Thaumaturgical counterspell?

[Watson]

I can't see any reason why a counterspell can't be cast using Thaumaturgy. What are your comments?

If that is allowed, how would you target, for instance, a generation-long curse? What I mean is that the ritual needs a symbolic link for it to find its way - here it is the actual curse that is the target (not necessarily the person being affected by the curse). Would something from the targeted person work? What about if the curse is cast like a bloodline curse?

[UmbraLux]

I can't see any reason why a counterspell can't be cast using Thaumaturgy. What are your comments?

The only reason you might have difficulty counterspelling is the requirement for symbolic links.  As you mention, linking to the spell itself may be difficult.

If that is allowed, how would you target, for instance, a generation-long curse? What I mean is that the ritual needs a symbolic link for it to find its way - here it is the actual curse that is the target (not necessarily the person being affected by the curse). Would something from the targeted person work? What about if the curse is cast like a bloodline curse?

I would suggest requiring something used in casting the original spell as a link.  A ward stone would provide a link to the ward it helped create, a piece of Little Chicago would provide a link allowing you to counterspell Harry's divination tool, etc.

[Haru]

There is nothing wrong with a thaumaturgy counterspell I can see. If you don't have a valid sympathetic link, I could see using your sight while casting as a replacement for it, though it is probably all kinds of dangerous doing so.

[VVolf]

I can't see any reason why a counterspell can't be cast using Thaumaturgy. What are your comments?

I'd definitely say it can be done, however if you plan on countering something like a generational curse, realize that that's kind of like taking a mallet to a nuclear warhead to prevent it from leaking radiation. Yeah it might work in the really, really long term, but you might not like the immediate effects of doing so.

[devonapple]

There is nothing wrong with a thaumaturgy counterspell I can see. If you don't have a valid sympathetic link, I could see using your sight while casting as a replacement for it, though it is probably all kinds of dangerous doing so.

That's what I did for a nasty curse on a pair of magical twins: the Wizard PC used The Sight to Assess one or more Aspects of the Curse, which they then used as a link to affect it.

[Todjaeger]

Ultimately it would be up to the group you're playing in to decide, but per the RAW no, thaumaturgy can't be used for Counterspelling.

Again, according to the RAW, one of the the four types of Evocation effect is Counterspell, the others being Attack, Block and Maneuver.

According to the Counterspell description in the Evocation section, a Counterspell is an Attack against the energies of the spell the practioner is attempting to counter.  This suggests to me that a Counterspell is an immediate collection and use of energy, hence Evocation.

Now one of the other things to keep in mind with Counterspelling, is that it isn't the same as Dispelling something.  By that I mean that a Counterspell can negate a spell with immediate effect or a spell with a duration, but as soon as the Counterspell is ended, any ongoing ritual magic with a duration will resume.

I could be mistaken, but I'm assuming that what the OP was really wanting to do was to Dispel magic, permanently ending whatever ongoing magical effect occurring, and not Counterspelling said magical effect, which means that as soon as the Counterspell stops, the ongoing effects resume unless they ran out of duration.  Taking a Ward as an example, four 'extra' shifts of power would keep a Ward going for a month, and I can't see a practioner managing to keep a Counterspell going that long.

-Cheers

[sinker]

The above seems odd to me considering the RAW makes no mention of duration whatsoever. If I were to counterspell an evocation effect that had a duration but used one less shift of power to do so, would it counter the spell except for the last exchange of duration? As far as I can tell the RAW says no, the counterspell would simply fail. As such it seems strange to think of it in that way.

[UmbraLux]

Ultimately it would be up to the group you're playing in to decide, but per the RAW no, thaumaturgy can't be used for Counterspelling.

Can you provide a reference please?

Again, according to the RAW, one of the the four types of Evocation effect is Counterspell, the others being Attack, Block and Maneuver.

It also states " The primary diferences between the two are matters of preparation, time, and mindset."

[Becq]

I think that the general thought is that anything that can be done by Evocation can be done by Thaumaturgy, though more slowly yet with more strength and/or finesse. 

While I wasn't able to find anything that specifically provides mechanics for Thaumaturgical Counterspelling, it seems to me that it might well be covered by the "Shape Magical Energies into Physical Forms" (YS264) which refers, among other things, to "directing and releasing magical energies".  Assuming your table accepted that this capability covers counterspelling, then you'd probably stat it as a 'Simple Action' that requires a complexity equal to the roll required for conterspelling via Evocation.

[Todjaeger]

Can you provide a reference please?

While this is (like much of the rest of the rules) subject to individual & group interpretation, the rules for Counterspelling are located on YS253, which is under the heading Spellcasting (Evocation) which starts on YS249.  Spellcasting (Thaumaturgy) starts on page 261.

More specifically, the 2nd sentence under the Counterspell heading on YS253 reads:

Even though counterspells are an evocation effect, they can be used to disrupt thaumaturgy.

Now again, this is specifically talking about Counterspelling, which isn't quite the same thing as Dispelling a persistent effect.  That is something which I'd only allow Thaumaturgy (or the appropriate Ritual) to do, unless the target/focus of the magical effect was attacked and destroyed entirely itself.

-Cheers

[Becq]

Note: Todjaeger beat me to the punch while I composed the following, but I'll post this anyway as a long-winded 'me too'.

Can you provide a reference please?

He might be referring to YS253, which says "Even though counterspells are an evocation effect, they can be used to disrupt thaumaturgy."  This could be interpreted as meaning that counterspells can only be an effect of Evocation.  My thinking is that they are using 'counterspell' as a terminology that specifically refers to the use of fast Evocation spells to disrupt magical constructs (and making a point that this includes presumeably weak Thaumaturgical ones), while at the same time taking for granted that everyone realizes that Thaumaturgy can do the same type of thing (albeit with a different name, perhaps 'dispelling', and probably not against an Evocation spell unless it was a very long-duration Evocation).

[ARedthorn]

Biggest problem I see with counterspelling with Thaum... is speed. Most of the time you need to counterspell something, you're in a bit of a hurry. You don't have time to set up a big (or even minor) ritual to stop the grey-smoke-of-death approaching you.

That said, it seems fairly obvious that thaum counterspelling would be possible, and exactly appropriate for countering, say, a heavy lasting curse....

(click to show/hide)

like the one we see him considering dispelling at Wrigley

(Curses short story).

[Todjaeger]

Biggest problem I see with counterspelling with Thaum... is speed. Most of the time you need to counterspell something, you're in a bit of a hurry. You don't have time to set up a big (or even minor) ritual to stop the grey-smoke-of-death approaching you.

That said, it seems fairly obvious that thaum counterspelling would be possible, and exactly appropriate for countering, say, a heavy lasting curse....

(click to show/hide)

like the one we see him considering dispelling at Wrigley

(Curses short story).

Actually I'd disagree there, but some might consider my argument and source of disagreement more semantics than anything else.

With a Counterspell, assuming sufficient shifts of Power is put into it, the Counterspell Evocation disrupts the energies of the spell being countered.  When an Evocation spell is being successfully countered, the Evocation spell doesn't go off and there's no effect.  With a Thaumaturgy spell with a duration, the situation is a bit different. 

In this case, an Evocation Counterspell which is successful only suppresses the magical effect(s) of the Thaumaturgy working, it doesn't effect the duration of the working.  This means that once the active Evocation Counterspell is dropped, the Thaumaturgy working resumes effect assuming it still has shifts of duration remaining.  Given that a Thaumaturgy working starts out higher up on the time, with something like a Ward starting out ~10 time increments higher than an Evocation...  It is likely that even a successfully Counterspelled Thaumaturgy effect would resume once the source of the Counterspell left.

This is where I have been differentiating between a Counterspell and a Dispel.  With Thaumaturgy (and some successful Lore checks) a character could potentially pick apart a Thaumaturgy working completely, so that the spell collapses and is Dispelled/over completely instead of resuming effect once the Counterspell source leaves.

-Cheers

[Watson]

YS253 says that the...

"Counterspelling is basically an attack against the energy of the spell itself..."

...so an Thaumaturgical equivalent should be possible, as long as one can get a symbolic link to the energy of the spell (as it is that which is being attacked here).

I see no real difference in a Counterspell based on Evocation or Thaumaturgy, really. The benefits of a Thaumaturgical counterspell would be that more powerful ongoing effects can be targeted more safely and that the caster do not have to have a line of sight to the target (and some "targets", like a curse, would be impossible to get a line of sight to...  . The drawbacks are of course time and the need for symbolic links. 

When an Evocation spell is being successfully countered, the Evocation spell doesn't go off and there's no effect.  With a Thaumaturgy spell with a duration, the situation is a bit different.

As I read the rules, an Evocation Counterspell can't be cast to counter a direct effect (like an attack) - only an effect with a duration (like a Maneuver or a Block) can be countered. So the spell with a duration has already "gone off" when the caster tries to cast the Counterspell - I can't see that a Wizard can Counterspell an Evocation as it being cast.   

In this case, an Evocation Counterspell which is successful only suppresses the magical effect(s) of the Thaumaturgy working, it doesn't effect the duration of the working.  This means that once the active Evocation Counterspell is dropped, the Thaumaturgy working resumes effect assuming it still has shifts of duration remaining.

So if an ongoing effects from a Thaumaturgical ritual of 10 shifts (lasting, say an afternoon) is hit by a 10 shift Counterspell (based on Evocation or, if allowed, Thaumaturgy), the effect of the ritual will be stopped for one exchange and then resumed? That is not the way I read the rules. If that was the case, a Counterspell is useless, and must be re-cast every exchange.

Actuall, the example on YS253 says that if the Counterspell succeeds, the effects of the ongoing spell is gone (not stopped, to be resumed)

....His Conviction is Superb (+5), so he can
safely summon that much power, and he gets
the +2 he needs on his Discipline roll to control
it. Poof! The snakes pop out of existence.

[sinker]

In this case, an Evocation Counterspell which is successful only suppresses the magical effect(s) of the Thaumaturgy working, it doesn't effect the duration of the working.  This means that once the active Evocation Counterspell is dropped, the Thaumaturgy working resumes effect assuming it still has shifts of duration remaining.  Given that a Thaumaturgy working starts out higher up on the time, with something like a Ward starting out ~10 time increments higher than an Evocation...  It is likely that even a successfully Counterspelled Thaumaturgy effect would resume once the source of the Counterspell left.

This is where I have been differentiating between a Counterspell and a Dispel.  With Thaumaturgy (and some successful Lore checks) a character could potentially pick apart a Thaumaturgy working completely, so that the spell collapses and is Dispelled/over completely instead of resuming effect once the Counterspell source leaves.

I really am wondering where you get this idea from. I don't see any evidence of this in the RAW, and it seems like a terribly odd way of looking at it.