Balance Inplications of Faster Counterspelling

[InFerrumVeritas]

Cool, thanks guys.  I think I'll allow a "blind" counterspell in place of a defensive roll if anyone actively wants to.

[crusher_bob]

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'.

[Belial666]

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.

[UmbraLux]

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.

[Belial666]

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.

[UmbraLux]

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.

[Belial666]

Blocks are agains the attack roll, not the damage. Armor uses different rules than a block and is also priced differently.

[InFerrumVeritas]

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.

[Silverblaze]

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,

[crusher_bob]

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.

[Becq]

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.

[polkaneverdies]

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)

[Michael Sandy]

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."