Might Over Magic (Help me with a Power)

[InFerrumVeritas]

I want to spice up one of my recurring characters.  Sometimes he's an ally of the PCs, sometimes he's a foe.  He's an agent of Monoc, and has no spellcasting.  I'd like to give him an edge against our practitioners, if it comes to that.  Here's the power that I'm toying with (in his case, it'd be applied to an IoP):

Might Over Magic [-2]
Effects:
Disruptive strikes. Your blows are capable of disrupting spells, provided the effect can physically be attacked.  Roll Might plus the Weapon Rating the melee weapon you are using against the spell’s control (in the case of effects from enchanted items or thaumaturgy, treat the spell’s control equal to the spell’s strength).  If you have any Strength powers, you may add their stress bonus to the roll.  If successful, the spell's effect ends as if counterspelled.  This may be done instead of a defense roll. 

Notes: On the axe, it would be Might+2 plus the damage bonus from any Strength powers you may have.

[THE_ANGRY_GAMER]

I'd make it a counterspell, rather than anything fancy. Just say he can counterspell with Might+2.

[InFerrumVeritas]

I'd make it a counterspell, rather than anything fancy. Just say he can counterspell with Might+2.

The problem with this is that I would like it to be done as part of a defensive action, and that doesn't really work.

[Silverblaze]

Could use standard counterspell rules.  Adjust the cost so it can be done defensively.  Have the counterspell effect be based on might + weapon instead.

 To make it more palatable to players put it on an IoP?

[InFerrumVeritas]

Could use standard counterspell rules.  Adjust the cost so it can be done defensively.  Have the counterspell effect be based on might + weapon instead.

 To make it more palatable to players put it on an IoP?

I don't understand this post at all.  I would like to use standard counterspell rules, but the issue with using them would be calculating stress if the defensive action fails.  If I'm rolling against power (and not the targeting control roll) and fail, then what?  If I'm not rolling, I don't like it.  I would know exactly how strong of a spell I can stop, with no chance of risk. 

This is something I ran into when a player wanted a stunt that allowed a counterspell to be done as a defensive action.  On a successful counterspell, there are no problems.  But if you fail?  Do you then also get to roll a defense roll?  I don't think this should give characters a second chance to succeed. 

Since the issue stemmed from counterspells working against power, while defense rolls worked against targeting (read: control), I simply changed it so that it in the case of evocations it would work against the control (which would likely be at least as high as the power in the majority of situations, if not higher, weakening the power a small but acceptable amount).

I don't understand what you mean by adjusting the cost.  I think -2 is pretty fair.  It's not as good as full evocation or other -3 options, but is certainly better than every -1 option in the game.  How do you think the power should be costed?

In my original post, I said that it was going to be part of an IoP (in this case, an axe).  But I didn't want a critique of the entire axe, just this bit.

[ways and means]

Magic Breaker [-1] You can break magic, this extends the lifting and breaking trapping of the might skill so it can be used to defend against magic. 

It is basically a trapping extension stunt it let's you use your lifting and breaking trapping of might to defend against magic, it does what you want it to and it also synergies with strength powers like you want it too.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Magic Breaker [-1] You can break magic, this extends the lifting and breaking trapping of the might skill so it can be used to defend against magic. 

It is basically a trapping extension stunt it let's you use your lifting and breaking trapping of might to defend against magic, it does what you want it to and it also synergies with strength powers like you want it too.

I tested it this way.  It's too good.  For -5 refresh, you have virtually complete resistance to magic (like PI would give at the same cost) because you can basically be rolling at 11 (Superb Might+Supernatural Strength), higher than many spell's power will be.  Mythic strength give +12!

Does that stunt work against power, control, or an arbitrary number?   

[Centarion]

Unless I am misunderstanding (which I easily may be) for -5 refresh and an apex skill you roll at +9 (this seems no more broken than a character with 5 athletics and supernatural speed getting a +7 against all attacks, including magic for -4 refresh). Since it says you can use the trapping to defend against magic it is pretty clear that you roll it against the targeting roll (control) when defending against evocation. I may also allow someone with a power like this to use might to counterspell existing spells, in which case you use the normal counterspell rules.

[ways and means]

 

I tested it this way.  It's too good.  For -5 refresh, you have virtually complete resistance to magic (like PI would give at the same cost) because you can basically be rolling at 11 (Superb Might+Supernatural Strength), higher than many spell's power will be.  Mythic strength give +12!

Does that stunt work against power, control, or an arbitrary number?   

Its a defense roll so it goes against accuracy, as for balance wise I agree that for 1 refresh it is too good with high levels of strength (unless you perceive the costs of high levels of strength as part of the pre-req for it being too good) it is too good but for 3 refresh you can be actually immune to magic (including all rituals and aspect stacking etc) so i don't think the power should be more than 2 refresh at any strength level. 

[InFerrumVeritas]

Unless I am misunderstanding (which I easily may be) for -5 refresh and an apex skill you roll at +9 (this seems no more broken than a character with 5 athletics and supernatural speed getting a +7 against all attacks, including magic for -4 refresh). Since it says you can use the trapping to defend against magic it is pretty clear that you roll it against the targeting roll (control) when defending against evocation. I may also allow someone with a power like this to use might to counterspell existing spells, in which case you use the normal counterspell rules.

For -5 refresh and an apex skill you roll at +11 (Supernatural Strength adds +6).  Otherwise, yes.  It's +8 for -3 refresh and apex skill (with Inhuman Strength). 

But what you're describing is almost entirely what my original power suggested, except that mine uses Weapon rating (so Strength abilities provide +2/level rather than +3/+6/+12, but you may add +1 to +3 depending on what you're using).  Thus, it scales a bit better, maxing out at +13 rather than +17.  And I explicitly spell out how it interacts with attacks rather than leaving it to interpretation.  I figured -2 would be fair, but the argument here seems to be for -1.

[Centarion]

I feel like

Magic Breaker [-1] You can break magic, this extends the lifting and breaking trapping of the might skill so it can be used to defend against magic. 

is totally fair. You are spending one refresh for a trapping change. I would say it would have to be a power, not a stunt (mortals cant do that), but form a balance perspective it is less broken than the footwork stunt of fists (This lets you defend against all magic with Might, that lets you defend against all ranged attacks, including most magic, with fists).

Having a high might score is absolutely part of the cost of using this power effectively. Without spending one of your apex skill slots on might this power is almost completely worthless. The only thing potentially broken about this power is the stacking of inhuman strength's breaking perk (which is valuated like a non-combat stunt) with this (now) combat trapping. If you are using it in combat I would likely halve the value (to +1, +3, +6) so that this would max out at +11. However if using it to counter spell out of combat, I may allow the full value. Again this assumes a cost of -1.

[Sanctaphrax]

The rough idea seems workable, but there are issues.

For one thing, rolling against control is bad. It makes the Power useless against rituals, and forces groups to record the control of lasting Evocations.

Also, it's not clear exactly how the defence roll function works.

Also, can this be used with guns and natural weapons?

[InFerrumVeritas]

The rough idea seems workable, but there are issues.

For one thing, rolling against control is bad. It makes the Power useless against rituals, and forces groups to record the control of lasting Evocations.

Also, it's not clear exactly how the defence roll function works.

Also, can this be used with guns and natural weapons?

Yes to natural weapons, no to guns (the original post specifically states "melee" weapon, so I guess you could use the weapon rating of a pistol whip or rifle butt).

Against thaumaturgical effects (rituals) and enchanted items, you'd roll against the power.

As a defense roll, you'd roll Might+Weapon Rating vs. the Control roll (targeting).  If successful, take stress (Control-your total roll+applicable weapon rating) as normal.

I'm thinking about changing the language a bit to:
Roll Might plus the weapon rating of the melee weapon you are using, if you have one (this includes natural weapons, such as claws), against the spell's power.  If you have any Strength powers, you may add their stress bonus to the roll.  You may also use this power as a defensive action, instead rolling against the spell's targeting roll.

Is that clearer?

[Sanctaphrax]

Still two problems.

1. Not all spells have targeting rolls.
2. Some natural weapons are ranged.

And the defence roll thing is still unclear. Can I block zone attacks completely with this? What happens if I want to use this against environmental attacks created by magic? Etc.

PS: Sorry about the misreading.

[InFerrumVeritas]

Still two problems.

1. Not all spells have targeting rolls.
2. Some natural weapons are ranged.

And the defence roll thing is still unclear. Can I block zone attacks completely with this? What happens if I want to use this against environmental attacks created by magic? Etc.

PS: Sorry about the misreading.

Ah, good question.  I would say that zone attacks don't fall under the first sentence of my original description (which I meant for the rewording to leave intact, sorry). 

Your blows are capable of disrupting spells, provided the effect can physically be attacked.

So based on that, I would say no to zone attacks as a rule.  But there may be exceptions, I suppose.  The second part, which includes natural weapons, is meant to be superseded by the first, meaning that if it must be a melee weapon which may be a natural weapon.

All attack spells have targeting rolls (even ritual attacks include this in their complexity).  You only make defense rolls against attacks (the roll against maneuvers is an opposed roll, but not a defense one).  If it is not an attack spell, you roll against the spell's power.

Clearer?