Counterspell Specializations?

[Wilgar]

Just wondering, since counterspelling works like any other evocation (generate shifts, try to control them), would it be reasonable to allow specializations in "Counterspell"?  Like:

Evocation: Elements (Air, Earth, Water) Control (Counterspell +1, Water +2) Power (Counterspell +1, Water +1)

to use my potential character as an example.

[Ryan_Singer]

I was under the impression that counterspell is a type of action, not an element. For example, you can counterspell with Spirit, Fire, Airm Earth or water. You would then use your specialty in that element.

[devonapple]

I was under the impression that counterspell is a type of action, not an element. For example, you can counterspell with Spirit, Fire, Airm Earth or water. You would then use your specialty in that element.

Evocation focus items specify whether they improve Offensive or Defensive spells, so I can see how Counterspell would come into discussion as a possible specialty. I'm not sure it maps completely, though.

[MijRai]

As Ryan said, I don't think you need to specialize in counter-spelling, just use the specialization of how you are counter-spelling. Fire metaphysically burns away the spell, Water breaks it down, Earth grounds it, Air wears it away, and Spirit is energy fighting energy.

Focus items do improve Offensive or Defensive, but they still apply to Manuevers and Blocks as well as Attacks. I'd just use the Offensive part of the foci, since you are 'attacking' the spell you wish to counter.

[Ryan_Singer]

Focus items do improve Offensive or Defensive, but they still apply to Manuevers and Blocks as well as Attacks. I'd just use the Offensive part of the foci, since you are 'attacking' the spell you wish to counter.

I agree. Counterspell is an offensive use of magic.

[UmbraLux]

I'd allow a Counterspell refinement or enchantment...after telling the player I suspect he'd find it a less than optimal use of item / refinement.    As a refinement, I'd even consider (would need more thought than I've given it) allowing it to add to Lore for assessment purposes.  If someone wants to be good at breaking an opponent's spells, go for it! 

[devonapple]

As a refinement, I'd even consider (would need more thought than I've given it) allowing it to add to Lore for assessment purposes.  If someone wants to be good at breaking an opponent's spells, go for it! 

Sounds like a good concept: an Unraveler.  If only Harry had found this person...

[computerking]

Along these same concept lines:
Is it possible to counterspell an Evocation effect, and if so, under what conditions?
Do you have to be holding an action, or would you be able to use the current turn's actions if you haven't had your turn yet?
Is the counterspell roll effective if you meet the evocation spell's original shifts of power(called by the original caster before rolling), or the adjusted shifts(after the roll is made), or the final shift result (After the spell target's defense roll is made)?
Is there a surplus of shifts required if you wanted to redirect a spell rather than counter it totally? Or if you wanted to redirect it to the caster (If an attack spell)?
When countering Maneuver and Block spells, is it possible to redirect them (ie. "Thank you for your shield, Mr. Wizard"), or would that just not make narrative sense?
And finally, which kinds of monster powers are considered to be magical effects valid for the purposes of counterspelling?

Yeah, I've thought a lot about a counterspell specialist character type.

[Sanctaphrax]

Evocation is a valid target for counterspelling, I think. But if it doesn't have a duration, then you can't target it. You can't counterspell a fireball.

But I'd let you use your counterspell specialty for a Block against magic.

I do not believe that this game contains mechanics for redirection outside of thaumaturgy wards. Aspect invocations for effect might work.

I don't think that any monster powers other than spellcasting (and maybe Glamours) can be counterspelled. But you might be able to use your counterspell specialization for maneuvers, blocks and attacks against magical things given the right circumstances.

[Becq]

As I see it, Wilgar is trying to implement a 'functional' specialization into Evocation.  (Thaumaturgy allows specialization by your choice of themes or functions, while by RAW Evocation only allows thematic (elemental) specializations.)

I don't see a particular problem with 'counterspelling' as a functional specialization, though I could also see the potential for abuse with other functions, like 'attacks' or 'blocks'.  In any case, though, I would think that an elemental specialization would almost always be better.

[Masurao]

Are we talking about 'counterspelling' spells that are already active, or disrupting spells just after they're cast? I believe it makes a huge difference, going by the novels. I recall only one example when Harry is dispelling an ongoing spell and it is explained he needs to use the right amount of energy. Too much and the spells might explode spectacularly, too little and his expended energy would only fuel the spell and make it stronger.

It is your decision, of course, but this would mean that I would almost never allow a counterspell of an evocation just after its cast. You just don't know how much energy to throw at it. Even for an active spell, it is extremely difficult to gauge how much energy is needed to disrupt the spell, as you can only guess how much energy was put into it.

I can imagine using some form of spirit magic to cast out a 'net' of magic, designed to cut through and disperse magical energies that pass through it, but this would be more of a block or maneuver, if I'm right. Also, there's the difficulty of many types of magic only being magic during the casting: Harry's "Fuego!" spell usually ceases to be magical after casting and becomes normal fire.

[UmbraLux]

It is your decision, of course, but this would mean that I would almost never allow a counterspell of an evocation just after its cast. You just don't know how much energy to throw at it.

An Assessment action is generally required as part of the counterspell but why go from there to disallowing it?  IMO counterspelling is underpowered as is, no need to handicap it further. 

[Masurao]

I will admit that I have not familiarized myself with all aspects of the magic in DFRPG, so I am winging it when it comes to the mechanics of counterspelling. I am going by the novels and how I envision it to work. Slinging a spell is such a 'fast' thing, you would really need to ready yourself for it to even have a chance of countering it, then you'd need to guess the power that went into it. Everything Harry throws a "Fuego!" it isn't the same, sometimes it's more powerful, sometimes less (not talking about a rote spell, of course), so how would you sense the amount of energy going into it? Not mechanics-wise, but narrative-wise?

[UmbraLux]

As far as "instantaneous" spells go, I agree - difficult if not impossible to counter.  Though I think timing is the real difficulty (not certain there's even a way to interrupt an action mechanically). 

Leaving out (most) Attack spells, Blocks and Maneuvers last one or more exchanges and should be viable candidates for countering.  Blocks in particular.  (Had my "angry ghost" locked down by a block last session.    )  I see some advantages to including a sorcerer capable of counterspelling in a larger combat...

Too bad it doesn't really fit my current antagonist's agenda / background.  I'll have to remember it for next time...   

[computerking]

Slinging a spell is such a 'fast' thing, you would really need to ready yourself for it to even have a chance of countering it, then you'd need to guess the power that went into it. Everything Harry throws a "Fuego!" it isn't the same, sometimes it's more powerful, sometimes less (not talking about a rote spell, of course), so how would you sense the amount of energy going into it? Not mechanics-wise, but narrative-wise?

With magic mostly occurring at the speed of thought, I would think sensing an incoming spell would be as fast as being able to fling your relatively slow body out of the way of one. As for being ready for it, having held your action may provide the readiness required. I believe the rules even state that the assessment action for determining the power of a spell to be countered is a free action, which suggests that counterspelling could be done in combat instantly.

As for narrative-wise, you should be able to sense the amount of energy going into a spell the same way you would be able to sense the amount of power in a (perhaps thaumaturgy)spell that was cast long before and still is active. I mean, it's not like you can see a spell, in either case.

As far as "instantaneous" spells go, I agree - difficult if not impossible to counter.  Though I think timing is the real difficulty (not certain there's even a way to interrupt an action mechanically). 

Leaving out (most) Attack spells, Blocks and Maneuvers last one or more exchanges and should be viable candidates for countering.  Blocks in particular.  (Had my "angry ghost" locked down by a block last session.    )  I see some advantages to including a sorcerer capable of counterspelling in a larger combat...

I think Mechanically you can only interrupt an action by having a higher initiative and having held an action from earlier in that specific exchange.

Another question: The counterspell rules mention redirecting spells. Even if instant(attack) spells are off the table, Is it possible to co-opt a spell and change its target? It would be nice to take the shield spell off of an enemy and use it myself, or move it to protect an ally who has no magical defenses.