Really don't have an opinion because I wouldn't allow them in a campaign I was GMing.  I have massive issues with thaumaturgy being able to create any effect so long as the player takes their sweet time in casting it.  I also wouldn't allow anyone to wear a construct like that without spending FP/debt for every temporary power granted.  I further wouldn't allow the constructs to take any action without either complete attention (not even free actions or defense rolls and an aspect of All Senses Completely Blinded) from the caster, a bound spirit to animate them, or someone wearing them.

There's likely a reason you don't see every wizard running around with temple dog constructs like the ones Ancient Mai made.

Bear in mind, battles can last more than one scene.  If you think that's remotely likely, you should keep track.

Bit of a mix there between Harry and TMWNN.  All the powers are named after Harry quotes but the gun's named after TMWNN.

As for weapon 3, nope.  It is what it is means it's a handgun, granted possibly a .50 caliber handgun, and most likely deserves weapon 2 with an outside chance of weapon 1.  Adding to that with powers would be fine but if it's meant to do more damage than what it is it needs to pay for it.  Give it a ranged version of claws or some such?

No need to quote "Romance".  A romance novel not having explicit sex scenes in it is about as uncommon as an honest politician.

Mechanically, there's no reason thaumaturgy can't create long term blocks as long as it adheres to the two inherent limitations - casting time and symbols.  The symbol requirement probably does mean such blocks need to be tied to items. 

For game play purposes, I ask players to pay for any long term powers with refresh.  It can be justified by thaumaturgy, but they'll still need to spend refresh on that "Toughness" spell (or other result).

I go for the simpler solution.  I'm just an arbitrary and uncompromising bastard about Thaumaturgy.

-I think you overstate the invulnerability granted by a good shield. The other guys can always stack maneuvers, abuse the massive breaking bonuses of Strength powers, or just stall until the duration ends.

True enough but several characters who are lining up maneuvers for one to take advantage of are explicitly not beating the snot out of everyone while they do.  Waiting on a 6-10 exchange shield to run out when the wizard can just renew it is a chancy idea too.  Nothing's perfect but a good defense and a good offense almost always beat a slightly better offense.

-I think that the best way to make an MMORPG-style tank in a game with non-stupid foes is to use mechanics that punish baddies for not targeting the tank. This would require some custom powers or stunts, but it's doable.

For single targets, I'd say a character with Superb Might, a Strength power, and a grapple helping Stunt would be the way to go.  Evocation blocks for groups.  Better to keep them from ever dealing damage in the first place than to soak it.  Course that's just my opinion.
[/quote]

Hell, defensive casters can be a lot more dangerous than any tank if paired with someone who's good at the offensive end of things.  Massive shield/armor to start with; 12-14 shifts or so all to power at Chest Deep for instance.  Extend it.  A defensive maneuver like a displacement type spell.  Save the last mental bubble for an emergency and either start performing non-magical supportive maneuvers for the combat types or start shooting things.

That bit of defensive castering just made your entire party essentially invulnerable to evenly matched baddies or made one party member invulnerable to anything two refresh higher.  Equally spec'd offensive casters and mental track attackers excepted.

What exactly is a tank, anyway?

Quote from: NicholasQuinn on November 05, 2011, 11:58:11 PM

From what I understand of the term 'Tank', it is a specific role found within RPGs (especially MMOs). Their job is to go in, take the pressure of their team mates by drawing the enemy to them (sometimes through an aggro system, sometimes through class abilities etc), and then sit and take damage (and the important bit:) without dying (hence high defenses).

The ability to deal out damage is usually less important, as they're often paired with high DPS (damage per second) builds. Although Tanks can, in some games, also deal out damage - if nothing else, it stops them getting bored.

They're also largely irrelevant in DFRPG.  GMs aren't AI and they've little reason to make their NPCs as stupid as MMORPG baddies.