ParanetOnline

The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: ironpoet on March 22, 2011, 06:31:28 PM

Title: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 22, 2011, 06:31:28 PM
I don't have any particular problem with the Magic rules, but I wanted to try streamlining them a little bit.  I've found that I was trying to keep track of too many things: How much mental stress can I afford? How strong an attack can a pull off? etc.  In other words, I was getting bogged down in the mechanics, when I wanted to be focusing on the story.

There are more details below, but the basic rules are:


I'm interested in any suggestions people have, as well as whether or not I'm introducing any big problems with these rules.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 22, 2011, 06:32:49 PM
Evocation

Stress
All evocation actions cost 1 Mental Stress.


Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to Attack/Maneuver/Block Strength.


Fallout/Backlash:
If you miss, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.


Philosophy
The main intent here is to streamline Evocation a little bit, to make it play more like the other skills/powers in the game.  This also slightly limits Evocation power, so that it's not quite as overpowered.  And since the risk of Fallout/Backlash is greater, it forces a Wizard to be much more careful about the magic they sling around.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 22, 2011, 06:33:23 PM
Thaumaturgy

Stress
All thaumatrugy actions cost 1 Mental Stress.


Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to the Casting roll.


Fallout/Backlash:
If you miss the Target, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.

Note that "Thaumaturgy at the Speed of Evocation" is redundant under these rules.

Philosophy
I discovered, while playing, that Thaumaturgy just wasn't that interesting to me.  Once my Discipline roll was over +5, there was never a good reason to actually roll when casting a spell.  And once the +5 limit was reached, there was never any reason to improve beyond that.  Under these rules, even someone with Superb (+5) Lore can only cast a +1 Difficulty spell reliably.  So creating focus items (i.e. "Little Chicago", etc.) and doing ritual prep work (maneuvering/declaring Aspects) is necessary in order to cast a spell safely.

This also means that a Wizard can't just casually build up power for a 100-shift "Make me a God" spell.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 22, 2011, 06:35:08 PM
Crafting


The Crafting rules are mostly unchanged, with the following exceptions:


A Wizard with Lore +3 and Specialization: Earth +1 could create an Enchanted Item that created a +4 Block (or Armor:2)


Philosophy
The crafting rules were already pretty streamlined, but this will hopefully balance them a little bit against the new Evocation/Thaumaturgy rules.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: sinker on March 22, 2011, 06:37:48 PM
One thing that I noticed right away is that Fallout does not seem to equal backlash. Seems to me that backlash is almost guaranteed to take a caster out, since (even though we aren't adding shifts) we're still dealing with weapon 4-6 attacks.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 22, 2011, 06:43:31 PM
One thing that I noticed right away is that Fallout does not seem to equal backlash. Seems to me that backlash is almost guaranteed to take a caster out, since (even though we aren't adding shifts) we're still dealing with weapon 4-6 attacks.

I forgot to add the caveat that a Wizard can limit the strength of their Attack spells.

It's true, if you're throwing around Weapon:6 spells and you absolutely can't afford Fallout (for example, there are innocent Mortals around) then you may have to take a moderate consequence and eat the backlash.  Otherwise, you can either (a) pay a Fate point to buy out of the compel, (b) cast weaker spells so you can survive the backlash, or (c) make sure you don't miss.

I admit, I'm not sure if this is a feature or a bug.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: sinker on March 22, 2011, 06:54:55 PM
Otherwise, you can either (a) pay a Fate point to buy out of the compel,

Right, I forgot that it was a compel. I feel a little better about that, but I could see some people taking advantage by simply opting fallout regularly. Then again I suppose that the GM would be perfectly justified in making that fallout pretty brutal.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 22, 2011, 07:11:41 PM
Right, I forgot that it was a compel. I feel a little better about that, but I could see some people taking advantage by simply opting fallout regularly. Then again I suppose that the GM would be perfectly justified in making that fallout pretty brutal.

Yeah, I expect Fallout would most player's default choice, but I think I'm okay with that.  When a Wizard cuts loose, things should start blowing up around them!
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 23, 2011, 07:29:36 PM
Are there any other thoughts about these House Rules?

It seems like some of the most common complaints on this board are about:
- How overpowered Wizards are compared to other characters
- How overpowered Crafters are compared to other characters
- How thaumaturgy is boring mechanically (i.e. it can't be used in combat, and it never gets rolled outside of combat) or
- How thaumaturgy makes most other skills redundant (since you can replicate them with a spell)

I think these changes would fix all of those issues, while still leaving Magic as a powerful, versatile, and dramatic aspect of the game.  But I'm not sure if they need tweaking or not.

On the other hand, if you think these rules would be totally boring and you'd never use them, I'd be interested in hearing why you think they're boring!
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: BumblingBear on March 23, 2011, 08:03:29 PM
It seems like these house rules would really gimp casters.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 23, 2011, 08:14:37 PM
It seems like these house rules would really gimp casters.

How so?  A Wizard with Conviction +4 and Discipline +4, Fire Specialization +1, and a +2 Fire Focus Item is casting Weapon:5 Fireballs with Legendary (+6) Accuracy.  That's not a particularly optimized character, and it's still a more powerful attack than most other builds can produce.

I'll grant that it weakens Wizards a bit (intentionally), but they hardly seem gimped.  (Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the terminology.)
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: BumblingBear on March 23, 2011, 10:30:57 PM

I'll grant that it weakens Wizards a bit (intentionally), but they hardly seem gimped.  (Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the terminology.)

That is what I meant.

The next character I make may actually not use magic at all.  Magic is really powerful in many situations, but just like the books (where Harry is terrified of a pack of malks), it has a lot of drawbacks too.

I guess I just don't see any need to weaken casters at all when they already have such easily exploitable weaknesses.  ::shrug::
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: crusher_bob on March 24, 2011, 07:53:11 AM
Attack:
  Roll Discipline + Focus Item
  Strength = Conviction + Specialization
    Reduce Strength by 2 for each Zone affected
    Caster can choose to limit the Spell Strength
Was it your intention to remove the 'split' in specializations and just have them effect the power of the spell?  And only focus items effect the control/to hit roll?

Quote
Maneuver:
  Roll Discipline + Focus Item
  Strength = Conviction + Specialization
  Difficulty to Remove Aspect = Strength
    Reduce Difficulty by 1 for each Exchange added
    Reduce Difficulty by 2 for each Zone affected
What exactly does adding duration to a maneuver get you, since maneuvers applied with a skill last for the scene unless an action is taken to remove them.

Let's say I want to blind you with a bright light.
I've got discipline 5, conviction 5, and a +1 (control?) focus item.  I do the flashy thing.  You try to resist with your alertness with the justification that. while you might be momentarily blinded, you can still sense where things are. 
I roll (+, -, _, _) on the fudge dice for at attack total of 6.  Do you compare your alertness with the attack/control roll (6) or against the power of the spell (5)?

Let's assume you fail in your defense and are blinded

Then, your action rolls around, you decide to "rub your eyes to get the spots out of them" and roll alertness again.  If the target number supposed to be 5 (the strength of the spell)?

Quote
Block:
  Roll Discipline + Focus Item

So it's your intention to remove 'power' from block and instead have the block based on the 'control' roll?  This is sort of a bad idea, as it makes control an even better proposition.  Right now, control is great on the attack, but you need both control and power on the block.  This makes a character built for something like control 7, power 4 not ideal on the defense.  Whereas, in your rule change, control 7, power 4 guy is still great at defending.

And while I think your compel for fallout or backlash rule looks alright, I think your previous rules make it much less likely for wizards to miss that the regular rules.

If I want to make a combat wizard at 8 refresh, I can take superb discipline, conviction 3, and then use my  focus item slots to produce control 7 attacks and control 7 blocks, and still have plenty of skill slots left over to do other stuff.  A wizard under the regular rules also needs conviction, as they need the base power conviction brings to do good blocks. 

-----------

Thaumaturgy:
Some of your complaints sound a bit like complaining about the contacts skill: 

You never roll it in combat, and it's always some guy who tells you stuff.

The 'interesting' parts of thaumaturgy are whatever zany stuff you do to get enough complexity to cast the spell, not the actual ritual itself.  If works the same way in the books, almost all of the page count in thaumaturgy is spent on the declarations (bluc play-doh, ring of barbed wire, long cleansing shower, and do on).  That's the interesting part.

------------

Enchanting

While enchanters are powerful, I'm not really convinced that they are overpowered.   While they are very strong on the defense, their inability to get bonuses to hit like evocators can limits their offensive ability, and their limited uses clamps down on thier non-combat utility some too.

While it's possible to build an evocation offense, enchanted item defense character it actually takes a lot of your character focus to get there, meaning you can't do some other interesting stuff.

Since all elements are 'equal' wouldn't a good justification lets you apply your already useful evocation specialty to power up whatever enchanted item you want?
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: Belial666 on March 24, 2011, 08:50:51 AM
Evocation and Thaumaturgy cost a whopping total of -6 refresh and require high skills. They are supposed to be powerful. But the changes you're attempting to make are gimping casters in comparison to everything else. Let's compare a same-cost configuration for a mortal (supposedly the weakest) and see what happens;


True Mortal assassin, -6 refresh for 8 stunts:
Way of the Gunslinger (+1 rolls to handguns of american make), Shot on the Run, Guns Akimbo (as off-hand weapon training), rapid reload, shoot and move, Occultist (Magical Countermeasures), Lethal Accuracy (ignore up to 2 armor), Stalk the Supernatural (+2 stealth vs nonhuman, nonmortal enemies). He's wielding dual Desert Eagles and has prepared special ammunition (silver, cold iron, incendiaries, hollowpoints full of ghost dust or holy oil) which he can rapid reload. He has guns 5, Stealth 5, Lore 4.
Attacks: rolls at +6, weapon 5, armor piercing 2, can be tailored to satisfy catch of lycanthropes, fey, fire-weak undead, ghosts and demons. All defense rolls at +6. Plus really good stealth and mobility.

Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 03:36:47 PM
Evocation and Thaumaturgy cost a whopping total of -6 refresh and require high skills. They are supposed to be powerful. But the changes you're attempting to make are gimping casters in comparison to everything else. Let's compare a same-cost configuration for a mortal (supposedly the weakest) and see what happens;

True Mortal assassin, -6 refresh for 8 stunts:
Way of the Gunslinger (+1 rolls to handguns of american make), Shot on the Run, Guns Akimbo (as off-hand weapon training), rapid reload, shoot and move, Occultist (Magical Countermeasures), Lethal Accuracy (ignore up to 2 armor), Stalk the Supernatural (+2 stealth vs nonhuman, nonmortal enemies). He's wielding dual Desert Eagles and has prepared special ammunition (silver, cold iron, incendiaries, hollowpoints full of ghost dust or holy oil) which he can rapid reload. He has guns 5, Stealth 5, Lore 4.
Attacks: rolls at +6, weapon 5, armor piercing 2, can be tailored to satisfy catch of lycanthropes, fey, fire-weak undead, ghosts and demons. All defense rolls at +6. Plus really good stealth and mobility.

First of all, that's a pretty solid build.  Nicely done!  And, honestly, I don't have any problem with combat-focused mortals being deadly, even to Wizards.

On the other hand, Thaumaturgy isn't really a combat skill, so if we're going to do a combat skill comparison, I think it makes more sense to only use Evocation.  Here's a quick build:

Pure Evoker, -6 refresh for Evocation and 3 Refinements:
Evocation (+1 Earth Magic, +1 Earth Focus Item), Refinement 1 (+1 Fire Magic, +1 Earth Magic), Refinement 2 (+2 Earth Focus), Refinement 3 (+7 Stealth Item, +7 Defensive Item)
He has Discipline 5, Conviction 4, Lore 4.  Final Specialization: +2 Earth, +1 Fire.  Final Focus Item: +3 Earth
Attacks: Earth Magic: rolls at +8, weapon 6. Can cast a Block at +8 or use +7 Defense 1/session (or reduce strength for more uses).  +7 Stealth Item 1/session (or reduce strength for more uses).  He still rolls at +5 without his focus item, and his weapons can't be hexed.

They're both pretty deadly, and they legitimately have different skill sets.  But I still don't think the Wizard is gimped in comparison.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 03:40:38 PM
I guess I just don't see any need to weaken casters at all when they already have such easily exploitable weaknesses.  ::shrug::

I don't have any problem with Wizard spell power either, but I know that other posters have complained about it.

My overall intent was to streamline/simplify the Magic system, which was costing me too many mental steps per exchange (compared to every other Power).  In the process, magic becomes a little less abuseable for power gamers, so I thought that was a selling point as well.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: Belial666 on March 24, 2011, 03:49:01 PM
The wizard can only do his stuff 4-5 times per combat. The assassin can do his stuff for as many bullets he has - at least twice as long. That is why wizards have more power; because they got much lower endurance.

As for the build, it is straight out of my Lara Croft build - though Lara is higher refresh and has more stunts elsewhere.


PS:
The complexity of the magic system is because magic is a quarter of the whole game; there's stunts, skills, powers and magic. The rules about spells, rituals and items do not refer specifically to evocation/thaumaturgy as powers but all magic types out there (which are more than a dozen).
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 04:03:33 PM
Thanks for the detailed feedback!

Was it your intention to remove the 'split' in specializations and just have them effect the power of the spell?  And only focus items effect the control/to hit roll?

Yes, that was intentional.  I wanted to distinguish between Specialization and Focus Items a bit more, and it prevents doubling up Specializations and Focus Items into one unstoppable Targetting roll.

What exactly does adding duration to a maneuver get you, since maneuvers applied with a skill last for the scene unless an action is taken to remove them.

It does the same thing adding duration currently does for a maneuver spell, but I admit that's never been 100% clear.  My take is that a sticky Aspect is enforced by the spell for its duration, and afterwards its difficulty to remove becomes Mediocre (+0)

Let's say I want to blind you with a bright light.
I've got discipline 5, conviction 5, and a +1 (control?) focus item.  I do the flashy thing.  You try to resist with your alertness with the justification that. while you might be momentarily blinded, you can still sense where things are. 
I roll (+, -, _, _) on the fudge dice for at attack total of 6.  Do you compare your alertness with the attack/control roll (6) or against the power of the spell (5)?

Let's assume you fail in your defense and are blinded

Then, your action rolls around, you decide to "rub your eyes to get the spots out of them" and roll alertness again.  Is the target number supposed to be 5 (the strength of the spell)?

- You would defend against the Attack/Control roll (6) to avoid getting the Aspect/Free Tag in the first place.  This represents the difficulty to avoid getting blinded in the first place (or grabbed by vines, choked by smoke, etc.)
- For the duration of the spell (typically one exchange), the target to remove the Aspect would be the strength of the spell (5).  This represents the difficulty to escape the blindness (or vines, etc.) once it has affected you.
- After the spell expires, the target to remove the Aspect would be Mediocre (0).

I think that's the same way that Evocation maneuvers works under the normal rules (at least, that's how I intepret them), but I admit it's never been crystal clear to me.

So it's your intention to remove 'power' from block and instead have the block based on the 'control' roll?  This is sort of a bad idea, as it makes control an even better proposition. 

To be honest, the new rules for Blocking were the ones I was the least comfortable with.  I couldn't figure out a good way to combine Control and Spell Power.  So ultimately I just made the Evocation Block skill work the same as any other Block skill in the game.  But I'd be open to other suggestions.

Right now, control is great on the attack, but you need both control and power on the block.  This makes a character built for something like control 7, power 4 not ideal on the defense.  Whereas, in your rule change, control 7, power 4 guy is still great at defending.

Could you give a quick example of how a Control 7, Power 4 character is worse at Blocking than a Control 4, Power 7 character?  Wouldn't the Power focused character still need Control in order to cast a powerful Block?

Also a Wizard would still want a high Conviction in order to (a) have enough stress slots to cast spells and (b) cast larger, zone-wide spells.  And they would still want to Specialize in order to create more powerful Defensive enchanted items.

And while I think your compel for fallout or backlash rule looks alright, I think your previous rules make it much less likely for wizards to miss than the regular rules.

You lost me here... I believe a Wizard's targetting roll can be maxed out more under the old rules than these house rules (since Specialization and Focus Items could stack).  Why is missing less likely than the regular rules?
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 04:17:09 PM
The wizard can only do his stuff 4-5 times per combat. The assassin can do his stuff for as many bullets he has - at least twice as long. That is why wizards have more power; because they got much lower endurance.

Sure, but they still have more power.  They're just packing metaphorical missiles instead of metaphorical nuclear bombs.  And your Lara Croft character could take out a Wizard under the regular rules just as easily as under these house rules.

How often does the 4-5 spell/combat limitation actually come up in play?  I would say it should definitely be an issue, but not every combat.
How often is the assassin without their guns and specialized ammunition?  (How often do they get stolen, hexed, etc.)  I would say the answers to both questions would be similar.

To be clear, I'm not trying to make a game of rock-paper-scissors, or "My character is stronger than your character" here.  I'm just trying to defend against the notion that Wizards would be "gimped" under these house rules, which makes them sound like they are weak and/or uninteresting.

PS:
The complexity of the magic system is because magic is a quarter of the whole game; there's stunts, skills, powers and magic. The rules about spells, rituals and items do not refer specifically to evocation/thaumaturgy as powers but all magic types out there (which are more than a dozen).

I'm not sure I'm following the argument here, so let me see if I understand what you're saying...  The rules for Magic should be complex because they are important to the game?  That doesn't make any sense to me.  And which other magic types are you referring to?  Sponsored Magic?  If so, I thought these house rules applied equally well to them as they did to Wizardly evocation/thaumaturgy.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: BumblingBear on March 24, 2011, 04:55:07 PM
Sure, but they still have more power.  They're just packing metaphorical missiles instead of metaphorical nuclear bombs.  And your Lara Croft character could take out a Wizard under the regular rules just as easily as under these house rules.

How often does the 4-5 spell/combat limitation actually come up in play?  I would say it should definitely be an issue, but not every combat.
How often is the assassin without their guns and specialized ammunition?  (How often do they get stolen, hexed, etc.)  I would say the answers to both questions would be similar.

To be clear, I'm not trying to make a game of rock-paper-scissors, or "My character is stronger than your character" here.  I'm just trying to defend against the notion that Wizards would be "gimped" under these house rules, which makes them sound like they are weak and/or uninteresting.


I'm not sure I'm following the argument here, so let me see if I understand what you're saying...  The rules for Magic should be complex because they are important to the game?  That doesn't make any sense to me.  And which other magic types are you referring to?  Sponsored Magic?  If so, I thought these house rules applied equally well to them as they did to Wizardly evocation/thaumaturgy.

That's kind of what your house rules do, though.  Wizards in a game like that would be weaker and uninteresting.

::shrug::

People can run games however they want.  However, I am a bit surprised that you're surprised that the overall tone of replies you've gotten have not been overwhelmingly positive.

If you don't want to deal with magic, or you don't want wizards to nuke, just don't allow them in your campaign.  Don't gimp wizards.  That really goes against the spirit of the game in my mind.

I mean, Harry was able to nuke and destroy a demon in one shot in SF.... at Chest Deep level.  I would say that wizards are supposed to be powerful... and complicated.  The complication is part of what added the immersion for me.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
Thaumaturgy:
Some of your complaints sound a bit like complaining about the contacts skill: 

You never roll it in combat, and it's always some guy who tells you stuff.

The 'interesting' parts of thaumaturgy are whatever zany stuff you do to get enough complexity to cast the spell, not the actual ritual itself.  If works the same way in the books, almost all of the page count in thaumaturgy is spent on the declarations (blue play-doh, ring of barbed wire, long cleansing shower, and do on).  That's the interesting part.

I think I agree with you (unless I've missed something), but that was the reason for these house rules in the first place.  There are complex rules for gathering the power to cast a spell (after the zany preparation stuff has already been done).  But once you reach +5 Control, those rules never get used.  And there's no real difference between a Wizard with +7 Divination Control and a Wizard with +5 Divination Control.

To put it a different way, under the current rules, there's no real reason to build something like "Little Chicago" to help with Divination spells.

The house rules still require all the zany prep work if you want to cast something more complicated than your Lore+4, or if you want to cast something more complex than Lore-4 without risking backlash or fallout.  But once you've done all the interesting prep work, you just roll (or don't bother, if you've already got enough shifts) and you're done.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 05:15:14 PM
People can run games however they want.  However, I am a bit surprised that you're surprised that the overall tone of replies you've gotten have not been overwhelmingly positive.

I certainly didn't expect overwhelmingly positive.  And I certainly expected some negative response (or simply lack of response).  But given all the posts about "How does Magic work?", "Wizards are overpowered.", "How much stress does X cost?" I was hoping for at least a few "Hey, that's interesting" replies.

As you said, though, ::shrug::  :)

If you don't want to deal with magic, or you don't want wizards to nuke, just don't allow them in your campaign.  Don't gimp wizards.  That really goes against the spirit of the game in my mind.

I still can't wrap my head around how a Weapon:6, Attack+8 (that can be upgraded to Weapon:10 with a moderate consequence, etc.) is considered gimped.

I'd say that you're a better optimizer than I am (just based on the posts of yours that I've read).  What kind of attacks can an Invoker (Evocation, Refinement x3) reliably cast that make them less gimped?  It's possible that I'm underestimated how much this is nerfing Wizards, since I didn't think it made that big a difference in their power level.  (My own, non-optimized, Discipline 5, Conviction 3 character can't do nearly as well, for example.)

I mean, Harry was able to nuke and destroy a demon in one shot in SF.... at Chest Deep level.  I would say that wizards are supposed to be powerful... and complicated.  The complication is part of what added the immersion for me.

I'm happy to disagree about the complicated part.  The complication was getting in the way of immersion for me, personally.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 05:24:04 PM
Enchanting

While enchanters are powerful, I'm not really convinced that they are overpowered.   While they are very strong on the defense, their inability to get bonuses to hit like evocators can limit their offensive ability, and their limited uses clamps down on thier non-combat utility some too.

While it's possible to build an evocation offense, enchanted item defense character it actually takes a lot of your character focus to get there, meaning you can't do some other interesting stuff.

I agree, and I think the Enchanteding house rules either need to be tweaked or thrown out entirely.  I know there was some concern about crafters, even considering their lack of to-hit bonuses, and I wanted to make Specialization more useful, since it lost its connection to Thaumaturgy (which is another potential problem).

Since all elements are 'equal' wouldn't a good justification let you apply your already useful evocation specialty to power up whatever enchanted item you want?

I suspect there would be a few enchanted items where that just wouldn't make sense.  Could you create a tracking item using any of the elements?  I could describe the effect as something elemental (a candle flame flickers in the direction of your target, etc.) but I don't know how being "good" at Fire would make me better at tracking.  The same goes for conjuration, summoning, transformation, etc.

For defensive and offensive enchanted items, definitely.  But in that case I think it makes sense.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: BumblingBear on March 24, 2011, 05:45:43 PM
I certainly didn't expect overwhelmingly positive.  And I certainly expected some negative response (or simply lack of response).  But given all the posts about "How does Magic work?", "Wizards are overpowered.", "How much stress does X cost?" I was hoping for at least a few "Hey, that's interesting" replies.

As you said, though, ::shrug::  :)

I still can't wrap my head around how a Weapon:6, Attack+8 (that can be upgraded to Weapon:10 with a moderate consequence, etc.) is considered gimped.

I'd say that you're a better optimizer than I am (just based on the posts of yours that I've read).  What kind of attacks can an Invoker (Evocation, Refinement x3) reliably cast that make them less gimped?  It's possible that I'm underestimated how much this is nerfing Wizards, since I didn't think it made that big a difference in their power level.  (My own, non-optimized, Discipline 5, Conviction 3 character can't do nearly as well, for example.)

I'm happy to disagree about the complicated part.  The complication was getting in the way of immersion for me, personally.

Ok - quick example here.

By your rules, wizards cannot take consequences to do more powerful actions.  This is severely limiting and goes totally against the source material.

As for how it's limiting, imagine this.  (Note - I will add all refinement bonuses to the numbers I give in these examples)

If I have a wizard with 6 discipline and 4 conviction, using your rules, the most he could ever cast is a 14 shift attack.  Max. (without aspect use).

That same wizard using the book rules could roll a +4 for his discipline like in the above example, but then raise the shifts of power by 6, taking a minor mental consequence and crossing off the "4" in his mental stress track.
This would be a 20 shift attack.  That's a big difference.

That mild consequence goes away in the next scene.  Moderate consequence stick around.

Orrrr.... what if an enemy warlock creates a magic block on a doorway that the wizard character needs to go through to save a little girl?  If that block is a 5, there is no way that a wizard using your rules with a 4 conviction could get through it.

Using the book's rules, that wizard could go up one or two stress in his stress track and make his shifts of power potent enough to counterspell the block.

If I am playing a wizard, there is no way I would use a moderate consequence to get a spell off unless I was trying to rescue the Pope or wanted my character to die.  Wizards are squishy.  A mild consequence can be worth it, but a (self inflicted) moderate consequence is just asking for trouble.

Not only that, but with a moderate consequence (possibly) hanging around for the next few gaming sessions, that gives the wizard character (1) chance to dig deep for very little return.

I hope all of this made sense.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 07:41:29 PM
By your rules, wizards cannot take consequences to do more powerful actions.  This is severely limiting and goes totally against the source material.

I think that's a fair criticism.  At a minimum, let's make the alternate rule official.  A Wizard can take a consequence to add that many shifts to the Spell Power.  That would make the maximum house ruled attack below 16 shifts.

As for how it's limiting, imagine this.  (Note - I will add all refinement bonuses to the numbers I give in these examples)

If I have a wizard with 6 discipline and 4 conviction, using your rules, the most he could ever cast is a 14 shift attack.  Max. (without aspect use).

That same wizard using the book rules could roll a +4 for his discipline like in the above example, but then raise the shifts of power by 6, taking a minor mental consequence and crossing off the "4" in his mental stress track.
This would be a 20 shift attack.  That's a big difference.

First of all, I calculate only a 19 shift attack for the Regular Wizard (1 Mental Stress = Weapon:4, 4 Mental Stress = Weapon:7, 4 Mental Stress+Mild Consequence = Weapon:9)

Secondly, even if your calculation are correct, I'm calling shenanigans on comparing based on perfect rolls.  The Regular Wizard who attempted a Weapon:10 attack is almost guaranteed to have between 1 and 8 shifts worth of fallout or backlash, unless you want to start adding Fate Points into the calculation.

With a rote attack spell, the Regular Wizard could safely cast two Weapon:6 attacks (for 3 mental stress each), for an average attack of 12 shifts, and then two weaker spells (somewhere between two reliable Weapon:2 Spells for an average attack of 8 shifts, or risk fallout/backlash with a Weapon:5 attack and a Weapon:4 attack).

The Houseruled Wizard could safely cast four Weapon:4 attacks for an average attack of 10 shifts.  It's either a tie or the Regular Wizard wins by a few shifts if they want to gamble with Backlash.

Orrrr.... what if an enemy warlock creates a magic block on a doorway that the wizard character needs to go through to save a little girl?  If that block is a 5, there is no way that a wizard using your rules with a 4 conviction could get through it.

Using the book's rules, that wizard could go up one or two stress in his stress track and make his shifts of power potent enough to counterspell the block.

Wait... a Block only cares about the total shifts of the attack, not the Weapon value, right.  So a 10 shift evocation will blow down a Block:5, regardless of whether it's a +8, Weapon:2 spell or a +5 Weapon:5 spell.  Or have I seriously missed something in the books?
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: BumblingBear on March 24, 2011, 07:56:04 PM
I

First of all, I calculate only a 19 shift attack for the Regular Wizard (1 Mental Stress = Weapon:4, 4 Mental Stress = Weapon:7, 4 Mental Stress+Mild Consequence = Weapon:9)

Secondly, even if your calculation are correct, I'm calling shenanigans on comparing based on perfect rolls.  The Regular Wizard who attempted a Weapon:10 attack is almost guaranteed to have between 1 and 8 shifts worth of fallout or backlash, unless you want to start adding Fate Points into the calculation.

You're right - it was 19.  The point is that a wizard using RAW can easily add 5 shifts of power to an attack.  I used a perfect roll just for the sake of example.  In reality, it wouldn't be hard to control that amount of power for a wizard who is tagging consequences, NVGs, or using fate points.

Quote
With a rote attack spell, the Regular Wizard could safely cast two Weapon:6 attacks (for 3 mental stress each), for an average attack of 12 shifts, and then two weaker spells (somewhere between two reliable Weapon:2 Spells for an average attack of 8 shifts, or risk fallout/backlash with a Weapon:5 attack and a Weapon:4 attack).

I wasn't talking about rotes.  I was talking about nuking.

Quote
Wait... a Block only cares about the total shifts of the attack, not the Weapon value, right.  So a 10 shift evocation will blow down a Block:5, regardless of whether it's a +8, Weapon:2 spell or a +5 Weapon:5 spell.  Or have I seriously missed something in the books?

Nope.  It's considered a counterspell - and counterspells have to match the original spell power-for-power.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 08:18:47 PM
You're right - it was 19.  The point is that a wizard using RAW can easily add 5 shifts of power to an attack.  I used a perfect roll just for the sake of example.  In reality, it wouldn't be hard to control that amount of power for a wizard who is tagging consequences, NVGs, or using fate points.

Okay, the difference between a 19 shift attack and a 16 shift attack doesn't seem that huge to me, but I'll grant the distinction.  A regular wizard could easily add 5 shifts of power, if they're willing to take a minor consequence and commit to tagging/invoking aspects.  (I admit I can't figure out what NVGs are...)  A house ruled Wizard could only add 2 shifts, if they're willing to take a minor consequence, but they won't have to commit to tagging/invoking aspects.

So that's a legitimate issue.  Do those three shifts really make a difference?

Nope.  It's considered a counterspell - and counterspells have to match the original spell power-for-power.

That is... not at all how I read Evocation Blocks.  They certainly can be destroyed using Counterspells, but they could just as easily be destroyed by using bullets, an incredibly strong kick, or a strong Evocation attack.  The attack would still be weakened by the strength of the Block, but the Block would get destroyed in the process.  Do you believe that if a wizard threw a Weapon:4 fireball at a Strength:5 Block, the attack would be negated, regardless of how many shifts were gathered on the targeting roll?

Also note that, if something really needs to be counterspelled, the houserules treat that as Thaumaturgy.  And houseruled Thaumaturgy can increase Spell Power by tagging/invoking or by taking a consequence.  So a Wizard with +3 Lore could counterspell up to a Block:7 in a single exchange (although most likely they would have to tag/invoke in order to do it successfully).
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 24, 2011, 08:20:47 PM
Oh, and by the way, I really appreciate the feedback.  I may be disagreeing with a lot of your arguments, but it's really helping me to figure out exactly what the implications of these rules are, and who they would and would not work for.  So thanks!
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: BumblingBear on March 24, 2011, 08:36:45 PM
Okay, the difference between a 19 shift attack and a 16 shift attack doesn't seem that huge to me, but I'll grant the distinction.  A regular wizard could easily add 5 shifts of power, if they're willing to take a minor consequence and commit to tagging/invoking aspects.  (I admit I can't figure out what NVGs are...)  A house ruled Wizard could only add 2 shifts, if they're willing to take a minor consequence, but they won't have to commit to tagging/invoking aspects.

So that's a legitimate issue.  Do those three shifts really make a difference? 

They can.  3 shifts more can be the difference between taking out a creature or not - and that could be the difference between the PC being taken out or an innocent dying.  Nerfing is nerfing.

Quote
That is... not at all how I read Evocation Blocks.  They certainly can be destroyed using Counterspells, but they could just as easily be destroyed by using bullets, an incredibly strong kick, or a strong Evocation attack.  The attack would still be weakened by the strength of the Block, but the Block would get destroyed in the process.  Do you believe that if a wizard threw a Weapon:4 fireball at a Strength:5 Block, the attack would be negated, regardless of how many shifts were gathered on the targeting roll?
I think you were misunderstanding my example.  You're thinking of a shield style block.  I am talking about a magical obstacle.  For instance, think.... a huge, hot, roaring flame blocking a doorway.  6 shift block that will last for... 6 rounds.  Just blasting that obstacle with an evocation will not get rid of it.  It hast o be counterspelled. 

Check out the counterspell rules.

Quote
Also note that, if something really needs to be counterspelled, the houserules treat that as Thaumaturgy.  And houseruled Thaumaturgy can increase Spell Power by tagging/invoking or by taking a consequence.  So a Wizard with +3 Lore could counterspell up to a Block:7 in a single exchange (although most likely they would have to tag/invoke in order to do it successfully).

That sounds more complicated to me than the RAW... lol.

Oh, and by the way, I really appreciate the feedback.  I may be disagreeing with a lot of your arguments, but it's really helping me to figure out exactly what the implications of these rules are, and who they would and would not work for.  So thanks!

No worries.  That is what the boards are here for.

And if I thought you were stupid or somehow lacking, I would not be arguing with you.  :)  I know exactly where you're coming from.  I'm just trying to explain why I think it may be limiting for some players.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: crusher_bob on March 25, 2011, 04:40:06 AM
Could you give a quick example of how a Control 7, Power 4 character is worse at Blocking than a Control 4, Power 7 character?  Wouldn't the Power focused character still need Control in order to cast a powerful Block?
In the stock rules, since a blocks ability is based on the power of the block, not the control roll, a wizard who relies on evocation blocks for defense wants as high a block power as possible.  This usually manifests was equal power and control on the defense, and then that block being made a rote so they never have to worry about failing the discipline roll.

So the wizard with control 7, power 4 can only generate power 4 blocks at one stress.  And in wizard scale combat, a power 4 block is something that's probably blown through in an instant.

What this does is push conviction up the totem pole of wizard skills, so that choosing your pinnacle wizard skills is harder.  Also, you want all three as high as possible, which is one of the real weaknesses of wizards: they usually want three pinnacle skills (Discipline, Lore, Conviction) that have sort limited utility in other situations.  Then, if you want to be a fighting wizard, you have to squeeze in athletics and alertness and ...  But, with the removal of block power being based on your conviction, a wizard really only 'needs' a conviction of 3 for the 4 mental stress boxes.  That leaves him more skill options than a stock wizard.

Quote
You lost me here... I believe a Wizard's targeting roll can be maxed out more under the old rules than these house rules (since Specialization and Focus Items could stack).  Why is missing less likely than the regular rules?
Mostly because you've made power much less important.  Before, for example, a wizard might have to waste focus item slots in defensive power items.  But now there are only two choices for focus items, offense or defense (and not 4).  Of course, offensive power was a mug's game, so you really had 3 choices (offensive control, defensive power, defensive control).  With the need for defensive control removed, I think wizards can probably squeek out another foci point into hitting things.

-----------------

I think that the foci only add to control, specializations only add to power is a rules space worth exploring some; your proposals will just have to be kicked around a bit more until all the rough edges get worn off.

Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: devonapple on March 25, 2011, 04:32:11 PM
What exactly does adding duration to a maneuver get you, since maneuvers applied with a skill last for the scene unless an action is taken to remove them.

I don't believe that is true of Evocation Maneuvers (though I wish it were). The book example (that dude summoning a wind) specifies it is an exchange-by-exchange duration (I will furnish a page number here if absolutely necessary).

My GM has ruled that an especially good roll may make an Evocation Maneuver "sticky" beyond the original duration, but by the RAW, Evocation Maneuvers charge shifts for duration.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 25, 2011, 06:35:04 PM
What this does is push conviction up the totem pole of wizard skills, so that choosing your pinnacle wizard skills is harder.  Also, you want all three as high as possible, which is one of the real weaknesses of wizards: they usually want three pinnacle skills (Discipline, Lore, Conviction) that have sort limited utility in other situations.  Then, if you want to be a fighting wizard, you have to squeeze in athletics and alertness and ...  But, with the removal of block power being based on your conviction, a wizard really only 'needs' a conviction of 3 for the 4 mental stress boxes.  That leaves him more skill options than a stock wizard.

Hmm...  I would agree with your description of how Wizards currently choose their skills.  I'm not convinced that having three pinnacle skills is an absolute requirement for Wizards to be interesting.

Consider this: Under the current rules, it is difficult to create a High Conviction, Low Discipline Wizard.  That character has access to big shifts of power, but can't control it without spending Fate points or tagging Aspects.  So most of the time they would have to settle for weaker spells.  The Houseruled Wizard could pull off a High Conviction, Low Discipline Wizard a bit better, since screwing up a spell would earn them a Fate point (which they could use on future spells).

I guess my point is, while I acknowledge that these rules would change the baseline for what skill levels a Wizard needs, I don't see why that is necessarily a bad thing (or a good thing, really... I see it as a neutral thing).  From an optimization standpoint, Discipline is more important than Conviction, but so what?

And, of course, a Wizard with Conviction 5 could blow up two zones in one exchange, rather than just one, which is kind of cool. :)

Anyway, let me ask some practical questions:
1) Would it help if there were more options for "Spell Power"?  Currently, we have two options (Reduce Power by 2/zone, Reduce Power by 2/exchange).  What about adding more options?
- Reduce Power by 3 to add a Maneuver
- Reduce Power by 2 to move the target one zone

2) Would it help if we used Spell Power (Conviction + Specialization) to add duration to a Block?
- Evocation Blocks last Spell Power/2 exchanges

Both of those options might make extra Conviction more interesting.  What do you think?
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 25, 2011, 06:44:42 PM
I think you were misunderstanding my example.  You're thinking of a shield style block.  I am talking about a magical obstacle.  For instance, think.... a huge, hot, roaring flame blocking a doorway.  6 shift block that will last for... 6 rounds.  Just blasting that obstacle with an evocation will not get rid of it.  It hast o be counterspelled. 

Hmm... I don't have the book handy, but I didn't think there was any distinction between Blocks.  If I try to Block with Skills (Fists), Evocation (Shields), or Scenery (Hide Behind a Door), once the Block strength is overcome, doesn't the Block go away?  At a minimum, I thought the rules for Blocking in Evocation are pretty clear about that - regardless of what type of Block you're creating (shield/grapple/wall/etc.), it goes away once someone overcomes it.

That sounds more complicated to me than the RAW... lol.

- There's a Wall of Fire (Block:6) in front of you.
- I try to Counterspell it.
- Roll Lore + Focus Items.  Your target is 6.

That's complicated?

(As a minor tangential rant, I always hated the fact that Counterspelling was linked to Evocation.  That limits your maximum Counterspelling strength to, what, 10-12 shifts?  It's fairly easy to cast a spell tougher than that using Thaumaturgy.  And I have no idea if you're allowed to Counterspell using Thaumaturgy, since it's only described in the Evocation section.)
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: kamilion on March 26, 2011, 02:42:19 AM
(As a minor tangential rant, I always hated the fact that Counterspelling was linked to Evocation.  That limits your maximum Counterspelling strength to, what, 10-12 shifts?  It's fairly easy to cast a spell tougher than that using Thaumaturgy.  And I have no idea if you're allowed to Counterspell using Thaumaturgy, since it's only described in the Evocation section.)

There is a use of Thaumaturgy called Enhanced Evocation which I imagine could just as easily be used for large-scale or powerful Counterspelling. In fact, I would imagine that your only hope of Counterspelling a powerful Thaumaturgy spell would be with another Thaumaturgy spell.

In regards to the alternative spell rules, I haven't really taken a hard look at the implications yet, but I'm interested. I've been trying to get my group into playing DFRPG with minimal success, making the magic rules less complicated would help that cause.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: BumblingBear on March 26, 2011, 05:04:12 AM
There is a use of Thaumaturgy called Enhanced Evocation which I imagine could just as easily be used for large-scale or powerful Counterspelling. In fact, I would imagine that your only hope of Counterspelling a powerful Thaumaturgy spell would be with another Thaumaturgy spell.

In regards to the alternative spell rules, I haven't really taken a hard look at the implications yet, but I'm interested. I've been trying to get my group into playing DFRPG with minimal success, making the magic rules less complicated would help that cause.

You could just eliminate magic too...

Or only allow channeling...
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: kamilion on March 26, 2011, 09:59:06 PM
You could just eliminate magic too...

Or only allow channeling...

True, but I want magic in the game, I just want it to move as quickly as the rest of the rules. I'm thinking of writing up some good clarifications and such instead, with some simplification but not to the extent of these rules. I want to keep the flavor of the Dresden Files in there.

Anyway, I don't want to derail the discussion with my gaming woes. I'll comment on these magic rules in a bit.
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: kamilion on March 31, 2011, 01:23:08 AM
Evocation

Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to Attack/Maneuver/Block Strength.

Stress
All evocation actions cost 1 Mental Stress.

Attack
Roll Discipline + Focus Item
Strength = Conviction + Specialization
  • Reduce Strength by 2 for each Zone affected
  • Caster can choose to limit the Spell Strength

Maneuver
Roll Discipline + Focus Item
Strength = Conviction + Specialization
Difficulty to Remove Aspect = Strength
  • Reduce Difficulty by 1 for each Exchange added
  • Reduce Difficulty by 2 for each Zone affected

Block
Roll Discipline + Focus Item

Counterspell
Treated as Thaumaturgy

Rote Spell
Removed

Fallout/Backlash
If you miss, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.
  • Fallout effects are up to the GM, and should be influenced by the spell strength.  (The spell hits bystanders nearby. The spell adds a Scene aspect. etc.)
  • Backlash means you get hit with whatever you tried to cast (assume zero extra shifts and no defense roll).

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.

Philosophy: The main intent here is to streamline Evocation a little bit, to make it play more like the other skills/powers in the game.  This also slightly limits Evocation power, so that it's not quite as overpowered.  And since the risk of Fallout/Backlash is greater, it forces a Wizard to be much more careful about the magic they sling around.

Assuming you use your optional rules, this isn't a bad system. I can understand the desire to remove the complication of comparing strength version control, then determining Fallout/Backlash, etc. Other than that, there really isn't much change here from the RAW, except for explicitly applying Focus items to Discipline and Specializations to Conviction.

I'm in agreement with others here in that I don't see any reason to change the Block rules to rely soley on Discipline + Focus items. It seems like it's giving spellcasters a stronger ability to set up Blocks than your average individual is going to get, with no real downside.

I'm not sure why you would remove Rote spells - I'm assuming you want there to be the opportunity for casters to fail with every spell.

Other thoughts - the compel for Backlash/Fallout gives casters another opportunity for FP gain, not sure that's fair, though the consequences can be... painful. Also, why change Counterspell? Just make it an attack-type action on a spell, Strength vs. Strength, and move on.


Thaumaturgy

Stress
All thaumaturgy actions cost 1 Mental Stress.

Casting
  • Difficulty: Calculate difficulty for a spell using the same guidelines as before.
  • Casting The Spell: Roll Lore + Focus Item; Target = Difficulty of Spell
  • Timing: Casting a thaumaturgical spell takes one exchange.  On the other hand, tagging/invoking enough Aspects to cast the spell successfully may take a bit longer.

Alternate Rule: The player can take a consequence to add that many shifts to the Casting roll.

Fallout/Backlash
If you miss the Target, the GM can choose to Compel your High Aspect to cause Fallout or Backlash.
  • Fallout effects are up to the GM, and should be influenced by the spell strength.  (The spell hits bystanders nearby. The spell adds a Scene aspect. etc.)
  • Backlash means you take physical or mental stress equal to the Difficulty of the spell.

Alternate Rule: If Compelled by the GM, the player can choose whether they want Fallout or Backlash.

Note that "Thaumaturgy at the Speed of Evocation" is redundant under these rules.

I like the idea that it's the build-up that takes time, where-as the actual casting moves quite quickly, thogh I'm not sure that a single exchange is what I would choose. I'm assuming that in addition to tagging/invoking Aspects, you are also including declarations and assessments.

I'm NOT sure that I'm on board with only using Lore, though I can't come up with a solid argument against it. Only having one thing to worry about sure does make like simpler.
 
Crafting
The Crafting rules are mostly unchanged, with the following exceptions:
  • There are no Crafting specializations or Focus Items.
  • Add the highest relevant Specialization to the Strength of an Item.

Example: A Wizard with Lore +3 and Specialization: Earth +1 could create an Enchanted Item that created a +4 Block (or Armor:2)

I don't have any issue with this part. I'm assuming you are still on board with using additional item slots to add to strength or frequency on enchanted items?

Summary
I think you've accomplished your goal and streamlined the magic rules. I can't say I'm fond of cutting out Conviction from Evocation Blocks or of using only Lore for Thaumaturgy, though I think only the change to Evocation Blocks makes any real power difference, and I think it makes them more powerful, not less (especially since, as far as I can tell, there is no way to fail them).

I know you said you wanted to take some of the powerhouse out of Evocation, but I really think you have made spellcasters more powerful rather than less. Individual spells make carry a smidge less oomf, but it feels like a lot of the danger of magic has been tamed.

I wonder if you might be better served sticking with the original rules in general and simply clarifying any ambiguities, such as you did with the Focus Items and Specializations, rather than trying to change them. Have you tried playtesting these rules extensively to see where the biggest changes are?
Title: Re: [House Rules] A (Slightly) Streamlined Magic System
Post by: ironpoet on March 31, 2011, 06:07:36 PM
Thanks, kamilion,

Assuming you use your optional rules, this isn't a bad system. I can understand the desire to remove the complication of comparing strength version control, then determining Fallout/Backlash, etc. Other than that, there really isn't much change here from the RAW, except for explicitly applying Focus items to Discipline and Specializations to Conviction.

Yeah, I wasn't trying for a complete overhaul - I just wanted to remove as many steps as possible.

Quote
I'm in agreement with others here in that I don't see any reason to change the Block rules to rely soley on Discipline + Focus items. It seems like it's giving spellcasters a stronger ability to set up Blocks than your average individual is going to get, with no real downside.

Honestly, I'm not really happy about my streamlined Block rules, but I can't think of a better system that uses both Discipline and Conviction.  On the other hand, spending a point of mental stress for a powerful Block might be a reasonable tradeoff.

Quote
I'm not sure why you would remove Rote spells - I'm assuming you want there to be the opportunity for casters to fail with every spell.

Not exactly.  I just wasn't sure what would constitute a Rote spell under these guidelines.  If a Rote spell removed the risk of Fallout/Backlash, would there ever be a reason to pick Rotes other than: Attack Spell w/ Focus Item and Attack Spell w/o Focus Item?

Quote
Other thoughts - the compel for Backlash/Fallout gives casters another opportunity for FP gain, not sure that's fair, though the consequences can be... painful. Also, why change Counterspell? Just make it an attack-type action on a spell, Strength vs. Strength, and move on.

The GM wouldn't be forced to compel Backlash/Fallout on every miss.  This just gives them another option to add drama and/or Aspects to a scene.

As for Counterspell, see my "tangential rant" from a few posts back.  Evocation Blocks and Maneuvers can already be dispelled by a regular attack.  The only things left to Counterspell are Thaumaturgy spells (conjured walls of fire, bad luck curses, etc.)  So I thought it made more sense to fight Thaumaturgy with Thaumaturgy.

Quote
Thaumaturgy
I like the idea that it's the build-up that takes time, where-as the actual casting moves quite quickly, thogh I'm not sure that a single exchange is what I would choose. I'm assuming that in addition to tagging/invoking Aspects, you are also including declarations and assessments.

I'm NOT sure that I'm on board with only using Lore, though I can't come up with a solid argument against it. Only having one thing to worry about sure does make like simpler.

Yeah, I'm not sure about this one either.  As you said, I can't think of a particular reason it would break, but it's a pretty big change from the existing rules.

Quote
I don't have any issue with this part. I'm assuming you are still on board with using additional item slots to add to strength or frequency on enchanted items?

Absolutely.

Quote
I wonder if you might be better served sticking with the original rules in general and simply clarifying any ambiguities, such as you did with the Focus Items and Specializations, rather than trying to change them. Have you tried playtesting these rules extensively to see where the biggest changes are?

Not yet.  The next time my group gets together to play DFRPG, we'll try these out (but we don't get together that regularly).  I'll post again when I have actual data to offer!