Balance Inplications of Faster Counterspelling

[InFerrumVeritas]

So, I've got a house rule that I'm considering and wanted vetting. 

Counterspelling may be done in place of a defense roll by any practitioner with evocation or channeling.  Roll Lore, take stress, etc. as normal.

[Haru]

There have been some discussions about this, and the closest to what I would see as a working solution is this:

If you don't already have the sight on, you are going to need to attempt a blind counterspell. That means you choose the strength of your counterspell and cast it according to the rules. If you get off equal or more power as the spell that you want to counter, you succeed, otherwise the spell will continue unharmed. It is spellpower vs. spellpower, targeting rolls are not included, the discipline roll is just there as the control roll.

However, by now I don't like this idea. Wizards are not so good at reacting, they are at their best when they are prepared and anticipate a situation. That's why a wizard needs to cast a block in advance, and countering attack spells would not be in that spirit.

[UmbraLux]

Counterspelling may be done in place of a defense roll by any practitioner with evocation or channeling.  Roll Lore, take stress, etc. as normal.

I like it, particularly from a balance point of view.  It makes counterspelling useful, adds an option for spellcasters, and potentially reduces some of the "I win" spellcasting.

I do however have one question.  For speed of play and ease of shift calculation, couldn't this be accomplished by allowing reactive blocks? 

[ways and means]

My opinion is that if you allow reactive blocks for casters you should allow them for everybody (which would basically mean anyone could defend with any skill they want to and call it a block).

[computerking]

I think reactive blocks aren't always a "No Go" situation: If a Wizard has the forthought to make an enchanted item with one, it counts as a reactive block, and I believe with a bit of Thaumaturgy and time, a pretty good block spell could be placed on oneself or in a potion, Although it would be a One-shot deal: wait until the turn before you think the big boom is going to come, and set off the Wall of Protection.

On-The-Fly, attack-is-coming-now-so-cast-that-spell reactive blocks, I don't think would be a good thing to allow, without the character at least having Initiative and holding his action to see wht's coming in.

As for allowing Counterspell Defenses, Remember Harry & Billy's Margin Notes on YS253:

I don’t think counterspells can be done reactively, due to the assessment  requirement.

If you have a held action, You might consider that proactive counterspelling, much like the above block, and allow it.

[UmbraLux]

My opinion is that if you allow reactive blocks for casters you should allow them for everybody (which would basically mean anyone could defend with any skill they want to and call it a block).

Everyone does get a reactive defense - and a parry could easily be phrased as a block.  Shrug.  Whether you call it a block or not, any target gets one defense...I'm not suggesting changing that.

What reactive spell blocks do is limit spellcasters' power without a nerf.  It's an extra option...but it still costs stress which reduces the number of offensive spells being thrown around.  Since wizards are easily one of the more powerful templates available, it's a win-win situation to me.

Perhaps just as important for some, reactive spell blocks are shown in the books.  Allowing them in the game simply helps keep game and fiction consistent. 

[Belial666]

1) The only time a reactive counterspell will be useful is against another wizard - so the power of a wizard in comparison to anybody else is unaffected.
2) A counterspell requires at least as much power as the spell you attempt to counter or does not work at all. So a weaker wizard with more control cannot attempt to counterspell a wizard with more power while the wizard with more power can do it. So a powerful wizard will counter the enemy's attack and take no damage even if the other guy attacks first, while a weaker wizard will be toasted.


So your rule;
a) Makes strong wizards even stronger.
b) Makes wizard duels last only a single exchange or so with the victor having taken no damage at all.

[UmbraLux]

1) The only time a reactive counterspell will be useful is against another wizard - so the power of a wizard in comparison to anybody else is unaffected.
2) A counterspell requires at least as much power as the spell you attempt to counter or does not work at all. So a weaker wizard with more control cannot attempt to counterspell a wizard with more power while the wizard with more power can do it. So a powerful wizard will counter the enemy's attack and take no damage even if the other guy attacks first, while a weaker wizard will be toasted.

So your rule;
a) Makes strong wizards even stronger.
b) Makes wizard duels last only a single exchange or so with the victor having taken no damage at all.

I agree with the sentiment behind #2 - it's possible for a weaker wizard to use backlash to increase his effective spell strength, but it is a losing proposition over the long run.  This is also why a block may be a better option - it will at least have some effect.

You contradict yourself between items 1) and a).  But, more to the point, a wizard has a limited number of spells he can cast based on stress and consequences.  Anything which uses those up solely against other spellcasters, reduces the number of spells they can cast against non-spellcasters.  While it doesn't nerf individual spell power, it does limit the number of spells which can be used...hence reducing the relative power between spellcaster and non-spellcaster to a small degree.

[computerking]

1) The only time a reactive counterspell will be useful is against another wizard - so the power of a wizard in comparison to anybody else is unaffected.

This brings a bunch of other questions to mind for me: If you can control elements with Evocation, why can't you reactively deflect an incoming handful of flaming Shen Poo (For example) with a Fire, Earth(for the Poo), or Spirit "counterspell"? What about Stopping a BCV from Dominating a teammate by counterspelling his mental influence with Spirit (The Mental Attack Element)? Things that are basically made of one of the Elements should be vulnerable to Evocation, either normal means (In the case of an incoming boulder thrown by someone), why can't something basically "made of magic" be counter-able?

2) A counterspell requires at least as much power as the spell you attempt to counter or does not work at all. So a weaker wizard with more control cannot attempt to counterspell a wizard with more power while the wizard with more power can do it. So a powerful wizard will counter the enemy's attack and take no damage even if the other guy attacks first, while a weaker wizard will be toasted.

You're discounting the weaker wizard accepting Stress and/or consequences, and/or tagging aspects in order to meet the power requirements of his conterspell. Unless there's some rule prohibiting that just for Counterspells...

So your rule;
a) Makes strong wizards even stronger.
b) Makes wizard duels last only a single exchange or so with the victor having taken no damage at all.

Yes, I agree with the sentiments behind both of those statements. Doesn't mean it wouldn't be cool, though:).

[Belial666]

Anything which uses those up solely against other spellcasters, reduces the number of spells they can cast against non-spellcasters.  While it doesn't nerf individual spell power, it does limit the number of spells which can be used...hence reducing the relative power between spellcaster and non-spellcaster to a small degree.

No, it won't. Because a counterspell is not required. If a wizard ever finds himself in the situation that not doing a reactive counterspell will leave him more power to deal with opponents, then he is not going to do a counterspell. Essentially, since counterspelling is not mandatory, the wizard is going to use your houserule when it benefits him and not use it when it harms him, thus always being more powerful.

You're discounting the weaker wizard accepting Stress and/or consequences, and/or tagging aspects in order to meet the power requirements of his conterspell.

Tagging aspects can never boost the power of a spell - only the control. And whatever consequences the weaker wizard can burn, the stronger wizard can also burn. And since wizards tend to go nova in an attempt to obliterate the opposition ASAP anyway, the weaker wizard and his friends are going to find themselves in the business end of a 23-shift meteor swarm that the weaker wizard is not strong enough to counter and the spell is big enough to hit both him and them.


If anything, that kind of houserule will make the nova issue worse as wizards will always opt to do it since their biggest spell is also going to be the least counterable. And the bigger the spell cast, the more and tougher targets you can blast at once.

[computerking]

the weaker wizard and his friends are going to find themselves in the business end of a 23-shift meteor swarm that the weaker wizard is not strong enough to counter and the spell is big enough to hit both him and them.

But in this case even a Selfless Channeler can say, "I'm going to counterspell, taking 21 mental stress from the power requirement, and Backlash (18 - 24) to make the spell go perfectly. I'll take between 45 and 37 points of mental stress total, and I'll be taken out, no consequences."

He'll be out of the fight, but his friends will live another exchange.

Unless I totally don't get the spellcasting & backlash rules.

[Belial666]

You can't take more mental stress than you have because you must first take the stress and then cast the spell. If you're taken out you can't cast anything.

[computerking]

You can't take more mental stress than you have because you must first take the stress and then cast the spell. If you're taken out you can't cast anything.

Thank you for not saying, "You don't get the spellcasting & backlash rules."

I think my trip-up is assuming that because casting an Evocation spell takes an instant, that the Steps that a Player has to go through to have a character cast a spell take place simultaneously in the game world, allowing for last-ditch sacrifices like the one I described.
Well, I guess you can still use the example, but change the Power part to include taking the Stress track, and 20 points of Consequences to meet the 23 strength meteor, and the Backlash is the same.

(PS, I also assumed that the Stress from casting and the Stress from Backlash are a combined total applied after casting the spell. I guess it's 2 separate instances of stress? Someone verify, please?)

[Belial666]

Yes, two separate instances of stress. Also consider that a wizard that can't assess the spell being cast won't know how big it is going to be - and thus won't know how much power he needs to put into a counterspell. Any reactive counterspell is going to be a blind counterspell.


Last-ditch sacrifices can be done with Death-Curses.

[ARedthorn]

by RAW, at least, there's certainly no reason a Wizard couldn't invest in a stunt that adds a Dodge-style trapping to his Discipline or Lore that's flavored like Counterspelling... but find me a Wizard who can't afford a +2 or +3 athletics if he wants it, and wouldn't rather spent their refresh on yet more Refinement.