ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: InFerrumVeritas on September 14, 2011, 02:21:19 PM
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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:).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?)
-
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.
-
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.
-
Cool, thanks guys. I think I'll allow a "blind" counterspell in place of a defensive roll if anyone actively wants to.
-
Here's how I'd implement reactive/defensive counter spelling:
1: like evocation blocks, you can use them reactively
2: you can't use both a reactive counterspell and a dodge or a reactive evocation defense at the same time. However, preexisting blocks, and 'instant' enchanted items defense can also be used.
3: the counterspell opposes the power and not the control of the opposing spell, so it's easier to counter high control, low power spells than it is to block them.
3a: partially effective counterspells reduce the damage from spells. They also work for everyone targeted by the spell, so, for example, if you countered power 4 zone wide effect with a power 3 counterspell, everyone in the zone would be facing a power 1 attack.
4: reactive counterspells must be made 'blind', without the game mechanical knowledge of what the power of the incoming spell is.
5: they cause stress like other forms of evocation.
-------------------------------
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).
Anyone who pays the points can have a defense with whatever skill they can justify. Evocation and channeling are not free. It's like saying that anyone should be able to use a motorcycle as a melee weapon. The poeple who can already paid for the strength power to let them do that; it was 'free'.
-
3a: partially effective counterspells reduce the damage from spells.
This isn't how counterspells work in the books at all - and neither blocks work that way either.
-
This isn't how counterspells work in the books at all - and neither blocks work that way either.
I'm not clear on what you mean by the last half of your comment so clarifying - blocks do reduce the power of an attack which penetrates.
Don't have the book handy but, if I remember correctly, it's shown in an example with Harry putting a veil on Molly.
-
Blocks do NOT reduce the power of the attack. They defend against the attack roll and indirectly reduce any extra stress from a high attack roll. What you are thinking is armor. And armor costs 2 shifts to reduce damage by 1 point.
-
Blocks do NOT reduce the power of the attack. They defend against the attack roll and indirectly reduce any extra stress from a high attack roll. What you are thinking is armor. And armor costs 2 shifts to reduce damage by 1 point.
:) Armor is a block. (So are veils and grapples.)
Blocks are set up to prevent something - usually something specific. Common blocks are against perception, movement, and damage though they can also block specific types of actions.
-
Blocks are agains the attack roll, not the damage. Armor uses different rules than a block and is also priced differently.
-
I'm not asking about reactive blocks. I wouldn't allow that just for the sake of balance (I would with a stunt/power though, if a caster wanted to spend a point of refresh for it).
I just never see counterspells used. I'd like to see them more often.
-
I agree with Belial. This just compounds the issue of powerful spell casters being harder to deal with.
I assume anyone with magic can cast these counter spells? That makes Fae nastier too.
Do what you want at your table with your gaming group, but I for one think reactive spells (not from an item) is a bad idea. I'd list my reasons but Belial pretty much covered it all already,
-
Evocation blocks as armor is priced differently because it both stacks with other defenses and isn't 'broken' like regular evocation blocks are. The defensive counterspell has neither of these advantages. I just added 3a to clarify that partially effective counterspells still did something, as opposed to not doing anything.
----------------------------
As for making wizards more powerful, no it makes them less powerful. Since it allows defending spell casters 2 different options to defend against evocation attacks. Right now, the best combat wizard build is attack focus as high as possible, and as much power as you can get cheaply. There's no real advantage in getting more power on attack spells when you can have more focus instead. Allowing reactive counterspells to go against the power of the spell at least makes the 'all offensive control build' not the best idea ever.
----------------------
As for reactive evocation blocks, I have no real problem with them. The limit on wizards is always mental stress. Leaving stacked enchanted item defense while not allowing reactive blocks leaves power-gamed wizards just a powerful, and limits 'casual' wizards. Not really a good rules space to move into.
-
I think that instead of performing a full counterspell as a reflexive action, it would make more sense to create a house rule that would allow casters to use Discipline or Conviction in place of their normal defensive ability when defending against spells. Basically they would be casting a quick burst of energy in an attempt to disrupt the energies of the incoming spell. It would be less efficient than a block (because it would not stay in play even if it withstood the attack), and it wouldn't carry the certainty of a counterspell (because it might only reduce the power of the spell, rather than eliminate it completely).
There would be two ways of handling this. One would be to houserule it as a default capability of Evokers, in which case it should cost a mental stress and allow you to substitute Conviction in place of your normal defensive ability when defending against spells.
The second way would be to create a -1 power that adds the "defense against spellcasting" trapping to Conviction. In this case I'm not sure you need to charge the mental stress. (Because it's paid for by loss of Fate, instead.)
Note that I picked Conviction over Discipline because it seems that this would be a more instinctive action that benefits from being able to pump out power at the right time, rather than carryfully shaping the power, though Discipline could be argued for. Also, I think that regardless, allowing spec and other bonuses to add to such defenses would be a balance problem, so I would lean toward disallowing them for the reasons meantioned above: that reflexive counterspelling relies more on raw capacity to project power rather than the efficiency or skill that comes by training and is represented by power or control bonuses.
-
I most likely wouldn't allow them at all, but if I did they would be all or nothing for effectiveness and dangerous to mess up.
Harry's thoughts when he was about to try and counter Cassius' snake spell on Susan spells out the dangers. Not enough power and it can strengthen the spell. Too much power and the spell can blowup.
Not enough power= add counterspells power to incoming spell
Too much power= spell becomes fallout (possibly just your extra shifts)
-
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.
There IS a model for using consequences to fuel a powerful spell.
Its called a Death Curse. I don't think you can invoke that many consequences and THEN say "Oh, it just takes me out."