 Counterspelling, Limits seem superfluous |
  |
 Sep 28 2007, 05:36 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 56 Joined: 19-July 07 Member No.: 12,304  |
Maybe I'm missing something in the Counterspelling subsection in 4th Edition Sourcebook, but the limitations on it seem rather trivial.
As far as I can tell, a Mage can be protecting any number of people he can see for an indefinite period of time. The only apparent requirement is that he must state he is protecting someone each time they re-enter his LOS. And his entire pool is available to each of those people, regardless of how many spells his pool is used to defend against. Is this how its meant to be played? It seems like one mage can virtually nullify any number of other mages' direct impact simply by having a decent Counterspelling skill and focus (an easy 8-10 dice of "armor" for every character he can see). |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 05:59 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Another Counterspelling question: does it work against critter powers? (Citation?)
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 06:31 PM
Post
#3
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 30-November 04 Member No.: 6,858 |
That's how we play it. If you add multiple mages/mystic adepts and spirits with the magical guard power, all contributing to a counterspell teamwork test, it gets crazy. A well organised party can bring down some major spell defence. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 06:40 PM
Post
#4
|
|||||
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 56 Joined: 19-July 07 Member No.: 12,304 |
Doesn't that pretty much make using any targetted spells against the PCs futile? And one would imagine if the PCs can do it, that so would the NPC mages... so all a mage becomes good for is summoning spirits and offering Counterspelling... it seems like Counterspelling is too effective in SR4. In contrast, counterspelling in D20 is relatively pointless. Has anyone found some middle ground? Or are directed spells too powerful without the nearly omnipotent power of Counterspelling to combat it? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 28 2007, 06:47 PM
Post
#5
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 30-November 04 Member No.: 6,858 |
It can make it pretty difficult, yes. But that's why you 'geek the mage first!' |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 06:51 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 609 Joined: 13-August 07 Member No.: 12,615 |
Since an adept's Spell Resistance power only works against "Innate Spell" in terms of critters, I've always assumed that counterspelling works the same way.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 06:55 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
The back-up plan Group: Retired Admins Posts: 8,423 Joined: 15-January 03 From: San Diego Member No.: 3,910 |
Any critter power that makes a spellcasting test would be hindered by counter-spelling. Powers that do not make a spellcasting test would not be effected.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 06:55 PM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 30-November 04 Member No.: 6,858 |
It only works against spells, yes.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 07:02 PM
Post
#9
|
|||
|
The back-up plan Group: Retired Admins Posts: 8,423 Joined: 15-January 03 From: San Diego Member No.: 3,910 |
Too powerful may not be the right wording, but without counter-spelling direct spells are very hard to resist. Average Mage rolls between 7-10 dice, specialists can crank that up to 16+. The average resist roll is 3-5 dice. Without counterspelling, the mage will almost always drive the victim into the ground with hits. Counterspelling levels the playing field by providing more dice to the resistance test, effectively bringing the numbers back up to a even footing. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 07:13 PM
Post
#10
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421 |
I generally work multiple counter spellers like a teamwork test. Everyone but the guy with the higher dice pool rolls, then he rolls his normal dice plus dice = to their successes. Seems to work out well. It mitigates a mages direct damage capability, but they can do alot of other stuff and really it's not too often that opposing forces pull together multiple mages.
Also, to get 8-10 dice they need well above "decent skill and a focus", presuming counterspelling isn't one of your fives or a 6 you can at most get 7 dice at character creation, 9 vs one type of spell I guess. Force 3 Counterspelling foci is availability 12 so, counterspelling as your 6, spec vs. combat probably and a focus and yeah, you might actually make it a 50/50 to resist completely. But that is a relatively large investment. 26 BP for the skill 3 bp for the focus binding, and then 3 more bp for the cost of the focus, also keep in mind that is your ONLY 6 in skills. So it limits you there. Chris |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 07:49 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 30-November 04 Member No.: 6,858 |
Having it at 4 with a combat spell specialisation is a must though.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 07:59 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421 |
I didn't bother to specialize till a few sessions in and it didn't hurt much, but then again my GM is an idiot when it comes to the magic side of SR so instead of having stun/mana/power ball the enemy mages all have fireball or lightning ball or what have you, so our armor helps AND the drain is way worse for them.
Chris |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 08:30 PM
Post
#13
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 212 Joined: 30-November 04 Member No.: 6,858 |
I'm paranoid about combat spells and if i'm playing a caster i buy it for myself.
The fact that it helps everyone else is incidental... |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 08:49 PM
Post
#14
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 573 Joined: 17-September 07 Member No.: 13,319 |
Possible house rule if you need it: extending Counterspell to others requires ongoing concentration with the same penalty as Sustaining a spell, -2 to all other dice pools. Harsh house rule: -2 per individual protected by your Counterspell.
If most mages specialize in Counterspell vs. Combat Magic, then all the better for those of us who primarily use (Mass) Confusion, Mind Control, Decrease Wisdom (each time you get any net hits, the more effective you'll be on the same target next time), etc. Also, just fine for mages who mostly support and buff their teammates with Increase Stat, Combat Sense, mid-combat Heal, Invisibility, etc., or those who buff themselves and then use a weapon. "Geek the mage first" is an obvious tactic, but if the enemy's mage put all their mojo into buffs and Counterspell, uses a weapon in combat, and doesn't stand out as the only one not visibly augmented, then how do you pick out the mage? Could a mage wear a *fake* chromed arm, to look like a cybered sammie and thus "obviously" not a mage? Or some other apparent 'ware? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 28 2007, 08:54 PM
Post
#15
|
|||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Astral perception. Also, 'ware is hardly a perfect indication that someone is non-magical. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 08:56 PM
Post
#16
|
|||
|
Free Spirit Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,944 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Bloomington, IN UCAS Member No.: 1,920 |
Carry a big gun. Or an SMG and Ballistic Shield + Helmet. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 28 2007, 11:00 PM
Post
#17
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 734 Joined: 30-August 05 Member No.: 7,646 |
You don't have to geek the mage, just block LOS. Therefore the standard divide and conquer tactic is still a great idea. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 29 2007, 12:15 AM
Post
#18
|
|||
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
I wish there was a way to balance that kind of thing out better. I had a dwarf cybermage who had about 20 drain resistance dice when using his foci and centering but still decided against using AOE Indirect Elemental spells. After all, about the only thing I figured it'd be good for is potentially cooking drones, but at the end of the day, that's still a job better left to grenades, street samurai, and hackers. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 29 2007, 12:37 AM
Post
#19
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,089 Joined: 4-October 05 Member No.: 7,813 |
ironically, it's actually a much better choice when you're dealing with people who have high counterspelling on them, because counterspelling just gives more damage resistance dice against indirect spells, whereas it can totally shut down direct spells. so in the context of this topic, indirect is actually pretty good =D |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 29 2007, 12:38 AM
Post
#20
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,883 Joined: 16-December 06 Member No.: 10,386 |
Or, you could you know, just shoot the guy.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 29 2007, 07:54 AM
Post
#21
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,269 Joined: 18-September 06 Member No.: 9,421 |
I use indirent spells when I know someone has high enough counterspelling to be a problem and when I need to effect drones/vehicles and people at the same time. Lightning Ball works wonders on vehicles and their inhabitants.
Chris |
|
|
|
|
Sep 30 2007, 07:46 PM
Post
#22
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 7,116 Joined: 26-February 02 Member No.: 1,449 |
That rule would just make combat mages more likely to only protect themselves with counterspelling, and make dedicated support mages the only ones who will even consider extending counterspelling to others. And it would unfairly penalize the players as compared to the opposition, which would be more likely to have specialists dedicated solely to magical defense. It would only be a feasible countermeasure if you had a game like ThreeGee described, with multiple people normally using teamwork on spell defense. But on the other hand, such an unusually magic-heavy group should be able to overwhelm most magical opposition. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 07:54 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.