I think those stats are perfectly reasonable.  I would personally require more than two shifts to block the moonlight, since we're assuming that this "Full Moon Light" is strong enough to power this Big Bad Item Of Power.  I'd probably set it at six shifts for the block.  I'd also set the base duration as "one scene", so you would need more shifts in order to work for "a few days".  But all that being said, statting spells is a pretty subjective thing, and I think your take on it is as good as mine.

Counterspelling thaumaturgy, mechanically, requires an equal power counterspell.  I'm not a huge fan of that mechanic, though, since it means that more complex spells are harder to disrupt than simple spells ("This computer is harder to break than this cannonball").  So I might houserule than individual characteristics of the spell could be counterspelled.  Therefore, if the veil was detected, then a +2 (or +6) counterspell could break the "blocking" aspect of the spell, leaving the veil in place.  Alternatively, shifts could be use to decrease the duration of the spell, so that it would end while the moon was still full.

In that particular situation, I rolled a +7 empathy roll.  The GM said, "you know what, you fail that role - here's a fate point -   I'm compelling your corrupt cop aspect.  You get that he's telling the truth, but he's insulted you're insinuating he's corrupt.  You just made an enemy on the force"

I think that's a really cool Compel, but it's independent from the Empathy roll.  Since there wasn't an interesting way to "succeed", I would have just skipped the roll and gone right to the Compel.

As for full-out social combat, I'd only start that if both sides wanted something from the other person.  In this case, if the cop thought it was really important that you believed him, then a social combat would be useful.  But if he didn't really care, then it's just an opposed roll.  And in either case, I'd skip the rolls entirely unless both potential outcomes were interesting.

Technically, since I failed, he still could be guilty, but is using deceit.  So we could have broke it all down into a combat, but it didn't really matter in the end.  Could that same result have happened in a full-out combat?  At what point does the DM say, "here's a fate point - you lose" 

I think that compels can be done at any time, so a GM could end a combat with a Compel.  The only question would be why the GM started the combat in the first place if they knew they wanted a specific outcome?  But maybe (a) they didn't think of the cool Compel until half-way through the combat, or (b) something happened during the fight that inspired the Compel.

When do you go into full-out social combat and when do you just do a few rolls?
Do you need social combat to discover aspects or do you just need one roll and a couple of shifts?(as per the skill description)

So for example, a peice of evidence on a crime scene has gone missing.  I suspect the cop guarding the scene has been paid off and took the evidence.  I ask him if he found something and he says no...to Gm, "I use empathy to see if he's lying."
 *roll dice*
DM: no, he's not lying".

how much into detail should we go?

I'm no expert, but here are the guidelines I would personally follow:

1) Full Social Combat (including "initiative", stress, etc.) should only occur when both parties actively want something.  If there's nothing at stake, why would you be fighting?  Good examples would be: negotiating a deal, trying to get information without giving anything away, trying to convert an evil sorceror to the Path of Goodness and Truth without being drawn to the Dark Side.

2) Opposed Rolls should only occur if there is an intersting outcome for *both* success and failure.  In the case of the example above, Failure was an interesting option ("You suspect that the cop is lying") since it adds something new to the story.  But success was boring ("Nope.  He's not lying.")  In that case, I'd either think of a more interesting outcome for success ("He didn't take the evidence, but he knows who did.") or I would skip the Empathy roll entirely.

3) In general, I would treat social interactions the same way a novel writer would.  If it doesn't move the story forward, I would skip over it.

Actually, that isn't entirely correct. Even if you got 4 discipline, calling power is dangerous. You might roll a -4 (1 in 81 chance) and take huge backlash and fallout.
In addition, the GM might compel aspects or consequences you have or the scene has to make you fail, even if you got the discipline for it.

Yes, mechanically, it's possible to screw up a Thaumaturgy spell, but dramatically it's often not that interesting.  (Your Story, page 270)  Or, alternatively, failing to cast the spell might be dramatic, but it would ruin the mood of the scene/story.  ("You've failed to control your investigation spell.  All your evidence is destroyed in a burst of flames.")

So far, we've determined that the following make for dramatic Thaumatrugy:

• Opposed spells
• Spells with a time limit (or "Race to the Finish Line" spells)

What about interesting fallout or failure options?  You mentioned Compels, for example.  When would you Compel someone to fail a Thaumaturgy roll?  Or how would you use Backlash and/or Fallout from a botched control roll to move a story forward?

Thaumaturgy, as a rule *isn't* interesting.  Though if you really want to know why, check the "Running the Game" section.  Basically, if there is no real risk to failure, and no real reward for success (other than completing the ritual), then dice shouldn't be rolled.  But stuff like summoning and bind should probably ALWAYS be rolled because of the nature of what's happening.

See YS309, the section on "When to call for a roll".

I agree with this, more or less, but there are a lot of rules for "How To Cast Thaumaturgy".  Therefore, in theory both the GM and player should go out of their way to find interesting uses for it.

In game I've been playing in, so far my (Lore +5) wizard has cast a few "CSI"-like Divination spells, and we haven't rolled for them.  But I'm hoping to find a way to try out the Thaumaturgy rules in a more dramatic situation.  Summoning and binding (and contested rolls in general) can't be the only time that Thaumaturgy is interesting, right?

I guess I'm looking for story guidelines/suggestions, as opposed to mechanical guidelines/suggestions.

Try these out for size:
...
How does this look from a balance perspective?  I think the complexities should end up being reasonable.  Also note that using Transformation to scam people is possible ("Hey, want to buy this 100% Pure golden sandwhich?"), but the victim might well seek justice once he learns he's been duped.

Hmmm... my problem with these guidelines is that (a) they change the rules for the amount of time needed to cast a spell, and (b) they set up some weird feedback problems when determining complexity.  Choosing the first example: "Transform a fast food burger into a steak dinner"

1) It's possible to create a steak dinner from the materials provided.  Let's say I want a Good (+3) steak.
2) It normally takes about a half-hour to cook a Good steak.
3) I want to make it in one minute, so +3 shifts.

- The complexity of the spell is +6, and I can cast it in one minute (plus prep time and casting time).

- Unfortunately, my Lore is only +4, so I can't cast this spell without preparation.  Unless I want to spend Fate points on my dinner, I'll have to spend extra time to make up the difference, making this one minute spell take at least a scene or more.

- Okay, in that cast I'll just make it in "a few minutes", which only adds +2 shift instead of +3.  The total complexity is now +5, which is still too high.

- So I'll settle for a Fair (+2) steak to make the total complexity +4, which I can cast without preparation in a few minutes.

- Of course, the prep work and gathering the power to cast the spell will already add on a few more minutes, so I may as well change the casting time to "fifteen minutes" (which only adds +1) and make the quality of the steak Good (+3) again.

This is an extreme example, I admit, but I think it demonstrates how these guidelines aren't as streamlined as I'd like.  I think the dramatic tension should be "Can you prepare and cast this spell in time?" as opposed to "Can you figure out the best compromise between quality and casting time?"

Did you have any specific problems with the guidelines I had suggested before?  Are there examples where those guidelines come up with really high and/or unrealistic complexities?

METHOD TO GET RICH: Thaumaturgy divination, to predict the moves of the stock market in the day. That would be solving a problem with the contacts or resources or scholarship skill. Even the most skilled mortals in financial science in the world would get a base of superb +5 plus +2 from a stunt in this. A wizard using divination could easily get a complexity of 10 with a two-minute ritual. Fancy getting the maximum benefit of the stock market every day? 20% rate of interest per day would be about the best possible. In ten days you'd have 6 TIMES the money you started with. In one month you could start with $4.000 and end up with $ 1 million.


WHY IT WON'T WORK #1: Okay, maybe you're not technically breaking the Laws of Magic.  You're not peeking into the future, and you're not reading people's minds to see whether they will Buy or Sell.  But try explaining that to the White Council Wardens at your door.  I'm sure they'll be happy to give you the benefit of the doubt!

STORY IDEA #1: Marty Johnson, a Slick Stockbroker, is making a killing in the stock market.  The White Council sends the PCs to make sure the Laws of Magic are being broken.  How can you be sure?  Can you afford to let him go if you're wrong?

STORY IDEA #2: The PC's used completely legitimate magic to get rich using the Stock Market.  Unfortunately, Aeric Thomason, an Old School Warden, doesn't believe you.  Can the PCs convince the White Council of their innocence before Aeric can play judge, jury, and executioner?


WHY IT WON'T WORK #2: You think demons don't already control the Stock Market?  You think the White Court dedicated to Despair didn't request the recent Stock Market crash?  Good luck rigging a game that is already rigged!

STORY IDEA #3: The PCs discover that demons control the Stock Market.  Can the PCs remove this demonic influence without crashing the Stock Market again?

This thread was inpsired by the comments in this post: http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,22095.0.html

It started off with a caveat from Ryan_Singer:

This looks about right. I'd add the caveat that in the Dresdenverse, no one has ever gotten rich using magic. Even the senior council relies on traditional finance with centuries of compounded interest. Turning lead into gold is possible, but never costs less than gold on the open market.

That lead into a series of suggestions about how magic can be used to make you rich:

...A wizard can become very, very wealthy without the need to conjure money;
1) Thaumaturgy divination, to predict the moves of the stock market in the day. That would be solving a problem with the contacts or resources or scholarship skill. Even the most skilled mortals in financial science in the world would get a base of superb +5 plus +2 from a stunt in this. A wizard using divination could easily get a complexity of 10 with a two-minute ritual. Fancy getting the maximum benefit of the stock market every day? 20% rate of interest per day would be about the best possible. In ten days you'd have 6 TIMES the money you started with. In one month you could start with $4.000 and end up with $ 1 million.

2) Thaumaturgy divination, to search for minerals - gold, oil, gems. Similarly to the above use, even the weakest wizard could get better results in minutes than world-class prospectors could get in days or months of searching.

3) How about buying and selling land? A wizard could influence the weather or conjure attacks by vermin with only minor complexity or even do power outages and the like to really drop property values. Then he'd buy the land for a ridiculous price and sell some months later at a much higher price.

4) Invest in a company then destroy the company's competitors. You don't really need black magic or any direct spells; any modern company can be destroyed by simply hexing it. Even better, manipulate the stock market like that.

5) Steal a bank. Hex the bank at night, sneak in under a thaumaturgy veil, put the guards to sleep, melt the vault door and grab the money. Even better, use summoned creatures to steal the money for you. No Laws broken whatsoever and the police will have no evidence at all; no modern security can resist hexing and any trace evidence left by summoned creatures melts away in minutes (and isn't human to begin with.
Or, you can do it faster by opening a Gate from the Nevernever directly into the bank vault.

6) Insurance fraud. Lots of insurance fraud. Fires, power failure, equipment failure, wizards can do it untraceably and seemingly naturally.

7) Arms Dealing. How much would an assassin or a terrorist pay for an invisibility potion? How about a mercenary for an invulnerability potion or a healing potion? Any kind of armed forces for a grenade-like potion that does 8 shifts of hexing in one zone, destroying every kind of technological item from alarms to firearms and mines to armored vehicles? How about lasting thaumaturgy veils for secret facilities and bunkers? And NONE of the above violate the Laws of Magic.

That led to a series of arguments about how that wouldn't work.  Conflict leads to story ideas, so I thought I would make a new post to capture it all!

I'd like to invite people to post three types of things here:
METHOD TO GET RICH: [Some way of getting rich using magic]
WHY IT WON'T WORK: [A reason why it wouldn't work.  This could be a mechanical reason, a thematic Dresdenverse reason, or a made up reason.]
STORY IDEA: [A quick description of a story idea that a GM could run, using this conflict]