ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Watson on February 07, 2011, 11:44:47 AM
-
In the rule book (YS253) there is an optional rule where, if the GM allows it, a practitioner can replace his regular Athletics roll to avoid being hit with a defensive block evocation (like raising a quick shield). I think this is an interesting rule and want to get some comments on my thoughts about it. The rules say that this replaces the PC’s standard Athletics roll, which raises some questions.
1) Would it be allowed to use this “reactive evocation block” in an exchange that you have already acted? (I would say no)
2) In case the block is overcome, the rules say that there is no other defense roll allowed (“no defense aside from that”). Would that mean that the difficulty to attack a target (whos block has been bypassed) will be Mediocre (+0)? (I would say yes)
3) Would it be possible to do a reactive evocation block by using an enchanted item (designed to create a defensive evocation block)? (I would say yes)
4) The same question as 1) above, but done by activating the enchanted item from 3) - Would activating the enchanted item reactively (once you are attacked) use up your action in the current exchange (i.e. you can't do this in case you have already acted this exchange)?
Note that the enchanted item in 3) and 4) is designed to do a block (not act as armor).
-
Let me start by defining what i mean when i say "reactive evocation block"
It's an evocation used as a defensive roll. It does NOT linger on, it does NOT work on more than one attack.
Be Attacked, cast defense, see result.
Be attacked again in the same round, cast new defense, see result.
It's a magical defense roll. That is different from an evocation block.
Just like mundane Defense rolls are different from mundane blocks.
That said, here are my takes on the questions:
1) Would it be allowed to use this “reactive evocation block” in an exchange that you have already acted? (I would say no)
Sure you get to use it, just like you'd get to defend against in a mundane way after having acted. Instead of mundane defense rolls, you get to use a magical defense roll.
2) In case the block is overcome, the rules say that there is no other defense roll allowed (“no defense aside from that”). Would that mean that the difficulty to attack a target (whos block has been bypassed) will be Mediocre (+0)? (I would say yes)
Yes, and No.
This means that the Magical defense REPLACES the mundane defense. You do not get to defend using a normal skill, hence no other defense.
The Magical defense does however reduce the shifts generated by the attack, just like any normal defense roll would.
3) Would it be possible to do a reactive evocation block by using an enchanted item (designed to create a defensive evocation block)? (I would say yes)
This is the whole point of defensive enchanted items. It's precisely how they work.
Plus, when done with an enchanted item, the reactive block produced by the item is IN ADDITION to your defense roll, be it magical or mundane. Giving you the chance to choose whatever defense turns out to be higher.
4) The same question as 1) above, but done by activating the enchanted item from 3) - Would activating the enchanted item reactively (once you are attacked) use up your action in the current exchange (i.e. you can't do this in case you have already acted this exchange)?
Nope, it would not.
Note that the enchanted item in 3) and 4) is designed to do a block (not act as armor).
Defensive items sporting a Block can be used as either block or armor, depending on whichever effect is more beneficial at the time.
-
1) Would it be allowed to use this “reactive evocation block” in an exchange that you have already acted? (I would say no)
The whole point of this is to help keep your squishy wizard PCs alive. The main limiter on the use of evocations is in the mental stress involved, so might as well be generous in how and when evocations can be used.
So, I allow one of the more generous interpretations of reactive blocks:
Generating them is a non-action
Unless they are broken, they last until the end of your next action, which may mean that your block persists into the next exchange
2) In case the block is overcome, the rules say that there is no other defense roll allowed (“no defense aside from that”). Would that mean that the difficulty to attack a target (whos block has been bypassed) will be Mediocre (+0)? (I would say yes)
No, the block subtracts damage as normal. But under 'normal' evocation blocks, you can roll your defensive skill (normally athletics) and take whichever result is higher, you defensive skill roll or the evocation block you are under.
Note that this rule also prevents you from making the baddies easier to hit by 'protecting' them with a very low power evocation block.
3) Would it be possible to do a reactive evocation block by using an enchanted item (designed to create a defensive evocation block)? (I would say yes)
Yes, activating an enchanted item is a non-action. You can even activate two different defensive items against the same attack, using one to provide a block and the other to provide armor. (In addition, remember to roll your defense first, since if you get a +4 result on the fudge dice, you might end up with a better result on your defensive skill than the block provided by your magic item.)
4) The same question as 1) above, but done by activating the enchanted item from 3) - Would activating the enchanted item reactively (once you are attacked) use up your action in the current exchange (i.e. you can't do this in case you have already acted this exchange)?
No, activating defensive items is a non-action.
In addition, any defensive magic item can act as block or armor when activated. Though note that once activated, the chosen type of defense persists, so you can't change from a block to armor without paying for another item activation.
-
OK, two slightly different views on the "reactive evocation block". Thanks, I'll think about it a bit more...
-
The whole point of this is to help keep your squishy wizard PCs alive. The main limiter on the use of evocations is in the mental stress involved, so might as well be generous in how and when evocations can be used.
So, I allow one of the more generous interpretations of reactive blocks:
Generating them is a non-action
Unless they are broken, they last until the end of your next action, which may mean that your block persists into the next exchange
No, the block subtracts damage as normal. But under 'normal' evocation blocks, you can roll your defensive skill (normally athletics) and take whichever result is higher, you defensive skill roll or the evocation block you are under.
I'm all for wizards being more powerful, and it is actually thematically more appropriate to do it this way. Harry has popped a shield multiple times before a bad guy could pull a trigger.
That said, if wizards didn't have to take any mental stress for reactive blocks and the block stayed viable until his or her next turn, why would the wizard have any motivation whatsoever to cast a real shield during their turn?
I would make one tweak to your rules. I would say that sure, a wizard can use a block for free as a defensive action, but they cannot use rote spells.
Eliminating rote shields from a reflexive block may allow the wizard to get around mental stress, but not of they have to take backlash or fallout.
I think that would be a fair compromise and add an element of randomness. Otherwise, a wizard could just use a powerful rote spell on a defensive action for an instant "I win" button.
-
Where do you get the impression that there would be no mental stress inflicted?
The "reactive block" cast as evocation would inflict mental stress just like any other spell.
And disallowing rotes is somewhat counterintuitive.
Being spells that you can do very well, they should be the first ones allowed to be used reactively.
The only way to get around stress for such blocks, or any other spell, would be to use an enchanted item.
-
Where do you get the impression that there would be no mental stress inflicted?
The "reactive block" cast as evocation would inflict mental stress just like any other spell.
And disallowing rotes is somewhat counterintuitive.
Being spells that you can do very well, they should be the first ones allowed to be used reactively.
The only way to get around stress for such blocks, or any other spell, would be to use an enchanted item.
I'm not sure who you're talking to here, but if it's me... I was responding to someone else's rules. ::)
-
For yet another look at this sort of thing, how I deal with it is as follows:
1: Most normal wizards just make sure they've got a defensive magic item or two; a shield ring, or an armored coat, or whatever; something that can be brought up at a moment's notice.
2: Some wizards will pay a point of refresh to be able to actually bring up a full defensive evocation when they're under attack, following all the normal rules for evocation, though doing so takes up their next action. This is essentially a stunt - consider all the stunts like riposte that let you use your next turn's action to do something reactive right now.
3: Some wizards will spend even more refresh to achieve greater defensive mastery; perhaps not needing to use up their next turn; perhaps allowing them to just use discipline as their defense skill entirely; and so on.
-
I think the point he was trying to make is that it doesn't matter whether or not a wizard uses a Rote spell for a reactive block since even Rote spells cost a minimum of 1 mental stress.
I think the optional rules as written in the sidebar on page 253 are fine as is. It's already more limiting than a regularly planned block since you can't extend it past 1 exchange, you can't roll a defensive roll on top of the shield's block, you can't use it as armor, and, at least the way I see it, you can't extend the block to cover your allies. All of those options require the kind of concentration that would require you to spend an exchange doing so. Likewise, you can't *reactively* extend the duration.
-
I think most wizards could benefit from a mortal stunt using one of their magical abilities as a defensive skill.
So far the coolest I have seen is using Lore to dodge because the character sees the attack coming a split second before it actually does.
-
I think most wizards could benefit from a mortal stunt using one of their magical abilities as a defensive skill.
So far the coolest I have seen is using Lore to dodge because the character sees the attack coming a split second before it actually does.
I like that one. Mind you, stunt granted trappings are usually more limited than regular ones, so I'd say that you could use Lore as a base defense against magical attacks only.
-
I am also very liberal with evocation blocks. I play more along the lines with crushing_bob. I let evocation spells be cast on the defensive just like normal, because the faster my wizards run out of mental stress the better.
I also see it as a survival issue. How else are wizards suppose to live against things with supernatural speed?
-
I don't allow reactive evocation blocks. Wizards are probably the most or second-most powerful thing in this game and don't need anything to make them stronger.
There are a couple of Discipline stunts in the master list that allow reactive blocks. I am uncertain of their balance.
And yes, it is a survival issue. Unlike arete, I like the squishiness of wizards.
-
Well, thematically, for the most part I'd only allow a reactive block under certain conditions...
But first off, trying to gain interpretation off that tiny little sidebar is annoying.. >.< Technically, it may have nothing to do with reactive block's.. Harry might just be asking a mechanics question... A very poorly worded one at that...
Now, Harry has been known to get a shield up in time before a faster opponent could act. But there have been times he hasn't. For the most part, he only seems able to bring up the shield in time for an exchange when he is prep'd or at least very cautious... I kinda see this as a Navel Gazing Maneuver of Alertness, that you have to choose to either tag for the initial Alertness roll, or tag to get a chance to bring your shield to bear before you would normally get a chance to react.
I would also see this block as your action for the turn. You just barely managed to put up a protective barrier, opting to sacrifice your ability to dodge to act out of turn, that most likely just saved your life. Congratulations. Its the next person's turn now.
But I also see that the player could decide to extend the shield his next turn possibly, but again, that would be taking up the entirety of his turn to keep his shield powered up for a few more exchanges. Maybe I'm being a bit to stern on this, but there isn't really a lot to go on...
-
Incidentally, I'm assuming the reactive Block is thrown up *before* the enemy rolls to hit you, right? Would be considerably unbalanced if you knew exactly what he rolled and can hence throw up a precisely shifted Block to compensate.
-
Most definitely.. I would say if you are so late in the action, you are just now seeing their results to their attack, then you are too late in the action to attempt to change your attempted defensive counter-measure.
-
If a wizard has to use a point of stress to throw up a block, I don't think it is unbalancing to let them throw it up whenever they want - including as a free action.
-
If a wizard has to use a point of stress to throw up a block, I don't think it is unbalancing to let them throw it up whenever they want - including as a free action.
Thus throwing out the whole idea of the rules we are describing for a Reactive Evocation Block, hehe..
-
If a wizard has to use a point of stress to throw up a block, I don't think it is unbalancing to let them throw it up whenever they want - including as a free action.
Well, a defense roll is essentially a free action. But to paraprase jybil178, knowing the result of an attack roll before declaring a Block is essentially like waiting for the bullet to rupture your liver before deciding how strong you wanted that shield to be. Hindsight is 20/20 :)
-
I'm all for wizards being more powerful, and it is actually thematically more appropriate to do it this way. Harry has popped a shield multiple times before a bad guy could pull a trigger.
That said, if wizards didn't have to take any mental stress for reactive blocks and the block stayed viable until his or her next turn, why would the wizard have any motivation whatsoever to cast a real shield during their turn?
I would make one tweak to your rules. I would say that sure, a wizard can use a block for free as a defensive action, but they cannot use rote spells.
Eliminating rote shields from a reflexive block may allow the wizard to get around mental stress, but not of they have to take backlash or fallout.
I think that would be a fair compromise and add an element of randomness. Otherwise, a wizard could just use a powerful rote spell on a defensive action for an instant "I win" button.
They'd still take stress as normal for a reactive block,that's why I gave the reactive block the 'normal'
duration. Rote spells cost a minimum of 1 stress, just like all other evocations. The only difference is that you don't have to make a discipline roll.
So it's normally good to have a rote defense, yes. But that's because the power of the block called up is based on the power of the evocation you are using and since you'll probably be calling up an amount of power near your control, and excess control on a defense doesn't get you anything, it's a good idea to have your most powerful 1 stress block as a rote.
-
I think the optional rules as written in the sidebar on page 253 are fine as is. It's already more limiting than a regularly planned block since you can't extend it past 1 exchange, you can't roll a defensive roll on top of the shield's block, you can't use it as armor, and, at least the way I see it, you can't extend the block to cover your allies. All of those options require the kind of concentration that would require you to spend an exchange doing so. Likewise, you can't *reactively* extend the duration.
I like this one. It also explains the question why a Wizard ever would do an Evocation Block in non-reactive way. The question remains whether the Wizard is allowed to do this, if the effect remains to the next exchange in case the shield is not penetrated, if he has already taken an action this round. If so, he'd be allowed to cast two Evocations in one exchange.
I'd say that if the Wizard have already taken an action this exchange, he is not allowed to do a reactive evocation block. I mean, he already had the chance to delay his actions (YS199) and act later (perhaps casting a "proper" Evocation Block just before he is attacked, but chose to do something else instead...).
-
I don't like this option because it reduces duels that involve wizards into 1 stroke samurai type duels; which is not really how the duels involving Harry have been described.
-
Well, a defense roll is essentially a free action. But to paraprase jybil178, knowing the result of an attack roll before declaring a Block is essentially like waiting for the bullet to rupture your liver before deciding how strong you wanted that shield to be. Hindsight is 20/20 :)
Why would a wizard use the weakest shift they could?
They would use the largest shield they could for 1 stress (that's what I would do). That way if the attack is greater than the shield strength it soaks up the most amount of damage, and if it stops the attack, it has a greater chance of stopping any other attacks.
Plus, on the player's action, they could choose to extend the shield for longer. Why in the world would someone make a shield for any less than at least their most powerful rote shield?
If someone really wanted to make a crunchy rule for reactive blocks, I think that only allowing a rote shield would be fair.
-
Why would a wizard use the weakest shift they could?
They would use the largest shield they could for 1 stress (that's what I would do). That way if the attack is greater than the shield strength it soaks up the most amount of damage, and if it stops the attack, it has a greater chance of stopping any other attacks.
Plus, on the player's action, they could choose to extend the shield for longer. Why in the world would someone make a shield for any less than at least their most powerful rote shield?
If someone really wanted to make a crunchy rule for reactive blocks, I think that only allowing a rote shield would be fair.
Who said anything about weakest shift? We're just saying that the decision to throw up a Block is a reaction to being attacked, not a reaction to actually being struck. In fact, given that no additional defense roll is possible, you'd HAVE TO make a decision on whether to throw up a shield before the attack roll to determine which defensive method you're using to protect yourself, either a magical Block or an applicable defense with Athletics/Fists/Weapons.
And I agree, someone can choose to extend it longer, but doing so would follow the usual rules for Prolonging Spells (YS259) and hence cost a standard action instead of being a reactive free action.
As for whether or not a wizard can toss a fireball and then cast an Evocation Block in response to being attacked in the same round, I'd say I'd allow it. The Block in question is more limited than a standard action Block and still costs a stress point, so if the wizard want to defend reflexively, I'd say go for it.
Mind you, as a GM, I'd only allow for a reactive Block like this if the defender was ready for such to happen. If caught totally by surprise, then no go. So basically, anything that would give someone a Mediocre (0) score to his defense roll would prevent an Evocation Block from happening.
-
Who said anything about weakest shift? We're just saying that the decision to throw up a Block is a reaction to being attacked, not a reaction to actually being struck. In fact, given that no additional defense roll is possible, you'd HAVE TO make a decision on whether to throw up a shield before the attack roll to determine which defensive method you're using to protect yourself, either a magical Block or an applicable defense with Athletics/Fists/Weapons.
And I agree, someone can choose to extend it longer, but doing so would follow the usual rules for Prolonging Spells (YS259) and hence cost a standard action instead of being a reactive free action.
As for whether or not a wizard can toss a fireball and then cast an Evocation Block in response to being attacked in the same round, I'd say I'd allow it. The Block in question is more limited than a standard action Block and still costs a stress point, so if the wizard want to defend reflexively, I'd say go for it.
Mind you, as a GM, I'd only allow for a reactive Block like this if the defender was ready for such to happen. If caught totally by surprise, then no go. So basically, anything that would give someone a Mediocre (0) score to his defense roll would prevent an Evocation Block from happening.
I pretty much 100% agree with this.
This is why it's handy for a wizard to have at least one protective enchanted item for when they ARE caught unawares too. Wizards usually tend not to be the best dodgers or alert people around.
-
I pretty much 100% agree with this.
This is why it's handy for a wizard to have at least one protective enchanted item for when they ARE caught unawares too. Wizards usually tend not to be the best dodgers or alert people around.
Would the enchanted item only react to a Surprise attack if it still has 'charges' left, or would you rule that it can still be used for that 1 stress point indefinitely when caught by surprise? Personally, I'm voting for the former.
-
Would the enchanted item only react to a Surprise attack if it still has 'charges' left, or would you rule that it can still be used for that 1 stress point indefinitely when caught by surprise? Personally, I'm voting for the former.
Agreed there too.
-
If feel that I have received some very good and constructive feedback on the question about reactive evocation blocks. Two questions remain (for me):
1) In case the reactive evocation block is bypassed by an attack – is the practitioner allowed to throw up a second one (I would say yes, costing another bunch of stress...)?
2) The reactive evocation block replaces the practitioners normal defense roll - would it mean that the defense value for a second attack, if the block is bypassed by the first, equals a) the practitioners Athletics-value (i.e. value, no roll), b) defaults to Mediocre (he is not allowed to defend at all) or c) is the fact that the reactive evocation block replaces the regular defense only applicable to the actual attack triggering the reactive evocation block (given that the there is a second attack and that the first bypasses the reactive evocation block)? I would rule that the practitioner uses his Athletics value for other attacks, but is not allowed to roll (i.e. not allowed to invoke aspects etc).
-
If feel that I have received some very good and constructive feedback on the question about reactive evocation blocks. Two questions remain (for me):
1) In case the reactive evocation block is bypassed by an attack – is the practitioner allowed to throw up a second one (I would say yes, costing another bunch of stress...)?
2) The reactive evocation block replaces the practitioners normal defense roll - would it mean that the defense value for a second attack, if the block is bypassed by the first, equals a) the practitioners Athletics-value (i.e. value, no roll), b) defaults to Mediocre (he is not allowed to defend at all) or c) is the fact that the reactive evocation block replaces the regular defense only applicable to the actual attack triggering the reactive evocation block (given that the there is a second attack and that the first bypasses the reactive evocation block)? I would rule that the practitioner uses his Athletics value for other attacks, but is not allowed to roll (i.e. not allowed to invoke aspects etc).
1) Hellz no! A reactive block replaces another defensive roll. Regardless whether or not it costs another stress, someone can only reactively defend once. Otherwise, someone else could claim that he should be able to roll Weapons to parry if his Athletics roll to dodge a sword blow failed.
2) While you cannot reactively defend more than once against a single attack, you are allowed to defend against as many attacks as you receive. So yes, if your Evocation block fails, you can then defend against subsequent attacks using other (logically used) skills. The only reason to cast a reactive Evocation block in the first place is to simply replace another skill you think might be too weak to defend with.
-
If you extend a reactive evocation block does it function like a normal block from that point onwards so that you can use other skills if it is bypassed.
-
If you extend a reactive evocation block does it function like a normal block from that point onwards so that you can use other skills if it is bypassed.
Yup. But remember that extending it, just like regularly casting a Block, is a standard action. You can't extend and attack at the same time. Mind you, according to the sidebar text, the reactive block lasts until the end of your NEXT exchange, so you wouldn't necessarily need to extend it on your next action.
-
1) Hellz no! A reactive block replaces another defensive roll. Regardless whether or not it costs another stress, someone can only reactively defend once. Otherwise, someone else could claim that he should be able to roll Weapons to parry if his Athletics roll to dodge a sword blow failed.
2) While you cannot reactively defend more than once against a single attack, you are allowed to defend against as many attacks as you receive. So yes, if your Evocation block fails, you can then defend against subsequent attacks using other (logically used) skills. The only reason to cast a reactive Evocation block in the first place is to simply replace another skill you think might be too weak to defend with.
In regards to 1); I should have been more specific - I meant whether a practitioner, that got his reactive evocation block bypassed by an attack, is allowed to throw up a second reactive evocation block if he is attacked again in the same exchange. I 100% agree that he is not allowed to throw up a second evocation block agains the first attack!
In regards to 2); A summary would be to say that as long as the reactive evocation block is not penetrated by an attack, it will be used as the practitioners defense value (and ONLY form of defense!). If it is penetrated, he is free to defend normally (using his Athletics, or if he so chooses, cast another reactive evocation block).
Thanks for the replies!
-
In regards to 1); I should have been more specific - I meant whether a practitioner, that got his reactive evocation block bypassed by an attack, is allowed to throw up a second reactive evocation block if he is attacked again in the same exchange. I 100% agree that he is not allowed to throw up a second evocation block agains the first attack!
In regards to 2); A summary would be to say that as long as the reactive evocation block is not penetrated by an attack, it will be used as the practitioners defense value (and ONLY form of defense!). If it is penetrated, he is free to defend normally (using his Athletics, or if he so chooses, cast another reactive evocation block).
Thanks for the replies!
1) Yeah, sure, why not. As long as it fits into the "Only one reactive defense per attack" rule, I'd say you can go ahead and throw up several blocks in a row. Mind you, smoke would start to pour out of your ears due to your brain burning from all that mental stress ;)
-
I am just wondering but couldn't someone who had a Defensive Rote and very high discipline, but relatively lower Conviction lets use an example of 7 control/4 Power after bonuses continuously have a 4 shift Shield up?
I would think that this would work relatively well and is not that hard to accomplish, especially at the lower end of the power scale?
Discipline: 4
Conviction: 3
Shielding Focus: +2 control
Specialty: +1 Spirit Defensive Control, +1 Spirit Defensive Power
(just needs Evocation and 2 useful skills?)
-
I'll be the first to admit I only skimmed most of the posts on this thread (I'm in a bit of a rush)
Here are my thoughts:
By all means allow the reactive magic block. If I can throw my body out of the way I can throw my will in front of me (if of course I'm in the practice of quickly calling my will)
I'm abivalent about the any other details to the block. I think a rote block should definitely be allowed. I think you should definitely be allowed to pump more power into it in the next round to extend the duration.
I don't really see a strong reason not to allow a shaped or extended block to be used reactively. They're already automatically taking at least a point of stress that wouldn't have been taken if a successful athletics roll had been made, so they get to use that energy however they want. Especially when you consider that whatever energy they put into extending it in one way or another is another point not stopping the attack.
That being said I don't think it would be offensively unreasonable for a GM to rule that the spellcaster can only bring up their most commonly used block as a reaction, but it wouldn't be my preference. I'm thinking in a dangerous situation I can imagine all sorts of different ways I'd want an attack to be deflected/absorbed/disrupted/whatever in a similar amount of time to me dodging out of the way. In fact, I feel it would almost be faster since the typical (untrained) person's response to any sort of imminent disaster or attack is to throw up an arm and wish real hard for it to not happen...wishing real hard when you can use magic turns into a spell.
-
@Vine: The main reason not to allow a shaped or extended block as a reaction is that it makes a mockery of the action economy. Why would you ever spend an action on a block when you can just do it as a defence?
@citadel: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by continuously, and I'm not sure why you would need 7 control for a 4-shift rote.
-
Yeah, as I was writing I knew there was something that was bugging me because when I started I had a different opinion, but didn't remember what it was.
Just ignore that whole part of it.
-
I don't see any issue with wizards casting a reactive* block from a balance or GM point of view. It's a suboptimal** choice from the caster's point of view, but wizards are plenty powerful as it is.
*I would require reactive blocks to be single purpose (all shifts put towards blocking) or a rote. As a reaction you don't have time to split shifts between duration and power. **This burns stress, two if the caster takes a second action to extend it. Anytime I can push a caster into spending 25-33% (more if they extend the block) of their resources on defense, I've reduced what they can accomplish proactively. It's affects on the action economy are negative to the wizard - they'd have a reaction that doesn't cause stress normally in any case. Action is almost always more effective than reaction. :)
-
I think for a lot of wizards (practitioners in general) a more defensive stance at the beginning might be appropriate. Hide, block, dodge, then just hit once and do it big. Harry makes a reference to doing something similar in one of the sidebars. I'm a little concerned with the mental state of a person who tends to spend the vast majority of their time and energy aiming at doing harm rather than preventing it, especially when magic is involved.
Wizards are mighty when prepared, and they spend a lot of time and energy getting prepared.
-
@Vine: The main reason not to allow a shaped or extended block as a reaction is that it makes a mockery of the action economy. Why would you ever spend an action on a block when you can just do it as a defence?
Took me a second, but I remembered one. Starting off the fight with a decent sustained block does mean two chances to defend against those pesky incoming attacks. Still not enough though, just throwing it in for the fun of technicality.
-
I think for a lot of wizards (practitioners in general) a more defensive stance at the beginning might be appropriate. Hide, block, dodge, then just hit once and do it big. Harry makes a reference to doing something similar in one of the sidebars. I'm a little concerned with the mental state of a person who tends to spend the vast majority of their time and energy aiming at doing harm rather than preventing it, especially when magic is involved.
I agree, defense is appropriate. But consider your options (as action rather than reaction), a wizard can 1) attack, 2) block (including armor), 3) counterspell, or 4) create one or more maneuvers. The maneuver created aspects can be used for either defense or offense. Granted, only once and at a 3:2 ratio instead of 1:1, but the flexibility may well be worth it. It can save your @$$ or be used to wipe the floor with the bad guy...whichever you need more.
Mechanically, stacking aspects is optimal. Creating taggable can also be one of the more group-friendly actions anyone can do...and since you can tag them yourself if no one else does, there's not much downside.
Wizards are mighty when prepared, and they spend a lot of time and energy getting prepared.
Evocators are pretty awesome even when not prepared. ;)