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.
I can't see any reason why a counterspell can't be cast using Thaumaturgy. What are your comments?
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.
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."
Can you provide a reference please?
Even though counterspells are an evocation effect, they can be used to disrupt thaumaturgy.
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).
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....(Curses short story).(click to show/hide)
"Counterspelling is basically an attack against the energy of the spell itself..."
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.
....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.
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.
...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.
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.
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)
While such an attempt may only be temporary, it can buy the wizard precious time.
One could certainly use the Thaumaturgy rules to create a ritual to cancel out or dispel an existing ritual working with a duration, but I don't see a feasible way of using Thaumaturgy to counter/cancel Evocation. Given that time exchanges used for Evocation start at Instant, and a fight using Evocation would usually last less than a minute even though it could have multiple exchanges, while the time increment for Thaumaturgy generally starts at A Minute and goes up from there.
Going further with this explanation, the example in YS has Harry Counterspelling an Evocation (or possibly Evocation-based Sponsored Magic) cast by a Denarian. In this instance, unless the Denarian had spent shifts to sustain the Evocation, once Harry successfully Counterspelled it, the Evocation would just wink out.
This is of particular importance with respect to Wards and other long-duration castings which can have extended durations and special conditions like Wardflames and keyed links which increase the overall difficulty of the spell, but don't add directly to the defensive power of the spell.
Assuming I understand you correctly and you are talking about casting times, and not duration, I'm not sure that this is true anymore. It seems to me that the book makes plenty of mention of thaumaturgy taking place during conflict. The more I think about it, the more I wonder if the preparation is likely the aspect that they intend taking time, while the casting takes as much time as evocation (at least in terms of summoning and controlling energy once).
Of course this is all something that I've come to through the whole of my experience, with no immediate evidence backing it up, so it doesn't make a great rebuttal. Just something to think about.
Are you suggesting that there is any way to cast a counterspell with duration being equal (Evocation vs evocation, or ritual vs ritual) in which one could successfully counter, but then have the countered spell return? To successfully counterspell don't you need to match the shifts of power in the original spell (which would include any shifts devoted to duration)?
I can kind-of understand the other argument you were making (or at least what I thought you were making) about evocation not working on the same duration track as thaumaturgy, but when we are talking about evocation vs evocation I can't think of any situation where the counter wouldn't just fail, or remove the spell entirely.
You need to equal or surpass the power of the effect you want to disrupt, and you roll it just like you would roll an attack spell.
Ok, I can see where you're getting that interpretation. I disagree with it, but that's fine.
20 shifts of effect from an evocation attack against an 8-shift block (ward) requires only 15 shifts of power, assuming equal control.
20 shifts of effect from a thaumaturgy attack against an 8-shift block, on the other hand, requires 28 shifts of complexity.
I may be mistaken, and I don't have my books on hand at the moment, but I was under the impression that the block from Wards DO reduce effects directed at the ward itself.