Evocation Blocks: Too Weak?

[Crion]

One of my fellow GMs I'm working with on a convention game brought up the topic of Evocation Blocks and felt that they were a bit underpowered, and didn't agree with the idea of replacing blocks with Aspects in FateCore.

Spin rules don't really fit with it very well, and the extra Aspects for amazing rolls from FateCore are a 50/50 (I might have a way to win him over on that one).

One suggestion was to use Evocation Blocks like Evocation attacks, where you gain the Block Value equal to the shifts of power AND the margin of success over the baseline. For example, Harry brings 4 shifts of power into his shield and rolls +6, giving his Block a rating of 6 (baseline of 4, +2 for being over).

It makes it work closer to a standard block without having to take the boatload of extra stress to break out a decent Block.

Has anyone done anything like this before, or made any changes of their own to Blocks with Evocation?


--Crion

[Aminar]

My parties wizard made all his blocks from an enchanted item.  He'd invest plenty of uses into it, and then call them up when he was attacked.  That fixed the balance issues I've noticed on Evocation blocks.

[Mr. Death]

I really don't see how they're underpowered. Really, few antagonists that aren't named major NPCs should be attacking from more than 3, so a 4-shift block on its own is pretty effective against most things. If a caster is equipped properly, they should be able to pull off 8-10 shift shields fairly easily.

[Aminar]

I really don't see how they're underpowered. Really, few antagonists that aren't named major NPCs should be attacking from more than 3, so a 4-shift block on its own is pretty effective against most things. If a caster is equipped properly, they should be able to pull off 8-10 shift shields fairly easily.

Yes, but the cost of that shield is stress, offensive opportunity, and the fact that once it gets thrown up odds are the attack will just head towards somebody else.
Basically, they are almost always a waste.

[JDK002]

I don't feel they are underpowered, I do however feel they are aren't practical.  All it does is make the GM focus his efforts on the other players (assuming the block is only for the caster), effectivly making the wizard waste their action.

A houserule I offered to my players was allowing them to pull up blocks as a reactionary action when they are attacked.  The catch being they need to be able to tag/invoke an appropriate aspect to do so.

Though I plan on using a modified version of the Gain Advantage mechanic in Fate Core.  If it ends up working well that will probably the new standard for the games I run.

[Mr. Death]

Yes, but the cost of that shield is stress, offensive opportunity, and the fact that once it gets thrown up odds are the attack will just head towards somebody else.
Basically, they are almost always a waste.

How is it a waste if the block is ensuring that you (or whoever the block is defending) doesn't get hit? Isn't that why you threw up a block in the first place?

[Aminar]

Because a defensive action should be nullifying the attack, not sending it at somebody else in the party.  This is a team oriented game.  Throwing up a powerful block to guard yourself at the expense of everybody else is not good teamplay.

So sure, in a duel it's fine.  But in general they just aren't strategically sound.

[InFerrumVeritas]

They aren't weak, but they're rarely tactically sound.  A character with an evocation block is virtually impervious, but they are also virtually ineffective.

My players use targeted blocks a lot though.  They pick an enemy and block them from attacking (illusions, darkness, etc) at all.  Other enemies are still a danger, but that one's been more or less neutralized for a bit.

[Mr. Death]

Because a defensive action should be nullifying the attack, not sending it at somebody else in the party.  This is a team oriented game.  Throwing up a powerful block to guard yourself at the expense of everybody else is not good teamplay.

So sure, in a duel it's fine.  But in general they just aren't strategically sound.

A block isn't wasted just because nobody attacked it. It's doing its job: Ensuring whoever's under it doesn't get hit. In fact, a block that deters someone from even trying is doing its job better than a block that is getting pummeled.

Speaking of teamplay, most groups have some kind of tank, someone who's set up to be able to withstand attacks better than the rest of the group. If the block is shielding one of the more fragile members (like, say, the wizard), in favor of the tank, then it works out.

And don't forget to factor in shielding your team and duration.

[Crion]

My parties wizard made all his blocks from an enchanted item.  He'd invest plenty of uses into it, and then call them up when he was attacked.  That fixed the balance issues I've noticed on Evocation blocks.

A player of mine used to have an item for a Veil that didn't see too much use. She had a Lore +5, and she didn't throw any extra item slots into it (due to wanting focus items for her Thaumaturgy). A +5 block worked well for the faceless mooks with only a +1, but any "trained" mook with a +2 or even a +3 was something to be aware of.

I really don't see how they're underpowered. Really, few antagonists that aren't named major NPCs should be attacking from more than 3, so a 4-shift block on its own is pretty effective against most things. If a caster is equipped properly, they should be able to pull off 8-10 shift shields fairly easily.

As you noted, even faceless NPCs are sitting around a +3, so there is a 50% chance for an attack to get through. We often see Harry blocking bullets pretty easily and capable of handling submachine gun fire.

I am curious: how can they easily pull off the 8-10 shift shields if they are properly equipped? If you are a starting character and only taking the 1 Mental Stress and no consequences, and didn't have a round or two to do a navel gazing maneuver, you'll need a Conviction of 5, a specialty in the element, and two focus item slots in the Conviction area just to get the 8 shifts, making the control roll of +8 horribly difficult.

[Aminar]

A block isn't wasted just because nobody attacked it. It's doing its job: Ensuring whoever's under it doesn't get hit. In fact, a block that deters someone from even trying is doing its job better than a block that is getting pummeled.

Speaking of teamplay, most groups have some kind of tank, someone who's set up to be able to withstand attacks better than the rest of the group. If the block is shielding one of the more fragile members (like, say, the wizard), in favor of the tank, then it works out.

And don't forget to factor in shielding your team and duration.

No it isn't.  A block that takes an attack before it fizzles is much more affective than a block that stands there and does nothing.  Because it took a turn to put up.  A whole action wasted while the other side loses nothing.

Let's take a sample battle here.

4 v 4. 1 Wizard, 1 WC Vampire, 1 Vanilla Mortal, 1 Werewolf.
Team 1 Wizard puts up a powerful block defending himself.
Team 2 Wizard Aims a powerful spell at Team 1's Vanilla Mortal.
Team 1 is down a person.
Team 1 WCV attacks Team 2 Wizard and takes him out.
Team 2 WCV and Team 2 Vanilla Mortal Team up on Team 1 Wizard and deal with him before he can manage another spell  because WCV's own Wizards because the block doesn't defend against mental attacks.
Team 1 and Team 2 Werewolves handle eachother.
End of Round 1, Team 1 has 1 Shapeshifter and 1 WCV verse a Vanilla Mortal, a WCV and a shapeshifter.  Who wins?
Hint, the team that didn't mess around with a block.
Next Scenario.
Instead of a global Block Wizard 1 Blocks off Wizard 2 from doing anything but leaves himself open.  It's a net Zero result. 
Wizards are better served being blasty cannons than making evocation blocks because they have the highest accuracy and the most damage.  Sacrificing even 1 turn of that can doom the party.

As for the uninvested shield.  That's her fault for not spending the time to make it worthwhile.  a 1 slot enchanted item isn't super reliable for defense purposes.

[Mr. Death]

As you noted, even faceless NPCs are sitting around a +3, so there is a 50% chance for an attack to get through. We often see Harry blocking bullets pretty easily and capable of handling submachine gun fire.

Not really. Check this for some numbers. If someone's rolling from 3, there's only a 38% chance that they're going to get a +1 on top of that. Which means a 4-shift block is going to be effective against a Good attack rating more than 60% of the time. For mooks with Fair ratings, there's only about 18% chance of it succeeding. Remember that 3 is the best that most mooks will have. Your usual unnamed human is going to top out at 2.

And you don't think that Harry always only casts it at 4, do you? Remember that write-up is from the first book in the series. By the time he's coming under machinegun fire, I wouldn't be surprised if he was regularly casting it from 5 and 6.

I am curious: how can they easily pull off the 8-10 shift shields if they are properly equipped? If you are a starting character and only taking the 1 Mental Stress and no consequences, and didn't have a round or two to do a navel gazing maneuver, you'll need a Conviction of 5, a specialty in the element, and two focus item slots in the Conviction area just to get the 8 shifts, making the control roll of +8 horribly difficult.

Conviction 5. Specialization+1; Focus Items: +2 to Conviction means you start at 8. A properly equipped caster will also likely have his control roll starting from 5 meaning--even without a focus item to help--he can reasonably expect to cast the spell with only 3-4 shifts of backlash. That seems fairly easy to me. And that's assuming no refinements put into it.

No it isn't.  A block that takes an attack before it fizzles is much more affective than a block that stands there and does nothing.  Because it took a turn to put up.  A whole action wasted while the other side loses nothing.

Question: Why did you put up the block? To avoid getting hit, right? If the enemy isn't attacking the block, that means you did not get hit. Ergo, the block did what it was supposed to, which was keeping you from getting hit.

I'm not going to bother addressing the sample battle because it's obviously going to be set up to prove your point. I could easily manufacture a way for the exact same scenario to be worthwhile the other way, since you don't mention or appear to take into account relative skill levels.

[Aminar]

Not really. Check this for some numbers. If someone's rolling from 3, there's only a 38% chance that they're going to get a +1 on top of that. Which means a 4-shift block is going to be effective against a Good attack rating more than 60% of the time. For mooks with Fair ratings, there's only about 18% chance of it succeeding. Remember that 3 is the best that most mooks will have. Your usual unnamed human is going to top out at 2.

And you don't think that Harry always only casts it at 4, do you? Remember that write-up is from the first book in the series. By the time he's coming under machinegun fire, I wouldn't be surprised if he was regularly casting it from 5 and 6.

Conviction 5. Specialization+1; Focus Items: +2 to Conviction means you start at 8. A properly equipped caster will also likely have his control roll starting from 5 meaning--even without a focus item to help--he can reasonably expect to cast the spell with only 3-4 shifts of backlash. That seems fairly easy to me. And that's assuming no refinements put into it.
Question: Why did you put up the block? To avoid getting hit, right? If the enemy isn't attacking the block, that means you did not get hit. Ergo, the block did what it was supposed to, which was keeping you from getting hit.

I'm not going to bother addressing the sample battle because it's obviously going to be set up to prove your point. I could easily manufacture a way for the exact same scenario to be worthwhile the other way, since you don't mention or appear to take into account relative skill levels.

Wrong.  I put up Blocks to nullify an attack.  If it doesn't do that it's not actually doing anything.  Every urn I put up a block might as well be a turn I did nothing but couldn't be attacked either.  It's like phasing out of the battle while the rest of the group gets hammered on by a superior force.
If I'm defending a guy while he takes some extra time to prepare a better attack then sure.  But battles are won on who hits most often.  Not who doesn't get hit.  And as a GMI should be playing smarter than the video game AI that will attack the guy behind the nigh invincible barrier.

[Mr. Death]

Wrong.  I put up Blocks to nullify an attack.  If it doesn't do that it's not actually doing anything.

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.

Every urn I put up a block might as well be a turn I did nothing but couldn't be attacked either.

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.

It's like phasing out of the battle while the rest of the group gets hammered on by a superior force.

And the rest of the group are such defenseless lambs that it's preferable if the wizard gets ganked instead?

If I'm defending a guy while he takes some extra time to prepare a better attack then sure.  But battles are won on who hits most often.  Not who doesn't get hit.  And as a GM I should be playing smarter than the video game AI that will attack the guy behind the nigh invincible barrier.

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.

[Aminar]

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.

No.  The Clever GM Blitzes the weakest party memebers first, crippling the parties action economy and eventually leaving the party Glass Cannon alone while he hides in his shield.  Mooks who can't manuever worth crap don't belong manuevering, they belong drawing fire so the big guns can get into place.

A turn spent erecting a barrier is a turn wasted when most likely the wizard can significantly wound a large portion of the opposing force. 
For every extra turn you keep that block up it costs 1 of its power.  They have a duration of until you go again base.  It is one of probably 4-5 spells you have in a given combat.  And frankly a decently built wizard can defend themselves very well with enchanted items.  Armor.  Blocks.  A decent athletics score.  Most of the time they'll be better defended than Everything short of the party tank.  My parties wizard was more durable than everybody except the Lycanthrope and the werewolf when she specced her powers to toughness.(Out of a party of 7)  That meant the wizard outtanked a Faerie Knight, a Changeling, A Knight of the cross, and the sneakthief phobophage scion who generally worked by hiding in the shadows and spiderclimbing up onto walls allowing passive affects to hide him while he used long range incite emotion fear and thus was almost never attacked, but never spent actions getting to that state.

In the end the Wizard is wasting his time putting up a barrier because he's then done nothing.  It fades away having done nothing but get the rest of the party hurt worse.(our poor Knight of the Cross and his frequent severe consequences.)