allowed to throw up a second reactive evocation block if he is attacked again in the same exchange. I 100% agree that he is not allowed to throw up a second evocation block agains the first attack!

In regards to 2); A summary would be to say that as long as the reactive evocation block is not penetrated by an attack, it will be used as the practitioners defense value (and ONLY form of defense!). If it is penetrated, he is free to defend normally (using his Athletics, or if he so chooses, cast another reactive evocation block). 

Thanks for the replies!

[infusco]

In regards to 1); I should have been more specific - I meant whether a practitioner, that got his reactive evocation block bypassed by an attack, is allowed to throw up a second reactive evocation block if he is attacked again in the same exchange. I 100% agree that he is not allowed to throw up a second evocation block agains the first attack!

In regards to 2); A summary would be to say that as long as the reactive evocation block is not penetrated by an attack, it will be used as the practitioners defense value (and ONLY form of defense!). If it is penetrated, he is free to defend normally (using his Athletics, or if he so chooses, cast another reactive evocation block). 

Thanks for the replies!

1) Yeah, sure, why not. As long as it fits into the "Only one reactive defense per attack" rule, I'd say you can go ahead and throw up several blocks in a row. Mind you, smoke would start to pour out of your ears due to your brain burning from all that mental stress

[citadel97501]

I am just wondering but couldn't someone who had a Defensive Rote and very high discipline, but relatively lower Conviction lets use an example of 7 control/4 Power after bonuses continuously have a 4 shift Shield up?

I would think that this would work relatively well and is not that hard to accomplish, especially at the lower end of the power scale?

Discipline: 4
Conviction: 3
Shielding Focus: +2 control
Specialty: +1 Spirit Defensive Control, +1 Spirit Defensive Power

(just needs Evocation and 2 useful skills?)

[Vine]

I'll be the first to admit I only skimmed most of the posts on this thread (I'm in a bit of a rush)

Here are my thoughts:

By all means allow the reactive magic block.  If I can throw my body out of the way I can throw my will in front of me (if of course I'm in the practice of quickly calling my will)

I'm abivalent about the any other details to the block.  I think a rote block should definitely be allowed.  I think you should definitely be allowed to pump more power into it in the next round to extend the duration.

I don't really see a strong reason not to allow a shaped or extended block to be used reactively.  They're already automatically taking at least a point of stress that wouldn't have been taken if a successful athletics roll had been made, so they get to use that energy however they want.  Especially when you consider that whatever energy they put into extending it in one way or another is another point not stopping the attack.

That being said I don't think it would be offensively unreasonable for a GM to rule that the spellcaster can only bring up their most commonly used block as a reaction, but it wouldn't be my preference.  I'm thinking in a dangerous situation I can imagine all sorts of different ways I'd want an attack to be deflected/absorbed/disrupted/whatever in a similar amount of time to me dodging out of the way.  In fact, I feel it would almost be faster since the typical (untrained) person's response to any sort of imminent disaster or attack is to throw up an arm and wish real hard for it to not happen...wishing real hard when you can use magic turns into a spell.

[Sanctaphrax]

@Vine: The main reason not to allow a shaped or extended block as a reaction is that it makes a mockery of the action economy. Why would you ever spend an action on a block when you can just do it as a defence?

@citadel: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by continuously, and I'm not sure why you would need 7 control for a 4-shift rote.

[Vine]

Yeah, as I was writing I knew there was something that was bugging me because when I started I had a different opinion, but didn't remember what it was.

Just ignore that whole part of it.

[UmbraLux]

I don't see any issue with wizards casting a reactive* block from a balance or GM point of view.  It's a suboptimal** choice from the caster's point of view, but wizards are plenty powerful as it is. 

*I would require reactive blocks to be single purpose (all shifts put towards blocking) or a rote.  As a reaction you don't have time to split shifts between duration and power.  **This burns stress, two if the caster takes a second action to extend it.  Anytime I can push a caster into spending 25-33% (more if they extend the block) of their resources on defense, I've reduced what they can accomplish proactively.  It's affects on the action economy are negative to the wizard - they'd have a reaction that doesn't cause stress normally in any case.  Action is almost always more effective than reaction. 

[Vine]

I think for a lot of wizards (practitioners in general) a more defensive stance at the beginning might be appropriate.  Hide, block, dodge, then just hit once and do it big.  Harry makes a reference to doing something similar in one of the sidebars.  I'm a little concerned with the mental state of a person who tends to spend the vast majority of their time and energy aiming at doing harm rather than preventing it, especially when magic is involved.

Wizards are mighty when prepared, and they spend a lot of time and energy getting prepared.

[Vine]

@Vine: The main reason not to allow a shaped or extended block as a reaction is that it makes a mockery of the action economy. Why would you ever spend an action on a block when you can just do it as a defence?

Took me a second, but I remembered one.  Starting off the fight with a decent sustained block does mean two chances to defend against those pesky incoming attacks.  Still not enough though, just throwing it in for the fun of technicality.

[UmbraLux]

I think for a lot of wizards (practitioners in general) a more defensive stance at the beginning might be appropriate.  Hide, block, dodge, then just hit once and do it big.  Harry makes a reference to doing something similar in one of the sidebars.  I'm a little concerned with the mental state of a person who tends to spend the vast majority of their time and energy aiming at doing harm rather than preventing it, especially when magic is involved.

I agree, defense is appropriate.  But consider your options (as action rather than reaction), a wizard can 1) attack, 2) block (including armor), 3) counterspell, or 4) create one or more maneuvers.  The maneuver created aspects can be used for either defense or offense.  Granted, only once and at a 3:2 ratio instead of 1:1, but the flexibility may well be worth it.  It can save your @$$ or be used to wipe the floor with the bad guy...whichever you need more.

Mechanically, stacking aspects is optimal.  Creating taggable can also be one of the more group-friendly actions anyone can do...and since you can tag them yourself if no one else does, there's not much downside.

Wizards are mighty when prepared, and they spend a lot of time and energy getting prepared.

Evocators are pretty awesome even when not prepared.