Some Spell Questions (formerly: Lightning Shield... Block and Damage?)

[Baron Hazard]

So, I'm working on something and i was wondering the forumite's thoughts on a damaging shield spell.

Something like: Strength 9 Air (lightning) Block, for a block:7, duration 3 exchanges.

When attacked, even if the Block isn't overcome, the spell still ends dealing the remainder of its strength as an Air Evocation attack at the attacker.

So block:7 blocks a an attack 4 action, it immediately responds by dealing a weapon:3 Evocation.

does this over power an already over powered factor of the game? spell casters. Is there anyway you'd allow it? do you think some shifts should be committed previously when forming the spell?

Thanks.

[Tsunami]

You would basically be doing two spells with one Action. Thats really out of balance.

You can redirect that spell to turn into an attack, there are rules for that.
But a Block that also deals damage... Thaumaturgy Wards are able to do that... evocation, nope, not in my book.

[Baron Hazard]

Aye, i was concerned about that. Though i'm glad you mentioned the re-direction rules as i'd missed them.

MOAR questions!

1. Same as above, if you are still interested in weighing in on it.

2. would using evocation to place a maneuver on a willing ally still require a minimum of 3 shifts to be effective?

3. Re-reading the series, would you allow an evocation maneuver to split into two maneuvers (kind of like you can split an attack) i ask because When harry goes to visit mortimer in Grave Peril he uses a race bit of power to slam the door (actually that would be a block... probably...) and then says he uses the rest of THAT spells energy to also pull a chair up to him.

4. Narrative, damage over time maneuvers. Such as using an Evocation Maneuver to set someone on fire. Aspect: 'On Fire.' would this be applied to act similar to the venemous claws, where each round the subject has to roll or take damage? or would fate points be necessary unlike Venomous Claws.

5. On evocation Maneuvers, do you HAVE to pay for persistence on people, or does the applied aspect have the ability to be sticky like a normal maneuver?

Sorry if any of this is plainly answered in the book somewhere that I missed, the pdf totally ruined my ability to read the book cover to cover >>

[Da_Gut]

No three is covered somewhere in the rules as overflow. The example is michael, knight of the cross, using three shifts of overflow to run out of a collapsing building after killing something.

Or something like that.

[Baron Hazard]

Good show Da_gut. Totally love the overflow rules, but for some reason weren't coming up with magic in my head.

[Tsunami]

Aye, i was concerned about that. Though i'm glad you mentioned the re-direction rules as i'd missed them.

MOAR questions!

1. Same as above, if you are still interested in weighing in on it.

been there, done that *g*

2. would using evocation to place a maneuver on a willing ally still require a minimum of 3 shifts to be effective?

I'd say yes, 3 shifts is not really a lot, and in a conflict there needs to be the possibility of failure, like with all other maneuvers.
Outside of a conflict, well, if theres no downside to failing then theres not even a need to roll.

3. Re-reading the series, would you allow an evocation maneuver to split into two maneuvers (kind of like you can split an attack) i ask because When harry goes to visit mortimer in Grave Peril he uses a race bit of power to slam the door (actually that would be a block... probably...) and then says he uses the rest of THAT spells energy to also pull a chair up to him.

Doesn't really need to be a block, i'd actually think it's more of a maneuver.
I can imagine to rule this as a single maneuver placing a scene aspect like "The Wizard is in" which is then tagged in the social conflict that follows. Closing the door and pushing out the chair would be simply description.
If you rule it as a block, then you can go with the redirection rules once more. Close the door as a block with +1 duration, in the next exchange redirect the block spell to push out the chair.
You could also rule this as a "mundane effect", and not require any roll or stress, but then you don't get any benefit, rules-wise.
Lastly, there is the Spin rule. Having gained a lot of shifts on the door-closing-spell you could maybe rule that the remaining shifts can be used to push out the chair. Though Spin is technically only for mundane action iirc.

4. Narrative, damage over time maneuvers. Such as using an Evocation Maneuver to set someone on fire. Aspect: 'On Fire.' would this be applied to act similar to the venemous claws, where each round the subject has to roll or take damage? or would fate points be necessary unlike Venomous Claws.

Damage is done by attacks, not by maneuvers. The Aspect "on fire" does not include Fire Damage.
A DoT attack effect would require you to roll a new attack each exchange to "maintain" the effect.
Another option is to use magical grapples, see the Orbius spell among the Example evocations in YS.

[Baron Hazard]

Thank you, Tsunami. Aye, my initial thought on aspects (question 4) was indeed that, the special rules for claws made me wonder though.

I added a fifth question up there (possibly while responding.) after that one gets answered, I think thats all the question i have atm, not including anyone that wants to way in on their own input.

[Morgan]

Aye, i was concerned about that. Though i'm glad you mentioned the re-direction rules as i'd missed them.

MOAR questions!

1. Same as above, if you are still interested in weighing in on it.

Think that one was pretty well covered already.

2. would using evocation to place a maneuver on a willing ally still require a minimum of 3 shifts to be effective?

That should work, if the target is receptive and not actively trying to resist the maneuver go with the base 3 shift minimum.

3. Re-reading the series, would you allow an evocation maneuver to split into two maneuvers (kind of like you can split an attack) i ask because When harry goes to visit mortimer in Grave Peril he uses a race bit of power to slam the door (actually that would be a block... probably...) and then says he uses the rest of THAT spells energy to also pull a chair up to him.

Or it could be a small spell used just for color on the order of his Flicum Bicus candle lighting spell, and it was actually an Intimidation Attack or Maneuver on poor old Mort. Though perhaps you could consider it his Discipline complementing his Intimidation roll.

4. Narrative, damage over time maneuvers. Such as using an Evocation Maneuver to set someone on fire. Aspect: 'On Fire.' would this be applied to act similar to the venemous claws, where each round the subject has to roll or take damage? or would fate points be necessary unlike Venomous Claws.

If you are placing the Aspect 'On Fire' on a person or thing there isn't any damage until it is tagged or fate points are spent to activate it and in that case it is usually used for another roll not as a way to make damage just happen. However if you have blasted someone with Fire and they have taken the 'On Fire' consequence that is a free +2 just waiting to be tagged, same as if you had maneuvered the aspect onto them.

5. On evocation Maneuvers, do you HAVE to pay for persistence on people, or does the applied aspect have the ability to be sticky like a normal maneuver?

You could just let it be sticky especially if you get a number of extra shifts on a roll, or if you want to make it an additional number of power shifts on the spell do it that way.

Sorry if any of this is plainly answered in the book somewhere that I missed, the pdf totally ruined my ability to read the book cover to cover >>

Not a problem, the PDF didn't prepare me for the massive tome-like nature of the physical DFRPG books either.

[Tsunami]

5. On evocation Maneuvers, do you HAVE to pay for persistence on people, or does the applied aspect have the ability to be sticky like a normal maneuver?

Oh Boy... thats a loaded one thats been discussed a lot without a definitive answer.
try these three threads...
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,19476.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,18142.0.html
http://www.jimbutcheronline.com/bb/index.php/topic,16406.0.html

[CMEast]

I agree with Morgan, a manoeuvre can be sticky if you get at least one extra shift over the enemies defense.

On that original question, I would allow something similar at evocation speed if you had sponsored magic though I'm not sure how balanced that particular version is. Perhaps I would allow the landmine effect of wards as it would take a lot more power to make it deal a lot of damage. The reason being I'm concerned that you could continually create blocks and deal damage at the same time. If that block amount and damage amount compromise each other then it would be fairer.

I think the other questions have been answered perfectly already so I won't weigh in

[Baron Hazard]

Thanks one and all for the weigh ins. You've helped me alot and the full geeky weight of that help shall be revealed soonish like.

[Todjaeger]

You would basically be doing two spells with one Action. Thats really out of balance.

You can redirect that spell to turn into an attack, there are rules for that.
But a Block that also deals damage... Thaumaturgy Wards are able to do that... evocation, nope, not in my book.

Some work might need to be done to determine how a block could be used to deal damage, but there is an example given in White Knight of that happening.  Ramirez's Water-based shield, dealt damage to beings which ended up coming into physical contact with it.  By extension, if a character or creature ended up running full bore into Harry's shield when it was powered up would likely feel like they had just run into a wall, and thus be damaged in that way.  I would therefore allow a Block to deal damage to opponents that somehow came into contact with the Block assuming the Block had a nature which could/would deal damage depending on the contact.  Again using Ramirez as an example, his Water-based shield utilized the entropic properties of water to break apart/break down material, effectively turning bullets into sand (or flesh into well, salsa...).  In the case of an Air-based lightning Block, I would have someone who comes into physical contact with the Block suddenly develop an electric personality...

On the other hand, while I would potentially allow players to position their Block in such a way as to possibly allow others to become damaged by it, I would not allow a player to use the Block as both a defensive casting, and then "launch" it at someone/thing to damage them.  At least, not without requiring the player to make a second casting to launch the spell at someone.

[Tsunami]

Some work might need to be done to determine how a block could be used to deal damage, but there is an example given in White Knight of that happening.  Ramirez's Water-based shield, dealt damage to beings which ended up coming into physical contact with it.  By extension, if a character or creature ended up running full bore into Harry's shield when it was powered up would likely feel like they had just run into a wall, and thus be damaged in that way.  I would therefore allow a Block to deal damage to opponents that somehow came into contact with the Block assuming the Block had a nature which could/would deal damage depending on the contact.  Again using Ramirez as an example, his Water-based shield utilized the entropic properties of water to break apart/break down material, effectively turning bullets into sand (or flesh into well, salsa...).  In the case of an Air-based lightning Block, I would have someone who comes into physical contact with the Block suddenly develop an electric personality...

On the other hand, while I would potentially allow players to position their Block in such a way as to possibly allow others to become damaged by it, I would not allow a player to use the Block as both a defensive casting, and then "launch" it at someone/thing to damage them.  At least, not without requiring the player to make a second casting to launch the spell at someone.

Ramirez using his shield to deal damage is actually the example used in YS to illustrate redirecting spells.
The Example is on page 260, and the shield itself is described on page 293.

[Todjaeger]

Ramirez using his shield to deal damage is actually the example used in YS to illustrate redirecting spells.
The Example is on page 260, and the shield itself is described on page 293.

Thanks for the reference, I will need to sit down and re-read that particular section.  Again.

[Leofwyn]

Ok, I am still perplexed on the sheild damage thing.  I have the books and have been reading the magic section and particularly the part where Carlos redirects his shield.  My problem, though, as that doesn't answer the question of a block that is inherently damaging.

Wizard with Fire evocation brings a shield made of flames.  Crazed creature of nevernever attacks with claws and Wizard blocks.  What happens?

How does creature not get burned?

Carlos raises his entropy shield as fairy knight attacks with sword.  What happens?

How does fairy knight not loose his sword to entropy?