Mechanics Question: How do you shut down a magic user?

[ironpoet]

There are example in the books where a wizard can't cast magic because either (a) another magic user is blocking them, or (b) they are too distracted to focus.  Considering how hugely powerful wizards are, that seems like a pretty useful strategy to use against them.  So how would you run it?

The Intent: The intent is to block an enemy magic user from casting spells at you.  Or, alternately, to weaken the spells that the magic user casts.  Then the rest of your buddies can go beat them up, without fear of being burned alive.

The Mechanics:
- Most "shield" spells and defensive rolls are treated as a Block against the targeting aspect of the Discipline roll.
- Could you create a block against the control aspect of the Discipline roll?  Could a +5 Block vs. Control require a wizard to roll +6 shifts just to control a Weapon: 1 Evocation attack?
- Since there is only one Discipline roll, could you create a block that both weakens the control roll and weakens the targeting roll?
- Could you create a block against "Spell Strength"?  Could a +5 Block vs. Spellslinging weaken a Weapon:6 Attack spell or a Block:6 Shield Spell to just Weapon:1 or Block:1?

What skills would be required for these Blocks?  Would you require a spell to shut down another spell?  Could you do it with a Fists roll (to keep the magic user from focusing)?  Could you do it with a Rapport/Deceit/Presence roll (to distract the magic user)?

[zenten]

Sure, I don't see an issue with a "block on magic rolls", as long as they can overcome the block using other skills (punching back, arguing, whatever) in addition to overcoming it with an evocation.

[Warpmind]

Pepper to the face can be an effective deterrent.
Also, break open the fire hydrants.

[Team8Mum]

Could you drain away the energies as the wizard tries to build them- I mean the stories suggest that is the effect the running water has.

[Haru]

A block against "Spell Strength" seems a bit like a Threshhold used as a suppressor (YS230), although I don't think you should be able to do something like that without serious thaumaturgy. Something like Harry did to Kravos comes to mind.

If you can describe it in a way fitting to the story, you can do it with any skill you like.
For example craftsmanship could be used to burst a waterpipe and cover the zone in water, grounding out any magic.
Or use guns to put up a block against discipline, covering him with bullets so he has to keep moving and can't really focus enough to cast.
A grapple always works, of course, which would be fists/might.
Or use presence/deceit/intimidation to lay a block on everyone else, representing the fact that you make him focus on you rather than your friends (not the best plan, but if you're a wizard yourself he better hit you and your magical blocks than anyone else).

- Could you create a block against the control aspect of the Discipline roll?  Could a +5 Block vs. Control require a wizard to roll +6 shifts just to control a Weapon: 1 Evocation attack?

I would say no, but I can't point to anything in the rules for that. It just seems... off.

[UmbraLux]

There are example in the books where a wizard can't cast magic because either (a) another magic user is blocking them, or (b) they are too distracted to focus.  Considering how hugely powerful wizards are, that seems like a pretty useful strategy to use against them.  So how would you run it?

Blocks or maneuvers could be used to model this.  It's worth pointing out grapples already block casting (along with all other actions) by default.  Depending on the trappings, a variety of skills could apply.

[mostlyawake]

To interpret some of this:

Maneuvers:
Pepperspray to the face is a weapons maneuver to place a tag like "Excruciating burning sensation!"  Probably vs athletics to land, or you could argue endurance to resist.

Now with any maneuver you get that free compel on the tag.  You're not paying for it, but they are either paying a fate point to get past it or GETTING one for accepting the compel.  Still, you're going to then compel that tag, not to give them a penalty, but to invoke for effect and lose the spell or any other action. 

Cost to you: one action.
Cost to your opponent: one action in exchange for a fate point, OR, one fate point.
Guarantee of success (meaning, opponent gets no action): highly variable.  You have to land the thing, which is a contested roll, and then it can still be overcome by fate points.

Blocks
Simple enough, you make a spell to block spells.  Bwahahah!  This will block the TARGETING ROLL, normally, so if he fails to meet your block strength, the spell fails.  If he exceeds it, then his spell will go off, albeit at a lower effect level (possibly, if he's trying for damage).   However, you're probably optimized, and so is he, so it's more than likely an even match and is down to fate points and rolls to see who wins.  However, honestly, if you're in a large party, he's probably statted higher than you (to present a challenge), so he might win this way.
Cost to you: normal spell costs, one action, possible fate points
Cost to him: normal spell costs, one action, possible fate points

My point is, there really isn't any one move (grapple) that can shut down a caster (grapple) that you aren't paying nearly the same amount to pull off (grapple).   If you're just trying to protect your teammates or keep the bad guy from accomplishing something, there really is no guarantee of success, but these actions can be useful.  If you're up for a longer battle, you can do these things by having 3 people manuever/block and only one attack - you've got a much better chance of taking the opponent out without them acting at all.   But you're also probably giving them fate points in the process, leading to a concession (you don't get to kill them, but they fail at their objective) where they get even more fate points.  The next time you see them, they're gonna just dump on you.

Which is why it's always good to use a social attack to inflict a consequence like "irrational rage" and keep them from conceding by bowing out of a fight

"I'm your huckleberry" IS a maneuver.

[deathwombat]

Baseball bat to the head

[ironpoet]

Blocks or maneuvers could be used to model this.  It's worth pointing out grapples already block casting (along with all other actions) by default.  Depending on the trappings, a variety of skills could apply.

Right.  I'm just trying to figure out what, mechanically, can be blocked: targeting, control, strength, or some combination?

In the books, if you distract someone who is casting magic, they are likely to screw up the spell and have fallout.  Therefore, it seems like you can block the control roll.  But since control and targeting are the same roll, I wasn't sure if you blocked both simultaneously.

[ironpoet]

Pepper to the face can be an effective deterrent.
Also, break open the fire hydrants.

Baseball bat to the head

Could you drain away the energies as the wizard tries to build them- I mean the stories suggest that is the effect the running water has.

Sure, I can think of lots of ways to describe the Block.  I'm just trying to work out how it would work mechanically.

[ironpoet]

To interpret some of this:
...

Thanks.  That's a great analysis.  I think, based on the Intent, that a Block makes more sense than a maneuver in this case.  A maneuver, like you said, is All or Nothing, while my Intent is just to make spell casting a lot harder.

Blocks
Simple enough, you make a spell to block spells.  Bwahahah!  This will block the TARGETING ROLL, normally, so if he fails to meet your block strength, the spell fails...

Well, that's basically my question.  Why does the block only affect the targeting roll?  I can understand why that is for Shields and defensive rolls, since they block against all attacks, and therefore the targeting roll is the only thing they could logically affect.  But if you are actively focusing on screwing up spellcasting, wouldn't you be blocking the control roll?

[ironpoet]

A block against "Spell Strength" seems a bit like a Threshhold used as a suppressor (YS230), although I don't think you should be able to do something like that without serious thaumaturgy. Something like Harry did to Kravos comes to mind.

That's a good point.  An active Block against Spell Strength should probably require thaumaturgy.  Which is actually cool, because it gives another good option for "Thaumaturgy at the speed of Evocation".

[Haru]

That's a good point.  An active Block against Spell Strength should probably require thaumaturgy.  Which is actually cool, because it gives another good option for "Thaumaturgy at the speed of Evocation".

That was not what I had in mind, but sure it would work as well. My idea was to get something from your enemy to use it as a link and then use standard thaumaturgy to shut him down.

[bitterpill]

Would spraying a wizard with a hoze pipe count as an active block against magic?

[Haru]

Would spraying a wizard with a hoze pipe count as an active block against magic?

I'd even consider this as something along the lines of the threshhold/suppressor thing I mentioned earlier. Enough water will simply wash away any magic you try to cast, so something like that would likely be at a strength of great or superb at least.