ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Mr. Death on February 01, 2012, 04:44:47 PM
-
So, two questions about possible defenses:
1. Can a Warden Sword be used, with its 6-shift counterspell ability, to parry or otherwise defend against magic spells using the Weapons skill?
2. This springs from a Mega Man X-based game I ran using an adaptation of the Dresden rulebook. One character was a slow, big, but heavily armored fighter who had a Toughness power and high Endurance. Since she didn't have much of an Athletics score (especially with the penalty from Hulking Size), I allowed her player to defend using Endurance instead, on the basis that she was "bracing for impact". But since this would involve her still actually being "hit," instead of treating successful defenses like normal, I ruled that a successful defense would still count as being "hit", with the defense shifts being stacking with her normal armor to lessen the impact, so defending with a roll of 5 (with her Armor:3) against a roll of 3 (with a Weapon:7 attack) resulted in 2 shifts of stress--much better than, say, the 6 shifts she was likely to take by trying (and failing) to dodge. To compensate, there were compels involved when the player tried this against particularly powerful attacks (she couldn't, say, hunker down and take a train to the face), or when it involved her Catch.
Another character was a gooey shapeshifter who would similarly use Endurance, with the justification that he was letting shots harmlessly pass through him--though once in a while there was a compel involved when he tried this against things that involved his Catch.
Does this sound Kosher?
-
1. No, except yes. A counterspell is a specific thing that is not the same as a defence roll. But since what Weapons can defend against is basically just GM fiat, it can.
2. This is what stunts are for. In fact, I've written a pair of stunts that do almost exactly what you're asking for. They're on the Cleaning Up The Stunt List thread.
-
1. A normal counterspell evocation, I'll agree with you. But the counterspell on a Warden's Sword is an enchanted item effect, and thus is pulling the trigger on an instantly-present effect. Same way that you couldn't cast an evocation to give yourself a block as your defense roll, but, say, a leather duster enchanted for that purpose would activate instantly.
2. At the time, I had considered it as an effect of their respective powersets--the first only got to do it because their whole concept and powerset was based on being huge and tough, the second because his powerset was better suited to it than dodging. But in the future, the stunt idea seems good. What are the names of the stunts you wrote?
Edit: Oop, nevermind, I found it. Yeah, "Shrug It Off" is pretty much exactly what I had in mind.
-
1. A normal counterspell evocation, I'll agree with you. But the counterspell on a Warden's Sword is an enchanted item effect, and thus is pulling the trigger on an instantly-present effect. Same way that you couldn't cast an evocation to give yourself a block as your defense roll, but, say, a leather duster enchanted for that purpose would activate instantly.
That would be possible, if Counterspell could be used against an incoming evocation. However, in the margin text on YS253 Billy says that, because of the assessment requirement, counterspells can't be done reactively.
-
The assessment he's talking about is to determine how much power you have to put into the counterspell for it to be effective. The Warden Sword's enchantment is a set amount of six shifts, so that assessment would be pointless since the counterspell effect couldn't be changed anyway.
In the books, the Wardens clearly use the counterspell effect without any need for that assessment, they just swing at the zombie and poof, its magic is gone.
-
The assessment he's talking about is to determine how much power you have to put into the counterspell for it to be effective. The Warden Sword's enchantment is a set amount of six shifts, so that assessment would be pointless since the counterspell effect couldn't be changed anyway.
I don't think the sword can undo a spell "per se", it helps you (with 3 free shifts) when "you" want to do it.
In the books, the Wardens clearly use the counterspell effect without any need for that assessment, they just swing at the zombie and poof, its magic is gone.
Well, the assessment in this case is a free action, and after all rules are just abstractions needed in order to play the game. As a GM you can do what you want. For example i don't have any problems if a pg wants to stop an incoming lance of fire with another spell (maybe one based on water). It's cool and much more "like the books".
-
I don't think the sword can undo a spell "per se", it helps you (with 3 free shifts) when "you" want to do it.
No, the sword's effect is listed explicitly as a 6-shift counterspell in the rulebook, with the caveat that the counterspell only really works on things the sword can cut through.
-
Counterspell =/= defence roll. It just isn't the same thing.
-
Well, no. I just meant as a way to justify the Wardens' swords in particular as being used to defend against magic as opposed to a mundane sword with no counterspell ability. You'd use the Weapons skill to roll defense, justifying it with the antimagic abilities of the sword. I'm not talking about using that 6-shift counterspell as a block.
-
Ask your table.
-
Another take on this: independant of the assessment, Counterspelling is still an action. When someone else is casting a spell at you, you can't counterspell mostly because its not your action yet.
I see two reasonable ways around this. One is to declare your action to be pre-emptive counterspelling -- this basically amounts to holding your action to counterspell your apponents spell as it's being cast. However ... wouldn't just doing a block result in the same result?
A second option might be to create a power (magical stunt) that allows you to 'use up' your next action in order to cast a counterspell now. There are several stunts that allow you to do this general type of thing (aborting yout next action to perform a maneuver or attack now), so perhaps it isn't unreasonable.
Either of these would require the table's agreement, as they are not strictly RAW.