The wizard's block

[blackstaff67]

We've had as situation come up in our group during play: PC #1 is trying to fight off mental Domination from BCV.  PC #2 (a wizard) recognizes the attack for what it is and throws up a rote on PC #1 (a tailor-made block for mental attacks, as we house-ruled that not all blocks are equal).  Conviction plus Foci plus Refinements equaled Block:7.  Discipline:6 plus dice roll (+3) plus Foci plus refinements =11, plus the Block:7 equaled...yeah, the GM's jaw hit the floor.  Showed him the actual rote as written, went to p.252 for example and (minor) fireworks ensued.  While I see the point that he (and the 2nd of the three GM's of the group--we switch off to keep things fresh) that the wizard's block for that is way powerful, I'm not wholly certain how to fix that.  Has this come up in any other games and how would you house-rule this?  I argued that the Block (rote as written) is only up for 2-3 exchanges and then disappears; they argue that fights seldom last more than that amount.  I must confess that since I was running PC #2, I did have a dog in the fight. 

Your comments are appreciated and welcome!

[Haru]

The way you are calculating it is the way attack spells work, not blocks. A block is only ever as strong as how much power you put into it. In your case, you end up with a block:7 and nothing more. You get to control it easily with a roll of +11, but that doesn't give you any bonus on the block. Also, the block stays up for 1 exchange, it only lasts longer, if you devote part of its power to duration. So you could have a 7 shift block for 1 exchange or a 6 shift block for 2 exchanges, and so forth.

[blackstaff67]

Ah, okay then.  So, I throw my rote spell.  It goes off automatically, no need to control it, it calls up "x" number of shifts as the rote calls for.  No need for a Discipline check at all.  Then I sadly confess to misinterpreting the rules for Blocks by mixing them up with Attacks.  Darn me.

[Haru]

Happens to the best of us. Though I'm not too big a fan of the block spell rules as written, so I understand the wish to change them, even subconsciously.

[Taran]

We've had as situation come up in our group during play: PC #1 is trying to fight off mental Domination from BCV.  PC #2 (a wizard) recognizes the attack for what it is and throws up a rote on PC #1 (a tailor-made block for mental attacks, as we house-ruled that not all blocks are equal).  Conviction plus Foci plus Refinements equaled Block:7.  Discipline:6 plus dice roll (+3) plus Foci plus refinements =11, plus the Block:7 equaled...yeah, the GM's jaw hit the floor.  Showed him the actual rote as written, went to p.252 for example and (minor) fireworks ensued.  While I see the point that he (and the 2nd of the three GM's of the group--we switch off to keep things fresh) that the wizard's block for that is way powerful, I'm not wholly certain how to fix that.  Has this come up in any other games and how would you house-rule this?  I argued that the Block (rote as written) is only up for 2-3 exchanges and then disappears; they argue that fights seldom last more than that amount.  I must confess that since I was running PC #2, I did have a dog in the fight. 

Your comments are appreciated and welcome!

Yeah, it's not an 18 shift block. or even a 11 shift block.

It's the same way for maneuvers!

The Power of the spell = the difficulty to overcome both blocks and maneuvers.  Discipline is only important for controlling the spell.  A rote spell give you auto-control, so yes, no need to even roll the dice since your opponent must overcome the total Power of the spell.

As Haru said, blocks only last one exchange unless you devote more power to duration.  That said, if you have a Power 7 mental block, on your next turn,  you could devote shifts to make the block last longer.  Casting a power 5 spell would add 5 shifts(exchanges) of duration to your power 7 block - and that would only cost you 1 mental stress.

Happens to the best of us. Though I'm not too big a fan of the block spell rules as written, so I understand the wish to change them, even subconsciously.

I LOVE blocks!  I use them more often than I attack 

[Haru]

I LOVE blocks!  I use them more often than I attack 

Oh, I don't have anything against blocks, quite the contrary. However, it's exactly this kind of situation, where you simply need power over control for a good block. Additional control doesn't give you anything, that bothers me a bit. A subtle block that's built on low energy but is highly complicated should be just as valid.

[Taran]

Yes, but attacks have the exact opposite problem where discipline is much more important than Power.  So it's nice to give conviction its place in the lime-light!

You could house-rule it where, if your control beats the Power by 'x' shifts, you get a +1 bonus to the Power.  That would reward high discipline.  But I feel high discipline already has tonnes of rewards - such as letting you control spells that are above your conviction...which lets you boost power anyways.

If he has control of +8 but his rote was based on a total power of +7 (for one stress).  He could take that rote and cast it at Power 8 and take a 2 stress hit and still control the spell.  That's an awesome bonus for having high discipline.  Someone with lower discipline would be forced to take back-lash.   And what does 'highly complicated' mean?  Why's it so complicated - it must be strong. 

a 7 shift veil is more complicated than a 5 shift veil...not because it's more powerful but because you've dedicated 2-shifts to see through it.  Having the discipline to control those extra 2 shifts is a nice bonus

Same with a zone wide block or armour or boosted duration.  All those little bonuses don't make it more powerful but they make it more complicated

[WadeL]

Ah, okay then.  So, I throw my rote spell.  It goes off automatically, no need to control it, it calls up "x" number of shifts as the rote calls for.  No need for a Discipline check at all.

So long as the Power of the spell is equal to or less than your Control, the only reason you'll ever need to roll Control for a spell is if it is an attack.

Control is still important, of course, both for rolling to control non-Rote spells and to set the limit of what you can control with a Rote (and, of course, you have a limited number of Rotes).

[solbergb]

If he has control of +8 but his rote was based on a total power of +7 (for one stress).  He could take that rote and cast it at Power 8 and take a 2 stress hit and still control the spell. 

Indeed. I pretty much always go this route with rotes.  You've only got 4 stress boxes, and it's almost wasteful not to spend 2 stress on a spell (as that also neatly becomes a minor mental consequence if you don't have any stress boxes left).  If I've got 4 rotes, I tend to have one be 1 stress, two at 2 stress, one at 4 stress just to give me the most options for playing with stress boxes and consequences.  After the first casting, the 2 stress ones are just as cheap as the 1 stress rote, and having one big reliable zap for either the 4th stress box, 2 minor consequences (if I have 5 conviction) or a moderate consequence seems pretty worthwhile....if I need a conviction+3 spell I'd want an option for one that doesn't risk fizzling with fallout or hosing me with physical stress on backlash.

I'll often use a dedicated offensive control foci on the 4 stress power, and just be routinely able to control anything else at conviction+1.  All of this assumes I'm running a disciplined mage of course.  If I'm running a Dresden-style brute I might not have all that many rotes to begin with and might be more willing to accept fallout and such, only really getting the full use of my power when invoking aspects on the control side.