Proactive block mechanics?

[Moriden]

I'm fairly certain its been stated that you can substitute shifts of a spell for a skill roll. [ie veils for stealth, or the complexity of a biomancy spell for fists]. Myself and my current dm are having a discussion about how you handle this mathematically though.

Say you want to get a x that you can use instead of a roll, how do you make it so that you can use that x more then once? do you simply use the persistence rules as if it was a block, meaning that you add one complexity per extra use.

Do you also have to pay shifts into duration so that the spell doesn't wear of before you use all of the charges?

Or are there simply no rules at all for such because this "isn't a block" and the persistence rules don't apply?

thoughts comments book quotes appreciated.

[wyvern]

As the GM in question, I'd like to provide a bit more context on this.

The background is a PC using a biomancy ritual to "power up" for a big fight at a known time and location - enhancing his senses, instinctual responses, and physical acuity.  His original statting of effect was "substitute a 12 for any alertness, stealth, investigation or athletics check, up to six times before the spell expires" - which he said was priced as a complexity 12 effect, plus five to get it usable six times instead of one.  (plus a token bit of extra complexity to get the overall duration up to long enough to cover from end of ritual casting to end of known fight).

Now, it's fairly clear from the rules that you can make a ritual at complexity, for example, 12, to substitute that complexity for a single specific skill check - for example, something that lets you pull off a cheetah-like burst of speed, substituting for athletics.  And you could even give that effect a duration (as long as it's not an attack), at one additional complexity per extra exchange.  (Or possibly longer, if - like stealth - one skill check normally covers more than a single exchange.)  But I don't think the rules even imply you can use the same cost structure for a spell that would let you sprint one exchange, not use it at all for the next three, boost your alertness the exchange after that, and then run it as a standard block against attacks for another four exchanges.

My suggested implementation was to use the ritual as a stack of navel-gazing maneuvers, adding temporary aspects like "eyes of the eagle", "speed of the panther", etc, with one free tag each, and the aspects lasting the duration of the ritual (figuring that the base duration for such a ritual is "a scene", and four shifts will push that far enough up the time chart to last "until the next dawn").

[sinker]

I don't think thaumatugy has that sort of capability (to replace a bevy of skills with one magic ritual). Either you are "Solving improbable or impossible problems" which does replace a skill roll but only in the case of simple actions and only once per ritual (I.E. replacing a contacts roll for info or similar), or you are "Creating lasting changes in people or things" which would allow for maneuvers (multiple maneuvers if desired) or transformations (in the form of taking one's self out and then rebuilding).

The only other instance I can think of of a spell replacing a skill roll is in the Hyperawareness spell on page YS294 (in which case it suggests using a block instead of an awareness roll) but even then I think it's more "A block against people sneaking up on me" than it is replacing a skill roll with a spell.

[BumblingBear]

I am going to go with a ritual like this would really break the spirit of the game and be ridiculously OP.

The idea of the aspects that are taggable is much more functional and I think would work out alright.

[Brackenfur]

I think making several maneuvers would be the best way to go about it balance wise. (In addition it could allow for clever compels or negatives from the gm/opposition).
However, if the bonuses are a big deal break for the player you could conceivably have the ritual build all of the desired effects.
For example, simple action with 12 shifts 4 times over a duration of one scene, say 2-4 on time increment. Could be around 50-52 (ish). Which is high but the spell is accomplishing a lot.

[devonapple]

I don't have the rules on hand, but they specifically recommend that, for Wizard types with few Fate Points to spare, setting up a higher-complexity Thaumaturgy Ritual to provide multiple free-taggable instances of the same Aspect was a great option.

[Moriden]

For example, simple action with 12 shifts 4 times over a duration of one scene, say 2-4 on time increment. Could be around 50-52 (ish). Which is high but the spell is accomplishing a lot.

It seems to me that the rule for making a block persistent should work the same for these. so a 12 shift affect over 4 rounds, plus 2-4 for duration would be a 20 ish level effect.

[sinker]

Except that there's only one example of a block being used as a skill roll and it's still sort-of being used as a block. Otherwise there's nowhere in RAW it says you can replace more than one simple action skill roll with a spell.

Also there's no way to pick and choose after the ritual is cast. It could be a block for four contiguous exchanges, or one of the other things for four contiguous exchanges but you can't switch back and forth or turn it off or on.

[devonapple]

Also there's no way to pick and choose after the ritual is cast. It could be a block for four contiguous exchanges, or one of the other things for four contiguous exchanges but you can't switch back and forth or turn it off or on.

I'm not sure I agree. You can have an enchanted item that provides Armor, but you get to choose which incoming attacks it will apply to.

Likewise, when you place Sticky Aspects via a Thaumaturgic Maneuver, you get to choose when to tag them.

[sinker]

I'm not sure I agree. You can have an enchanted item that provides Armor, but you get to choose which incoming attacks it will apply to.

Likewise, when you place Sticky Aspects via a Thaumaturgic Maneuver, you get to choose when to tag them.

Yes but it seems to me that that's a case of them being there and you choosing when to take advantage of them (which may just be semantics). In the case of aspects the GM (or another player depending on the circumstance) could choose to invoke or compel those aspects even if you hadn't tagged them. And in the case of the enchanted item we're talking about an enchanted item, that can be turned on and off. Regardless can we agree that you can't change the spell's effects repeatedly after it's been cast?

[Moriden]

Regardless can we agree that you can't change the spell's effects repeatedly after it's been cast?

I'm not sure we've ever talked about that. The original version was subbing the X for a skill roll that involved the changes done to the caster. it being able to substitute for more then one skill was part just trying to be simple about it and part expected to be told no to. What where really discussing is you do an effect that gives you X instead of a skill roll, do you have to use it, is it used before or after the roll, and if you use persistence on it do the extra exchanges have to be in sequence? the wording seems [to me] to imply that they don't, it simply says something like "the effect can be used for more then one exchange allowing you to do other things while the spell still exists" it doesn't say that those rounds need to be next to each other.

which also raises the question of if you can use the same rules for adding persistence, and if not why?

[wyvern]

Just for the record, there actually *are* rules for changing the effects of a spell after you've cast it - see "Redirecting Spell Energy", YS260.  I'm not sure whose point, if any, those rules support, but they do exist.

[sinker]

Just for the record, there actually *are* rules for changing the effects of a spell after you've cast it - see "Redirecting Spell Energy", YS260.  I'm not sure whose point, if any, those rules support, but they do exist.

I apologize in advance for this but I'll try to keep my arguments short. That's for evocation, not thaumaturgy (which is what we're talking about) and it only applies if you haven't used the spell for it's original purpose. Sorry again, back to the topic.

This is really starting to seem like a "ask your GM" sort of situation. Seems to me you are bending a few rules for this spell and it's really up to them whether they are comfortable with that. It looks like they're kinda down on the idea though.

Or for that matter ask the other players since DFRPG is supposed to be more of a collaborative work.

[Brackenfur]

It seems to me that the rule for making a block persistent should work the same for these. so a 12 shift affect over 4 rounds, plus 2-4 for duration would be a 20 ish level effect.

Well if you're able to get 12 shifts reliably with Evocation than by all means, thats the power level your working with. But, blocks with rituals are wards, technically not different but thematically wards have to be stationary or anchored. I was considering that you literally have 4 separate instances of a simple action at 12 shifts, with a duration of a scene costing 3 (random # between numbers I gave)
so

12*4=48+3=51 shifts of complexity.
this ritual would let you use simple actions (examples were stealth, alertness, investigation, and athletics) at 12 shifts four times in the scene.

Anyways, as was already mentioned those rules were for evocation and it sounds like that was the initial problem. Blocks and simple actions created with Thaumaturgy cant be extended in the same way. But, I think its a choice for the GM and the group. If this is the kind of power level the group feels is appropriate for a caster then it makes since to do it that way. If everyone feels like it may be to powerful then alter it to something less then, I still think the multiple aspects would be the best option.

[LokiTM]

Would the player be happy running into a warlock pulling the same trick? Sauce for the goose and all that...