ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Blackmako on May 07, 2014, 02:05:18 AM
-
Hello,
I wanted to clarify for an upcoming game if a magic shield can "block" or "armor" vs the mental attack of incite emotion. If so would it only be Spirit Magic?
If magic can block/armor vs mental attacks what would be the mechanism? What I understand from the book is that a magic user can either block all types of damage vs a single opponent OR one type of damage from all sources. Is that understanding correct?
How should a spell be priced to block mental attacks and physical attacks? Or is it a one or other proposition?
Basically the party is know encountering monsters that incite despair and rage.
Thank you in advance.
-
Well, you could always put up a mundane discipline or conviction block, when facing such an opponent. You can narrate that by forcing yourself to think happy thoughts or murmuring a prayer when facing it. That's basically doing a defense roll before the attack happens.
That being said, putting up a magical block like that should be no different, and I would not allow a block against mental and physical attacks from the same spell. The reason would be in the narrative justification, which I see in turning a spell inward or outward.
For example you could call on fire to help protect your mind from the monsters, calling upon its connection to warmth, the hearth-fire, the sun and summer in general, and so forth. You would use those elements of fire magic, instead of actual fire, that could build up a barrier between you and the monster.
Other magical elements would, of course, use different justifications to put up such a block.
The all for one or one for all rule is usually used for offensive blocks, I think. Like you can either block all actions on one target or one action (for example movement) on multiple targets.
-
Given the precedent of Harry making a trinket and spell to protect himself and Murphy from the mind-fog, I think it fits to allow defense against mental attack in general.
-
As far as I understand the RAW you can put up ANY kind of block, period (within the confines your GM allows, of course). The downside to a universal block is that anything one might do can potentially bypass it, increasing the options to break the block without expending resources.
-
Normally...
Generally speaking, if the block can affect more than one person, it can only prevent one type of action. If the block only affects one person, it can prevent several types of action - up to all of them - as context permits.
But evocation blocks are a little different than normal ones. They break when overcome, for one thing. And protecting multiple allies has a shift cost. So it's not totally clear how those general guidelines work with evocation.
Anyway, I would advise against making spirit the only element capable of blocking mental attacks. It's already the best element.
-
I would separate physical blocks and mental blocks, although I'm a bit torn. The narrative of your block could justify either. An air block could make you look fuzzy. Which could cause both a mental and physical block to miss...just because the enemy is having a hard time targeting you - not because it's physically (or meta-physically) stopping the spell. An earth spell can do the same by putting up a physical barrier that blocks line of sight.
But that's narrative justification and as they say, "A block is a block is a block" and I wonder if you should punish the less creative players who can't think up a proper justification since, mechanically, if they say "I'm blocking attacks" it should be able to block all attacks.
On the other hand,
a water rote set up to stop bullets isn't going to stop a mental attack because it uses the physical barrier.
A water spell set up to stop mental attacks will work but it works on a meta-physical level. It would be based on water's ability to degrade and counter-spell. Entropy. But there's no physical substance to it, so it couldn't stop a bullet.
If it's not a rote, I wouldn't worry about it. They could say, "I block against incoming attacks" and adjust the spell accordingly for mental or physical. Following that "a block, is a block, is a block", though, I'm not sure you should penalize rotes over a spontaneously cast spell.
In any case, I wouldn't limit it to Spirit Magic. I think, any element can be justified.
-
If magic can block/armor vs mental attacks what would be the mechanism? What I understand from the book is that a magic user can either block all types of damage vs a single opponent OR one type of damage from all sources. Is that understanding correct?
Double post:
I think you're misunderstanding.
What you can block against has nothing to do with "type of damage" it has everything to do with "Type of ACTION"
So you could block
All Attacks Targeting me!
The target (ME) is limited; the action (attacks) is limited;
All Action on Monster!
Target (1 monster) is limited; the Action is unlimited (all actions include attacks, maneuvers, movement)
You couldn't say.
I block all actions vs all enemies because that is an unlimited amount of targets and an unlimited amount of actions.
So the more all-encompassing the target, the more restrictive the action-type that can be blocked
The more specific the target, the more encompassing the Block.
As Sanctaphrax says, With spells, though, you might be able to say, I block all actions from all enemies because you're paying a 2 shift penalty. In that case, I'd look at narrative justification. HOW is the spell working? Is the caster using plants? Is there enough plant-life in the zone? On the other hand, your spell is two shifts lower and ANY one enemy who breaks the block will destroy the spell and free everyone and they can use any skill they want...so the spell might not be as kick-ass as it might seem.
-
I think mental blocks wouldn't involve the physical element so much as the metaphysics of the element.
An air block against mental attacks wouldn't be because they couldn't see you or it 'deflects' the attack--it'd be because Air represents a clear, tranquil mind.
A fire block would stop a mental attack because it represents your strength of will and passion.
An Earth block, your bedrock stubbornness.
And so on.
-
I think a block is a block is a block. But if the GM wants to bypass the block and if he thinks he has a good justification for it, he can offer a Compel.
-
I think mental blocks wouldn't involve the physical element so much as the metaphysics of the element.
I agree.
-
I don't really understand how you could justify using an actual spell block to block something in your head. Yes the flavor of water magic is entropy; degradation and such, but you're using entropy magic, inside you head. I would say you'd entropy your own thoughts and mind to do that. Also you specifically said "Incite emotion". The primary skill used to keep your emotions in check is discipline, or conviction if you can flavor it correctly. If you want to be able to use a magical block against incite emotion then hell, it must obviously be fine for someone to put up a magical block in a social conflict because someone is using intimidate to scare you. You're using a magical block to protect against someone trying to make you mad, or scare you.
-
I don't really understand how you could justify using an actual spell block to block something in your head. Yes the flavor of water magic is entropy; degradation and such, but you're using entropy magic, inside you head. I would say you'd entropy your own thoughts and mind to do that. Also you specifically said "Incite emotion". The primary skill used to keep your emotions in check is discipline, or conviction if you can flavor it correctly. If you want to be able to use a magical block against incite emotion then hell, it must obviously be fine for someone to put up a magical block in a social conflict because someone is using intimidate to scare you. You're using a magical block to protect against someone trying to make you mad, or scare you.
The spell uses entropy magic to shield the mind. Think of it as a moat around your thoughts, instead of a castle wall.
Alternatively I can also see using water magic to enhance your brain's thought processes in a way similar to Bruce Lee's "be water" philosophy. Incoming mental attacks simply find no purchase as your mind's sea part before the attack and crash and drown out the attack.
-
Think of it as a moat around your thoughts, instead of a castle wall.
Incoming mental attacks simply find no purchase as your mind's sea part before the attack and crash and drown out the attack.
Both of these seem like a maneuver though. Nothing in this thread has actually given any actual reason magic should block incite emotion, other than why not. When something incites emotion in your head, yes it's supernatural, but you could say that it's just the mental version of a social attack, inward instead of outward. Anywhere in the books and in the RPG books, Dresden uses discipline to control his conflicting thoughts. When someone is trying to upset him, he defends with his self control. When you use the sight, you defend with discipline to see how resolved your mind is against seeing the beauty/horror. There just really seems to be no logical reason to use magic in this situation. The bottom line is that you aren't blocking some kind of spell. What you're blocking is the massive surge of emotion. The amount of emotion the vampire is making you feel at a certain shift emotional power, and you block by trying to keep those emotions in check. Doing it that way makes sense, and also goes along with the theme of magic not always being the solution.
-
Thanks for the responses. I will make sure that magic users have a viable narrative for whatever element used for defense.
My understanding of Incite Emotion is that it is a mental attack (certainly with potent and lasting emotion). It does cause stress damage to the mental track. In the story I am running it is an Outsider blasting despair (as a maneuver first). In the story it is not a social attack. More like a cthuluesque making everyone in vicinity go insane with eldritch horror and the insertion of alien thoughts.
Just wanted to certain of magic block mechanics so the the magic users can defend against this attack for a bit without having to lose mental stress/gain mental consequences thereby rendering them without mental gas for magic. They are aware of what they are fighting and have experienced this attack before. I anticipate that they will shield upon seeing one again.
-
Well since you're going up against an outsider I'm going to assume you have wizards in your group. Wizards are really dangerous when they've had time to prepare research and enchanted items to deal with a specific opponent. Yes if you were to do this as a maneuver to cause uncertainty in your players, that has a lot of narrative power. And what you said makes little sense, you want them to avoid having to take mental stress from the incite emotion so they wont run out of gas, by having them, depending on rolls and such, take mental stress from casting the shield from the potentially hard hitting psychic attack. If anything, if your group has thaumaturges who aren't using that power enough, I'd just sit back and watch them squirm.
-
It does make sense if you consider this...1 stress for a shield vs an attack that lands that can take a chunk of stress. The reason for this post wasn't an expression of my opinion. It was to get information on how magic blocks work vs incite emotion and what the shift cost is for said block. I am clear on how thaum works to protect.
Sometimes that party gets ambushed. Thaum isn't the best vs ambush.
So now I have more clarity as a GM on one tool in a tool bag that wizards can use to counter. It also helps to know how a party tends to roll. They are more on the evocation side in response. I do let them squirm a lot but not to the degree that I trash their characters over their chosen play style. Lead flies and out comes shields. Now emotion bullets fly...
-
I was thinking that A straight up discipline skill replacement item would be very useful to act as a "dodge" against incite attacks.
Of course, that has nothing to do with your question...
-
It definitely would. And it would not cost mental stress to fuel.
Though I will let the players figure that one out on their own. :P
-
But seriously. In every mental conflict in the books, dresden specifically says he "brought up his mental defenses" and "I tried to quell the fury of my raging emotions". Those are al discipline based. Everything we know says it doesn't work like that
-
But seriously. In every mental conflict in the books, dresden specifically says he "brought up his mental defenses" and "I tried to quell the fury of my raging emotions". Those are al discipline based. Everything we know says it doesn't work like that
Except in Summer Knight where his and Murphy's protection against the Mindfog is explicitly spellcraft, and in Dead Beat, where he defends against Corpsetaker's mental attack with Hellfire--magic spells.
Just because Harry in particular tends to do it one way doesn't mean it's impossible for him and others to do it another way.
-
Not to pick nits, but those examples might be iffy.
Mind fog: He actually cast a spell to keep the fog from touching (or getting into) Murphy, the part on him may have been that or just a discipline boost against it.
Corpsetaker: It wasn't so much he used Hellfire to defend as it was almost a counterattack that hurt her enough to not keep walking into the flames so to speak.
-
Except in Summer Knight where his and Murphy's protection against the Mindfog is explicitly spellcraft, and in Dead Beat, where he defends against Corpsetaker's mental attack with Hellfire--magic spells.
Just because Harry in particular tends to do it one way doesn't mean it's impossible for him and others to do it another way.
Yes, your examples are perfectly right. Harry used a thaumaturgy as a block or something like that. When Harry defended against corpse taker, that was an actual magic attack. You know, the laws of MAGIC. You shall not invade the minds of others. I've said it before in this thread. If a white court uses invite emotion on you, and it connects, you defend with your discipline to keep your emotions in control. That is how it works for emotions. Now, the only way I can see you block against it is if somehow you can word a spell to make a zone barrier against ranged inciting, which says you can use it one zone away, without penalty. So I can only think of maybe if you make an very specific enchanted item like the sunshine in a napkin, or putting up a circle, but as for just throwing up a magical block it doesn't fit. Let's say you get hit with invite emotion fear. You're attacked with the beings intimidate. Let's say a superb intimidation. The only people who would evocative block this at your power level would be wizards so assume a 5 conviction or discipline. If it's a 5 discipline wizard, you just roll discipline and there's a 50/50 chance to be hurt . Now, if you use an evocated block, you will 100% of the time take a mental stress at least one stress, possibly way more depending on rolls. Using evocation right then makes so sense at all.
TLDR: using an evocation to block complicates the system which already has a simple, less dangerous, and very effective way of combatting this power
-
You could use that same logic to say that evocation blocks against physical attacks complicate the system because there is already a simple, less dangerous, and effective way of avoiding it by using a dodge roll.
There is nothing in the text or the lore that says you can only block something with magic if it's a magic spell.
-
You could use that same logic to say that evocation blocks against physical attacks complicate the system because there is already a simple, less dangerous, and effective way of avoiding it by using a dodge roll.
There is nothing in the text or the lore that says you can only block something with magic if it's a magic spell.
You're completely 100% right. To me using magic to block seems like a useless way to dodge something unless you know it's going to hit you incredibly hard if it touches you. But the thing is, there is actually an upper level of incite emotion damage you can do, I've never seen a monster with more than a superb skill, so the average you'll be hit with, assuming matching discipline/(intimidation or deceit) will be 0 stress. So if you're any type of spell caster at the submerged dificulty, you will have a high discipline. I just don't understand why people would want to overcomplicate for seemingly poorer results.
-
Well, blocks are part of the game. I don't see how it complicates anything or why you wouldn't use them. I play a wizard and I use blocks all the time whether or not I think they're going to hit me hard...in fact they're my main way to defend because my athletics tends to be lower than my spell-casting skills.
Besides, I think I gave perfectly valid, narrative reasons to use physical blocks to block incite emotion.
You need to see your target to hit. Vampires don't have any supernatural senses to detect their prey. Narratively, a veil or a block on line-of-sight could make an incite less effective. So while it's not specifically under a veil, narratively, it prevents a vampire from zoning in on you and hitting you hard.
And that's not even considering that, if they don't have the ranged upgrade, you could argue that you could use athletics to dodge (since they have to touch you). And, By that argument, any old magical block would do the trick.
So, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to say that you can use the meta-physical form of the element to protect you from a meta-physical attack.
Edit: I get the feeling that you feel it's too OP to use SPellcasting to block incite emotion. Remember, they have to, either, dedicate an item to defense, or spend an action blocking. Either way, they still get their natural discipline to "dodge". I don't see the problem letting them use an action to do that.
-
Because evocation blocks are part of the game? I don't see how it complicates anything or why you wouldn't use them. I play a wizard and I use blocks all the time whether or not I think they're going to hit me hard...in fact they're my main way to defend because my athletics tends to be lower than my spell-casting skills.
Besides, I think I gave perfectly valid, narrative reasons to use physical blocks to block incite emotion.
You need to see your target to hit. Vampires don't have any supernatural senses to detect their prey. Narratively, a veil or a block on line-of-sight could make an incite less effective. So while it's not specifically under a veil, narratively, it prevents a vampire from zoning in on you and hitting you hard.
And that's not even considering that, if they don't have the ranged upgrade, you could argue that you could use athletics to dodge (since they have to touch you). And, By that argument, any old magical block would do the trick.
So, I don't think it's outside the realm of possibility to say that you can use the meta-physical form of the element to protect you from a meta-physical attack.
Edit: I get the feeling that you feel it's too OP to use SPellcasting to block incite emotion. Remember, they have to, either, dedicate an item to defense, or spend an action blocking. Either way, they still get their natural discipline to "dodge". I don't see the problem letting them use an action to do that.
Yes, I've said before that with the ranged upgrade, you could set up some border for them to have to pass to hit you: A circle, a veil, what have you. And the athletics to dodge being touches makes sense, but we're actually talking about the emotion and its affect on you. When something has hit you with the emotion, and you have to defend against what the emotion is making you feel, that is a discipline roll to keep yourself in check. What people have been saying is using an actual evocation block in your head to block the damage.
Blocking the targeting with evocation, yes. Blocking it when it's inside your mind, no.
-
Yes, I've said before that with the ranged upgrade, you could set up some border for them to have to pass to hit you: A circle, a veil, what have you. And the athletics to dodge being touches makes sense, but we're actually talking about the emotion and its affect on you. When something has hit you with the emotion, and you have to defend against what the emotion is making you feel, that is a discipline roll to keep yourself in check. What people have been saying is using an actual evocation block in your head to block the damage.
Blocking the targeting with evocation, yes. Blocking it when it's inside your mind, no.
That's possibly why shields can only be set up in advance in the rulebook, instead of reflexively. So if you're caught off guard by a White Court Vampire and don't have a shield up, you get to defend with Discipline rather than spellcasting. If you're aware there is one in the area and set up a mental shield beforehand, sure, then you can use spellcasting to defend with. After all, if he's already inside there's not much you can do to defend yourself other than trying to regain control of your mind.
That's how it worked in Dead Beat, after all. Harry first failed his basic Discipline defence roll against Corpsetaker when she dug in his head for information (the first action of the conflict). Harry then set up a mental defence evocation to defend his mind, shoring it up with his new power Hellfire to give it some extra duration. Corpsetaker redoubled her efforts but couldn't break through, which allowed Harry the chance to run away out the back door.
However, at that point Corpsetaker's ghoul joined in the fight, hitting him with a throwing star and giving him a mild consequence that Corpsetaker then took advantage of to break through his mental defences and Take Him Out.
-
Blocking the targeting with evocation, yes. Blocking it when it's inside your mind, no.
It sounds like semantics. There's no Inside or outside your wizards head. Mechanically, you put up a block against attacks.
Evocation doesn't let you do reflexive blocks anyways and I don't think that's what the OP was asking.
They were asking if you could use any type of evocation to defend. I say yes. Can it be a physical block? I say yes, in most situations. Can it be meta-physical? I think it can. It helps to shore up your mind against the attack.
I like the idea of a compel if you're not allowed to use a particular block.
Can you reflexively use magic to block? Only with Enchanted items. (unless you house-rule)
-
Blocking the targeting with evocation, yes. Blocking it when it's inside your mind, no.
Blocking doesn't mean you put a shield between yourself and whatever is trying to hurt you. It is a mechanical construct that means an active attempt to avoid harm, rather than passively defending.
There's a lot magic can do, and there are a lot of shapes magic can take. Harry is an unreliable source at best, and he's pretty biased and self centered when it comes to the understanding of the world. A magic block against despair could simply mean that you take a bunch of strong positive memories and magically reinforce them in your mind. Even if the despair is rushing into your mind and you can't think straight, those memories will shine bright in your minds eye, like a lighthouse in a storm, and they will help you weather it. Mechanically, that can be easily described as a block, even though when you describe what happens, the despair seems to take hold at first.
And you can go in a different direction, depending on what element you use. There might even be a hiccup with the spell. Let's say you use water magic with its entropy to distort your emotions. If your mind is set up so that no one emotion can manifest itself, the despair won't have a chance as well. But so won't concern for your own life, or compassion for a friend, and you might end up hurting yourself or recklessly using your friend as bait.
As with a lot of things, it all comes down to how you can describe it. And as always, if you absolutely don't think it should work like that, your table doesn't have to adopt it like that.
-
I'm not sure that I agree with magic only defending physical/outside. From the books magic is about Will and Belief (discipline and conviction). Both are "interior" qualities. The book directly states that the element of spirit is about emotions as well as the mind. It also has that "block is a block is a block" commentary. Previous posters on this thread opened my eyes to that.
I did just learn now from this thread that you can't reflexively block with evocation unless house ruled. Something to discuss with the group. Really shows the importance of preparation and thaumaturgy. So thanks for that point as well.
Discipline vs incite does not zero out even at superb vs superb. Emotion touch gives a +2. And the attacks are at weapon 2 and weapon 4. Barely get hit with weapon 4 there goes the stress track. Get hit twice a wizard is really going to run out of gas. I know this as one player was ambushed by a WCV and ate the wizards stress and mental consequences. Got hit with a sticky maneuver first (using the + 2 and 2 shifts from contested roll). Then using the maneuver to successfully hit with the potent emotion. Later the same wizard with mild and moderate consequences ended up confronting the Outsider. Fortunately thaum was used to push back despair beforehand. Point being that incite emotion can hammer wizards as it attacks the muscles behind their primary power. So I know that wizard is going to be looking at ways to deal with incite whether or not he can anticipate or gets ambushed. Also said wizard might have to shield the muscle headed members of the party.
All of your posts have given me a better understanding to GM incite vs wizards. Items to buttress mental defense or thaum is most effective. Caught with pants down I know can see how a wizard can throw up a slightly costly defense. That being said non-magic using types can get mangled by incite.
-
Haru that is a really good narrative image. Happy memories as lighthouses in despair storms. Groovy.
-
Thank you. :)