Reflexive Shield

[Baron Hazard]

I know it was discussed a few times on the old site (I think I remember that anyway), but doing a search for it yielded nothing (sorry if my search-fu is weak) but has anyone come up with balancing allowing a wizard to cast shield as a reflexive action? Did you require any tweaking or does the stress mechanic already provide enough of an oompf and has anyone tried just making it allowed?

[UmbraLux]

...and has anyone tried just making it allowed?

Yeah - the only real issue is the extra time it adds to combat.  Best if only rotes are allowed to be cast reflexively - it means the spell is already detailed.  Also makes narrative sense.

As for balance, it makes ambush scenarios slightly less deadly but, overall, is a functional nerf to spell casters.  Any spell used on defense is one not used to slaughter opponents. 

[Baron Hazard]

I'd say yea, I agree it'd have to be a rote and I'd also so it can't be used on an ambush, the wizard would have to at least have an idea that he's about to need it.

Jim (Dresden's Player) says: "I'm nervous, I know any second that thing is gonna charge at me. Dresden shakes out his shield bracelet but doesn't activate a shield yet." type of thing.

[Haru]

The best way, I think, is to use enchanted items for this. An enchanted item with a block on it can be used reflexively pretty good, since you can just argue, that it is always there, it just only gets a use at this very moment. Rotes are probably a good way to go, too, since they are basically the same thing, only they cost mental stress. Narratively, I see a slight difference. Since you sometimes only have a split second to react, it seems implausible to use a rote spell, but for example an enchanted coat will always have been enchanted. It kind of brings back the "always on" enchantment from the beta version of the rules.

[JDK002]

I personally don't allow it fora few reasons.  The first being that wizards already tend to blow holes in just about anything.  So defensive shields force them to slow down a bit and take an action to protect themselves or others.

Second reason is reactive defensive spells are the perview of enchanted items as per RAW IIRC.  It gives the players more incentive to spend slots on enchanted items as opposed to just bloating their foci as much as possible.

[Ghsdkgb]

Well, narratively speaking, the best example we have is the duel in White Night. Two human wizards versus two white court vampires. If this were a fight in the game, the vampires would both get to go first, because of Inhuman Speed, and they'd both get their strikes in before the wizards can do anything. However, Harry tells us that not even the vampires can move faster than thought, which is why he has his shield up in time.

To have that play out mechanically, you'd HAVE to allow the wizard to cast it reflexively, but in Harry's case, it's most definitely a rote with a focus item, so it's completely logical to require that from your playerahead of time.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I allow them, but:
1) they must be rote spells,
2) and they may not be used in an ambush.
(Echoing what Baron Hazard said)
3) Finally, a spell cast in place of a defense roll may not be prolonged.

This is actually a weaker option, tactically, for a wizard then as it burns a mental stress box for limited effect, but still allows the wizard to save themselves when needed.  A block lasts only for one attack, armor lasts until the beginning of the caster's next turn.

Enchanted items are still the better option, but this means that they aren't necessary to virtually every Wizard/Evoker concept.

[JDK002]

The fight in WN is a sound arguement.  I would probably take it a step farther and say the rote has can only be used reflexivly and if it's on themselves or someone else, it would only apply to that defense roll, and not if they failed an alertness check for an ambush or trap.

I actually like it if you do that.  I make the wizard sacrifice a rote slot for a situational spell without a lot of flexability, but is still undeniably useful.

[Mr. Death]

Well, narratively speaking, the best example we have is the duel in White Night. Two human wizards versus two white court vampires. If this were a fight in the game, the vampires would both get to go first, because of Inhuman Speed, and they'd both get their strikes in before the wizards can do anything. However, Harry tells us that not even the vampires can move faster than thought, which is why he has his shield up in time.

The thing about that fight, though, is there's plenty of lead-up time to it. It's not like Harry and Carlos just stumbled on their opponents and suddenly had to react. They had at least a minute or so of set-up, during which Harry and Carlos are already calling up their power--the split second reaction is just to release it.

Think of it like the difference between drawing, aiming, and firing a gun all in one motion vs. drawing and aiming a gun, and then just waiting for the signal to pull the trigger. Probably the circumstances of the duel constituted an invoke on someone's part to allow the wizards a prepared action on their spells.

[Ghsdkgb]

The thing about that fight, though, is there's plenty of lead-up time to it. It's not like Harry and Carlos just stumbled on their opponents and suddenly had to react. They had at least a minute or so of set-up, during which Harry and Carlos are already calling up their power--the split second reaction is just to release it.

Think of it like the difference between drawing, aiming, and firing a gun all in one motion vs. drawing and aiming a gun, and then just waiting for the signal to pull the trigger. Probably the circumstances of the duel constituted an invoke on someone's part to allow the wizards a prepared action on their spells.

Good point. So the wizard would have to perform a navel-gazing maneuver or the like to put a temporary aspect of "Prepared" or the like, that can then be tagged for effect to throw up the shield.

Edit: I just used "or the like" twice in one sentence. Sounds like it's time to update my vocabulary rotes :-)

[JDK002]

Hmm, would a prereq of needing an appropriate aspect to tag/invoke similar to a grapple be a better way of doing it as opposed to slapping a ton of restrictions on it.

[Baron Hazard]

I suppose I will go with what is said a million times in the book. "What works for your table?"

I do like either, so I think I will discuss it with my group. Applying the aspect "Prepared for Defense" or something, and then I can see it working that way too. I like em both.

[Ghsdkgb]

Hmm, would a prereq of needing an appropriate aspect to tag/invoke similar to a grapple be a better way of doing it as opposed to slapping a ton of restrictions on it.

I think requiring the aspect to tag is enough, and fits the ruleset most fully. However, as the Baron said, whatever works for your table.

[Sanctaphrax]

The fight in WN is a sound arguement.

No it isn't.

The novels are not the game. There are plenty of things in them that simply don't translate well.

Anyway, there's a stunt on the list that lets you sacrifice your next action, Riposte-style, to cast a block when attacked.

There used to be one that let you replace defense rolls with spells, but it's gone now because it was dumb.

Personally, I'm kind of fond of letting defensive spells be cast reflexively when someone aims a spell attack at you. It affects the power of magic little because it's symmetrical, while making wizard fights less rocket-tag-like.

[Ghsdkgb]

No it isn't.

The novels are not the game. There are plenty of things in them that simply don't translate well.

See, I don't like that. The game was created with the intent of translating the books to an RPG system as well as they could. While it's true they couldn't do it 100%, we should still seek to utilize the rules in such a way that any player could do anything from any scene if they want (given the right situation), because that was the main appeal of this game from the beginning.

Sometimes, sure, it simply won't be possible. But when it is, it should be, you know?