Author Topic: Reactive Shield Spells  (Read 3237 times)

Offline Lexiconjuration

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Reactive Shield Spells
« on: March 11, 2015, 08:58:11 PM »
So after reading the Paranet Papers, my group is now attempting to sort out the new rules concerning reactive shield spells. The main issue we're having is what to do about rote spells. PP doesn't mention them at all in this section, instead describing reactive shielding as "...a sudden burst of your will against an attack." It also says that it can't have any duration modifier added. So here are my questions:

1. Does the no duration thing mean that you just can't add turns to it, or that it literally has no duration, as in it only lasts for the attack in question, rather than for the standard "until the end of your next turn"?

2. If it only lasts for the attack, does that cover all attacks that you're targeted by that turn, or just the one?

3. Can rotes be used reactively?

4. If they can, and the duration of a reactive shield is only for the attack rather than the standard rules, are rotes subject to this limitation?

Any help on this is appreciated, thanks.
Time is only a flat circle if you lack depth perception.

Offline wyvern

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1418
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #1 on: March 11, 2015, 10:30:59 PM »
My interpretations would be:

1 & 2: It's just for the single attack in question; further attacks that turn would need their own spell.
3: I'd probably go with "No", unless the rote was explicitly designed as a reactive shield.  This one's debatable either way, though.
4: Yes.

However, I would also allow a stunt to improve reactive shielding - sacrifice your next turn, and you can just cast your shield spell as normal, increased duration and all.  And in this case, keep in mind, the base duration of "until next turn" would skip over the turn you sacrificed.

The other thing I've used is enchanted items as "reactive shields" - if you've got a shield bracelet, there's no reason it can't be both a +1 focus and an enchanted item capable of bringing up a block 4 force field at a moment's notice.  Mechanically, this tends to work out a lot better for the wizard than PP's reactive shield rules... but of course, it also depends on having your tools with you.

Offline Lexiconjuration

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #2 on: March 11, 2015, 11:45:34 PM »
Just to be clear, by "skip over the turn you sacrificed", you mean it would go something like:
Enemy's Turn - Reactive Shield - Player's Turn (Skipped) - Enemy's Turn - Player's Turn (Shield Ends)
right?
Time is only a flat circle if you lack depth perception.

Offline PirateJack

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1843
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #3 on: March 12, 2015, 09:45:03 AM »
Just to be clear, by "skip over the turn you sacrificed", you mean it would go something like:
Enemy's Turn - Reactive Shield - Player's Turn (Skipped) - Enemy's Turn - Player's Turn (Shield Ends)
right?

Sounds about right. In practice it just means that if a Wizard wants to shield he can do so early in the exchange, rather than wait for his turn. Not sure how I feel about that; other characters don't get to rework Initiative like that, but it is limited.

The question to ask now is whether ambushes would lower your skill to 0 and how that effects rote spells.
Quote from: JoeC
"Why are you banging your head against the wall?
'cause it feels sooooo good when I stop..."

Offline Lexiconjuration

  • Lurker
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #4 on: March 12, 2015, 03:59:22 PM »
Alright, that makes sense. Although after some discussion, I think my group and I have decided not to allow rote spells to be cast reactively. It means that they may have to alter their characters a bit, but it'll give the game more of a sense of danger, which I think is the point the section in PP is trying to make.
Time is only a flat circle if you lack depth perception.

Offline wyvern

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 1418
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #5 on: March 12, 2015, 06:42:32 PM »
Sounds about right. In practice it just means that if a Wizard wants to shield he can do so early in the exchange, rather than wait for his turn. Not sure how I feel about that; other characters don't get to rework Initiative like that, but it is limited.
Actually, they do - there are several mortal stunts that allow you to do something now in exchange for losing your next turn; that's why I proposed being able to do that as requiring a reactive shield stunt (or a relevant aspect and a fate point to invoke for effect).

The question to ask now is whether ambushes would lower your skill to 0 and how that effects rote spells.
If you're truly unaware of the attack, you can't put up a reactive shield.  Period.  Well, unless you've got something like, say, an aspect relating to precognition and a fate point to burn.  This is where stuff like Harry's duster shines - in IC terms, it's an always-on defense, which justifies using one of its OOC-limited charges against an unanticipated attack.

Offline potestas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2015, 01:40:08 AM »
I have a stunt I call defensive art. It uses discipline to make dodge rolls. Basically allows the wizard to block attacks without actually casting a spell, it works like a normal dodge but with magic. I got kind of tired of always having to have a high athletics roll just to be able to dodge. Old folk probably wouldn't have a real good athletics but an old wizard probably knows how to bat a bullet out of the air with magic cost was 1.

Offline Sanctaphrax

  • White Council
  • Seriously?
  • ****
  • Posts: 12405
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2015, 11:04:45 PM »
That's mechanically sound, but probably too powerful. If a stunt can unconditionally move dodging to a skill that normally doesn't defend physically at all, it makes sense for almost everyone to take a "Use My Apex Skill To Not Get Hit" stunt.

Actually, hang on. When you say "magic cost was 1" do you mean you charge 1 mental stress for each use of the stunt?

Offline potestas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #8 on: April 15, 2015, 12:24:49 AM »
That's mechanically sound, but probably too powerful. If a stunt can unconditionally move dodging to a skill that normally doesn't defend physically at all, it makes sense for almost everyone to take a "Use My Apex Skill To Not Get Hit" stunt.

Actually, hang on. When you say "magic cost was 1" do you mean you charge 1 mental stress for each use of the stunt?

naw just the refresh cost for the stunt. I wanted the older wizards to have a bit more dignity no bouncing around like rabbits

Offline Taran

  • Posty McPostington
  • ***
  • Posts: 9863
    • View Profile
    • Chip
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #9 on: April 15, 2015, 02:16:38 AM »
Maybe make the condition that it costs 1 mental stress but then lasts for the scene?

The stunt that let's you dodge with guns requires you to have a gun drawn, so this might be the equivalent. You've put up a spell.

Edit.  It seems I just suggested exactly what sanctaphrax said. 
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 02:22:24 AM by Taran »

Offline potestas

  • Conversationalist
  • **
  • Posts: 300
    • View Profile
Re: Reactive Shield Spells
« Reply #10 on: April 15, 2015, 08:08:14 PM »
Maybe make the condition that it costs 1 mental stress but then lasts for the scene?

The stunt that let's you dodge with guns requires you to have a gun drawn, so this might be the equivalent. You've put up a spell.

Edit.  It seems I just suggested exactly what sanctaphrax said.

In ARS magica hermetic wizards can cast unprepared spells i kind of got the idea from there. They use them to prevent attacks quick defensive things that take very little effort or power and doesn't interfer with the normal action for that round.