With regards to technomancers: There are auqamancers, why not technomancers? Limitations on magic are not necassarily consistant depending on who the mage using it is.

That said, I've heard people call it a mix of Buffy and Charmed, and I'd personally like to tie it to Lost Girl - A Canadian series that really gets the Fae aspects - different but similiar politics (and some great ideas for supernatural baddies that haven't popped up in Dresden yet!) - The only thing those shows don't touch on yet that I'd like to highlight is the concept of free will vs. power that seems very important to the Fate system and Dresden himself.

My first adventure with the party I'm putting together right now will definitely have to highlight that if I'm going to acclimatize a group who've never read the series to the Dresdenverse.

If you're trying to stay strictly canon, there is a problem with the technomancer/hydromancer compairison.

In-universe there is a subtle difference between say fire conjured via magic and actual fire (this was established in Summer Knight).  While not explicitly stated yet, it's fair to assume the same principle applies to water evocation.  That it's not actual water in a scientific sense, thus won't ground out magic or disrupt the energies that gve demons and ghosts coporial form.

also just to make sure I am understanding the sponsored magic rules correctly. If I have channeling - Fire and take sponsored magic Hell Fire, That cost 6 Refresh correct?

I don't have the books on me, but I'm fairly sure you get a +1 rebate because you have channeling.

No, I'm implying that they're applying the same type of thinking toward this game as you would find in a video game. Just like I had to remind one of my own players that it wasn't DnD when he took someone out with a Guns roll then lamented that he didn't want to kill him.

But yes, sometimes people do need to be reminded of it, because it's easy to forget in a discussion like this, where one side of the argument appears to read as, "It doesn't work very well if the other side is doing everything to the utmost optimization," when that's not how most encounters are supposed to work. Against high-level named NPCs? Sure, you can reasonably expect them to do things efficiently as a challenge--but at the same time, named NPCs are going to have motivations driving them that will conflict with that. Low-level mooks, however, are reasonably expected to do things pretty dumbly, from a gameplay perspective.

The issue I have with that is pretty much all of that should be handled with compels.  I don't feel a GM should be expected to handicap themselves, the other players certainly don't do this.

Compels are what the GM uses to monkey wrench players and keep them from taking the most optimal action every time.  I don't see why it should be any different when the tables are turned, seeing as how it's within the players ability to call compels on npc's.

Again you are determining before hand that the block is something they can see. An entire round only happens in the span of a minute at the most. there really isnt all that much time to say "Oh that guy is putting up a very clear block i will avoid."

Also, like i just said, you arent looking at it narative you are looking at it cause and effect. Blocks act like prepared actions in DND. You decide what effect it is that you are blocking and if that happens then so does your block.

*Ninja'd

The problem with that line of thought is that it goes against the reality of playing the game.  Character narration doesn't change the fact that you as the player or GM does know someone put up a block.  You can try and play to the nature of the character all you want, but what you as a player know can and does color your in-game decisions.

This typically swings in two directions.  A. play as a tactical master because you as a player have knowledge the characters don't.  B. compensate in the opposite direction and serve yourself to the opposition on a platter for the sake of narration.

My experience with most RPG battles is it's either a mook fight where the players can't possibly lose (but may get softened up a bit).  Or it's an insanely tough fight where players just barely pull through (or just lose).

If you do not put up a block, you are the target of the attack. If you do put up the block, you are not the target of the attack. That sorta seems like doing something to me.
It's a turn where nobody on the other side is attacking what's likely the group's strongest attacker--the enemy wizard is spending stress and potentially backlash to attack someone who is, in all likelihood, better equipped to dodge or deal with his attack than the wizard would be unprotected.
And the rest of the group are such defenseless lambs that it's preferable if the wizard gets ganked instead?
If you're not getting hit, then by default, you're ahead of the game. The other side is going to be spending effort and resources while you don't.

And you're right. A smart GM wouldn't attack the guy behind the nigh-invincible barrier. He would have his side maneuver and support one another to get through that barrier--which still results in fewer successful attacks against the wizard's side.

So putting up a shield around the wizard results in either A. the wizard taking a breather while the other side spends stress, effort, and resources attacking everyone else, allowing him to use his own stress and resources when everyone else is already getting tired; or B. the other side focuses on the wizard's shield with maneuvers, in which case they're not attacking the wizard's team and may not even get through the shield.

Or C: The other team totally ignores the wizard while he's sitting there doing nothing behind a shield, his team mates get beaten down because now they are down one action per exchange, and now the wizard is horribly out-numbered.  Blocks have zero utility, that's the real crux of the problem.  Combine that with the fact that you have to telegraph your defense when you put one up.  The idea of defense is to lessen the effect of the oppositions actions against you.  In a game like this where action economy is paramount, letting the other side have the full effect of their actions while your side is down an action is not optimal in a straight forward fight.

One day and nine grand to go.

If we don't make it, I will eat my hat.

Is it an evil hat?  *ba-dum-bum-ching*

1) As stated above it's debatable, thus up to the GM.  If it were my game and the express enchantment of the gun was to kill things, yes I would likely call Lawbreaker if he killed a human, BUT only if the player used the enchantment effect on the target.

Even if I didn't want to slap them with lawbreaker, their would still be hell to pay from a role playing standpoint.  Even if it was by mundain means. 

The real important thing is to avoid lawbreaker arguements with players.  The easiest way to do that is to condition your players to avoid killing humans as all costs haha.

Hearing about the possibility of what is essentially DFRPG 2.0, I finally put $30 behind this.  I would like to put more, but with how random my gaming group is, and that this is a good two years out, $30 is all I can justify.  But hey every dollar brings us that much closer! =)