The Glass Jawed Wizard

[Sanctaphrax]

They will fall behind in multicombatant scenarios. When there are say, seven, eight or nine targets pinging at the group he wont necessarily have the resources to take them all down by himself.

Just make sure not to put all the targets in one zone or in zones without allies in them.

Zone Evocations are really good.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

It might be an idea to consider giving your big bad shagnasties Physical immunity against mortal magic, like Ogres. This forces the Wizard to do other stuff than just nuking them (maneuvers that do not directly affect the monster, clearing out mooks, etc.), allows the other party members a chance to shine while taking them down, and keeps things interesting.

[JDK002]

It might be an idea to consider giving your big bad shagnasties Physical immunity against mortal magic, like Ogres. This forces the Wizard to do other stuff than just nuking them (maneuvers that do not directly affect the monster, clearing out mooks, etc.), allows the other party members a chance to shine while taking them down, and keeps things interesting.

Exactly, you just have to get clever.  Though I would suggest NOT falling back on the "it's immune to magic" tactic too often.  It becomes very obvious to the players that you're deliberately trying to hamstring the wizards.  Players start to not have fun if they feel they are constantly being handicapped.

Variety is the key.  For example my last session had my players in a cargo van trying to escape a pack of Black Dogs.  At the bottom of every exchange the npc driver would make a driving skill roll.  The group needed to accumulate 10 shifts of movement to escape the dogs.  At the top of every exchange I would roll to see how many new dogs joined the fight.  They were easy to take out, but they would never stop coming.  More would join every exchange.  I also gave the van a stress track and consequences, so the dogs could attack the van directly.

This forced every player to get very creative, not just the magic users.  As it didn't matter how many mooks were killed, they had to play defensive and really work maneuvers and declarations to keep the vehicle safe.

[Mr. Death]

In both the games I'm running, there's two wizards, so finding ways to keep them from incinerating everything that opposes them is a fairly common practice. There's a few solid ways to go about it:

A. Yes, making enemies immune to magic--but what I've done twice is made it so that the villains are deliberately doing this in response to the PCs and their previous exploits. In one case, it was a BCV who procured an anti-magic amulet explicitly because she expected one of the wizards to interfere with her plans, the other time a fae sent an Ogre to kidnap a specific wizard.

B. Put them in a situation where they can't use their magic (or to the full extent). Compel them to say they can't cast above a certain power rating or else the human mooks will die. Use hostages. Or just plain wear them out beforehand. In one of my games, the kidnapped wizard spent the whole of the last battle with thorned manacles on her wrists, preventing her from using any magic at all. So the player got creative, jumped on the enemy wizard's back, and choked him out with them for the duration of the fight. In another, I sent a handful of ghouls and RCVs at a pair of wizards so when the big demon showed up, they'd both taken physical and mental stress and had to fight smart.

C. Just throw really big things at them. Even a strong Submerged wizard is going to have trouble against something with 10 stress boxes and Armor 2 or 3. Even moreso if it's got a defense skill worth a damn. That way they'll have to spend a few turns either on defense or maneuvering to get the advantage needed to score a real hit.

D. Compel away their items, especially if they have rotes tied into them. Tell the Warden he can't get his sword into the Red Court nightclub. Tell the little spitfire of a wizardess that no, the Winter Lady isn't going to like it very much if she takes her fire-spewing staff into the private meeting.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

In both the games I'm running, there's two wizards, so finding ways to keep them from incinerating everything that opposes them is a fairly common practice. There's a few solid ways to go about it:

A. Yes, making enemies immune to magic--but what I've done twice is made it so that the villains are deliberately doing this in response to the PCs and their previous exploits. In one case, it was a BCV who procured an anti-magic amulet explicitly because she expected one of the wizards to interfere with her plans, the other time a fae sent an Ogre to kidnap a specific wizard.

B. Put them in a situation where they can't use their magic (or to the full extent). Compel them to say they can't cast above a certain power rating or else the human mooks will die. Use hostages. Or just plain wear them out beforehand. In one of my games, the kidnapped wizard spent the whole of the last battle with thorned manacles on her wrists, preventing her from using any magic at all. So the player got creative, jumped on the enemy wizard's back, and choked him out with them for the duration of the fight. In another, I sent a handful of ghouls and RCVs at a pair of wizards so when the big demon showed up, they'd both taken physical and mental stress and had to fight smart.

C. Just throw really big things at them. Even a strong Submerged wizard is going to have trouble against something with 10 stress boxes and Armor 2 or 3. Even moreso if it's got a defense skill worth a damn. That way they'll have to spend a few turns either on defense or maneuvering to get the advantage needed to score a real hit.

D. Compel away their items, especially if they have rotes tied into them. Tell the Warden he can't get his sword into the Red Court nightclub. Tell the little spitfire of a wizardess that no, the Winter Lady isn't going to like it very much if she takes her fire-spewing staff into the private meeting.

These are all good ideas. another idea I had was tailoring the environment to the caster - if your player deals with his problems by chucking fireballs at them, give them an enemy that they can easily nuke, in an environment that makes that not the best idea. Either they show restraint - 'It might not be a good idea to chuck fireballs around in this public park', or they don't - 'Congratulations, you've just incinerated that ghoul. You've also set half the park on fire. Might be a good idea to try and evacuate the park to avoid a Lawbreaker power and/or attention from the Wardens. Consider the environmental consequences of an attack next time'.

[amberpup]

I have to agree with JDK002, it would be a very bad idea to start using 'immune to magic" as your default in dealing with a pc wizard. But then, if you design your story where a hammer will fix every problem... its not really the fault of the player. Yet even I have problems, like this weekend when my group stole a shipping container that had three Red Courts imprisoned within. The PC Wizard just went from using the Sight, into power level 8, 'I'm heating it up'. Of course, that was just before another player chimed in with the suggestion that putting the container in a circle may have not been the wisest move since magic could the thing that keep these three vamps secured. And he added, there could be mortals in there as well as a food source.

I used the circle/magic, but not the mortal happy meals idea.

Or you could use the RAW about damage to property even with everything goes off right. And plus, being the big gun in a group will get him the bullseye with a repeat opponent.

But if all of this still doesn't work... go nuclear, and give him a white court girlfriend.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

Another solution would be to allow reactive evocation blocks and use NPC spellcasters to shut down the PC wizard's powers once in a while. As others have said, mortal opponents could also represent a threat that can't be magi-nuked. If your PC doesn't care about the Laws, throw him against some badass Wardens.

There's a bunch of ways to avoid this problem. You just have to think outside th box a little.

[Sanctaphrax]

Wizards have good attacks, but weak defences unless they Craft.

So a fight where defense is all-important really sucks for your average Wizard.

A good example of such a fight would be an ambush from an Evoker with Inhuman Speed.

The evoker drops a zone attack from hiding, then does it again when the fight proper starts. Then he gets gibbed, because he has no actual defences.

The wizard, lacking Speed, can't do anything here except take hits.

His Inhumanly fast and strong team-mate, however, is both better equipped to weather the attacks and more likely to act before the second attack.

And the mortal on the team can afford to Invoke his way away from the attacks.

Best thing is, this doesn't look like an anti-Wizard tactic at all. But it kinda is one.

PS: This seems relevant.

[Lamech]

Attack their precious items! A mortal can get a new gun, or have a backup. A wizard who gets his staff shattered? He needs to wait for a chance to fix it. (And no, items don't take consequences.) Yes, its a bit mean, but hey it works. And unless you do go after their items, points spent on them are much more effective than anything else so you shouldn't let them have free power.

[Orladdin]

Attack their precious items! A mortal can get a new gun, or have a backup. A wizard who gets his staff shattered? He needs to wait for a chance to fix it. (And no, items don't take consequences.) Yes, its a bit mean, but hey it works.

Just be sure they are compelled to lose the items (getting them FPs or allowing them to buy-off), don't just fiat "Wizard, the villain snaps your staff in twain."  Your players will hate you so fast your head will spin if you pull that shit.

And unless you do go after their items, points spent on them are much more effective than anything else so you shouldn't let them have free power.

The problem is that yes, at high refresh, foci/item slots are the most powerful way to spend refresh.  This is a design flaw in the game.  As such, we know experienced players will see it as the best option and take it.  If we, as GMs, constantly spank them for this choice, it punishes them for making good choices.  Don't overuse this.

[JDK002]

Too true, I would say that goes with any tactic to make wizards play smart instead of just firing giant blasts of death at any problem you toss at them.  Keep it mixed up and keep it interesting.  If you're constantly challenging your wizards instead of outright punishing them they they will actually have more fun than if you just let them blow everything sky high.

My one wizard player has actually been doing this for me thankfully.  My team is dealing with an extremely powerful psychomancer with an item of power that amplifies all his magic.  My wizards idea?  Set up a ritual that seals off all the magic in the area, including his own, because he knows he can take the bad guy out in a straight up brawl.

[Centarion]

I agree with Orladdin on some points and disagree on others. I think if you want to take a focus item from a player "just because" (they forgot it/the bad guy just randomly breaks it etc.) the it should be a compel and they should be able to refuse. However, there are plenty of circumstances where it is appropriate to force them to give up their magic items, and these circumstances may not be a compel (in fact it may be a compel on a crotchety wizard to make him want to keep his focus item). For example, you go to meet with the winter lady, you bring your staff, the goon outside the club she is in tells you to ditch it (the book specifically says that larger focus/enchanted items are easy to detect as magical by anyone who can sense that kind of thing or has a high lore skill), in this case the wizard can comply, or he can fight a whole ton of fae goons and not get his meeting. If a fight just happens to break out between other factions...

I also disagree on the subject of punishing good choices. I don't feel that picking the most efficient option is always a "good" choice. It is generally a better choice to pick the more flavorful option. If a wizard was just picking up stronger and stronger foci just because it was the "best option" (read: most powerful option) I would have no problem compelling them out of fate points or setting up situations where they cant bring their items on occasion. If they had a good reason for it or it was cool of them to have their stuff (in a narrative sense) then I would be more reluctant to take that away.

I also don't think making foci/items the best way to spend refresh for wizards is a design flaw. I think it was a purposeful choice. The wizard could go the slower/more expensive (because of the pyramid) route of picking up internalized specializations, or he could go the quicker/cheaper route of making items. This is a trade off, do you go for more power or more reliability?

In most games, the GM has the same type of opinion you do. They think focus items were an over site/flaw and are just better and we shouldn't punish smart players. I think they did it on purpose, and that the reason foci are more powerful is because you will occasionally loose access to them. The player accepted the fact that he will loose access to some part of his power sometimes when he chose to go with foci instead of specializations.

[Mr. Death]

For example, you go to meet with the winter lady, you bring your staff, the goon outside the club she is in tells you to ditch it (the book specifically says that larger focus/enchanted items are easy to detect as magical by anyone who can sense that kind of thing or has a high lore skill), in this case the wizard can comply, or he can fight a whole ton of fae goons and not get his meeting. If a fight just happens to break out between other factions...

I'd say that is the compel. The compel is not "you lose your magic items," it's "the goon isn't going to let you in with those," meaning the player has options--comply, refuse, fight, or negotiate.

Maybe you have to browbeat the goon, causing the Winter Lady to start off hostile. Maybe you negotiate, but end up taking Social consequences in the meantime. Maybe you fight and a whole big brawl breaks out.

Compels should be, in my opinion, more about having the players adapt to and respond to the situation, rather than just taking something away and bribing with a fate point.

I also don't think making foci/items the best way to spend refresh for wizards is a design flaw. I think it was a purposeful choice. The wizard could go the slower/more expensive (because of the pyramid) route of picking up internalized specializations, or he could go the quicker/cheaper route of making items. This is a trade off, do you go for more power or more reliability?

Also don't forget that while Specializations apply broadly to just an element's power or control, focus item slots have to be specialized to only offense or defense. A +1 specialization to Power in Fire is more efficient than having to spend two slots to get +1 fire offensive power and +1 fire defensive power.

In most games, the GM has the same type of opinion you do. They think focus items were an over site/flaw and are just better and we shouldn't punish smart players. I think they did it on purpose, and that the reason foci are more powerful is because you will occasionally loose access to them. The player accepted the fact that he will loose access to some part of his power sometimes when he chose to go with foci instead of specializations.

Similar in principle to Items of Power, really.

[Centarion]

I'd say that is the compel. The compel is not "you lose your magic items," it's "the goon isn't going to let you in with those," meaning the player has options--comply, refuse, fight, or negotiate.

I agree, I would like to make any situation where a characters life is more complicated a compel, but what happens in this case when the player buys off that compel? I am still not going to let him in with his staff just because he refused my compel.

The problem here is that as a GM I am not prepared for what happens when they refuse. It is kind of like what the book says about skill checks. For any skill check there has to be an interesting thing that happens for success (like advancing the story) and an interesting that happens for failure (you have to find another way/you get in but the cops are coming). If you aren't prepared to deal with what happens when the PC's fail/succeed to break in to the safe house, you shouldn't call for a roll, just say it happens or it doesn't.

Similarly, if I don't think it makes any sense for the wizard to just walk in the front door with his staff in hand, I am not going to accept him buying off the compel, so I shouldn't really be compelling him. The book is pretty clear (and it is good gaming sense) that when you accept/buy off a compel it is over. You don't accept a compel to get arrested and then get to have opposed athletics with the cops to run away before they get you in the car. Similarly, if you buy it off you get to escape, you bought of the compel, the cops just don't show up till a few minutes after you are gone.

Basically, in this case, I expect that the character either gives up his staff, or he has to get into some sort of conflict (on contest) to talk his way in/sneak it in or something. I would like to know how other people would deal with this type of situation. A compel that couldn't be bought out of would be good (but that is basically just giving the wizard a fate point, not a compel), do people use that method?

[Orladdin]

... A compel that couldn't be bought out of would be good (but that is basically just giving the wizard a fate point, not a compel), do people use that method?

Some do, yeah, but many people consider it a "bribe" and suggest that it feels like a softer kind of railroading.

I'd say suggesting a contest is a perfectly realistic option, sure.  The wizard can attack/negotiate/mind-bend the bouncer into letting him in with his staff.