Counterspelling Options

[DireRadiant]

Again normally yes but in this case the skill in question isn't being used as a skill and therefore isn't being modified.

Basically SPELL DEFENSE doens't involve a skill roll. It is a seperate and unique mechanic that uses the counterspelling rank of the defending mage as bonus dice. The bonus dice from specializations only apply when your testing the skill.

Still hung up on this "skill roll" thing which doesn't exist. It's an opposed test. Which is defined. There are opposed tests that involve skills, Just because most of the Opposed tests involve skills doesn't make them all skill tests. If you look at the definition of Opposed tests in the beginning of the rule book when dice tests are defined, you'll even notice they describe attribute only tests, which are Opposed tests that involve no skills at all.

[LurkerOutThere]

If you want to deny the player a couple extra dice because of your interpretation of the precedence in adding modifiers, go for it.

I give your straw man a 3 of 5. Not only am I going by the actual text in the book but anything that peanlizes the players also panalizes the opposition. This pretty goes back to my signature. There is a basic misunderstanding of the rules that is contributing to a ridiculous number of counterspelling dice, many of which are not actually supported by rules. I can relate at least one table at Gencon and one at Origins where the plays thought all their counterspelling stacked and further thought counterspelling was always automatic.

Dire: The part about skill test is out of the specialization rules.

'Specializations add 2 dice to any tests made for that skill when the specialization is applicable to the test.'

Btw i stole the quote from X-Kalibur as I'm AFB but i'm going to assume it's right. Here's a question: Can anyone think of any other situation out of a book where something happens to a character and you roll another characters skills and attributes rather then the affected character. Something with in book examples would be great but I realize that's a tenuous stretch.

[killfr3nzy]

I'm way too tired to even try and logic this out, but... Healing?
By your ruling would the Mage not get a Spec bonus because the Target doesn't have a Magic attribute? (I think that was one of your previous arguements.)

[Dakka Dakka]

I'm way too tired to even try and logic this out, but... Healing?
By your ruling would the Mage not get a Spec bonus because the Target doesn't have a Magic attribute? (I think that was one of your previous arguements.)

Huh? Healing is a skill test by the character employing the spell or First Aid. Now Medicine used for quicker recovery is something else. There however the skill test by the healer, give bonus dice to the one to recover. It is pretty clear if the patient has suitable injuries a specialization would apply to the skill test.
For counterspelling it still boils down to whether the resistance roll of Attribute+ someone else's Counterspelling is a skill test.

Specializations add 2 dice to any tests made for that skill when the specialization is applicable to the test.

Does it say anywhere that Attribute and skill must come from the same character? I don't think so. The resistance roll has a skill in it so it is a skill test. For me this is obvious.

[Mäx]

For counterspelling it still boils down to whether the resistance roll of Attribute+ someone else's Counterspelling is a skill test.

As has been stated more then once allready there is no such think as a skill test.
It all boils down to whether a spell defence test that inculudes the counterspelling dice in to a the roll is a test made for counterspelling.
And i really cant understand the logic behind the claim that it's not.

[Fatum]

Here's a question: Can anyone think of any other situation out of a book where something happens to a character and you roll another characters skills and attributes rather then the affected character. Something with in book examples would be great but I realize that's a tenuous stretch.

Providing aid to your comrade when he's falling off a cliff you're climbing together, and you're tied together by safety equipment. Just the first thing to come to my mind.
Also, could you please explain why would the Counterspelling skill have specializations listed if you think they never apply.

[Shinobi Killfist]

Providing aid to your comrade when he's falling off a cliff you're climbing together, and you're tied together by safety equipment. Just the first thing to come to my mind.
Also, could you please explain why would the Counterspelling skill have specializations listed if you think they never apply.

They would apply, just not to basic spell defense. They help you dispel spells, and in the case of a team work test you are actually making a test so they would apply. Normally there is no test you are just giving them 4 dice or whatever. A resistance test may happen at some point after you have given them the dice, but you did not engage in any test when you used your skill.

Now I'll point out if multiple defended targets are hit by the same spell you only roll counterspelling dice once. I think that is all the implication I need to see what was intended by the rules, that it counts as a test. Even though I do not think it was specified by the rules.

[Fatum]

So, if you are aiding with counterspelling, you do add the spec dice. But if' you're the primary acting counterspeller, you don't.
It just keeps getting better and better.

[Shinobi Killfist]

So, if you are aiding with counterspelling, you do add the spec dice. But if' you're the primary acting counterspeller, you don't.
It just keeps getting better and better.

Like I have said I don't think this is how it is intended. Rules are frequently poorly written. But as far as I can tell a strict reading of the rules shows that specialty dice do not add to the primary act of counterspelling.

[LurkerOutThere]

People keep getitng hung up on the value of specializations, you could specialize in counterspelling health spells, minimal value but it's available. Why then do people keep using specializations in combat a spells as a justification for specializations adding to the spell resistance test.

[Fatum]

Like I have said I don't think this is how it is intended. Rules are frequently poorly written. But as far as I can tell a strict reading of the rules shows that specialty dice do not add to the primary act of counterspelling.

That's the "ruleslawyer" reading, not a "strict" one.

Why then do people keep using specializations in combat a spells as a justification for specializations adding to the spell resistance test.

Because it's in the rules, and it's obvious (with a bit of the dreaded common sense applied) how it's supposed to work.

[LurkerOutThere]

That word strict, it does not mean what you think it means.

To avoid a dusccion of the merits and meanings of rules lawyering this is a universal mechnic that many people misunderstand but the fact that it is universal is key. It will neither harm nor hinder PC's if it is applied correctly.

But funny, my common sense says reading the rules as they are written and then applying a value based judgement after that point. Your common sense seems to say reading the rules as you want them to read and then accusing others who differ as not practicing common sense or not reading strictly. That's quite a complicated level of doublethink you have going.

[X-Kalibur]

People keep getitng hung up on the value of specializations, you could specialize in counterspelling health spells, minimal value but it's available. Why then do people keep using specializations in combat a spells as a justification for specializations adding to the spell resistance test.

Actually, I can think of one very good reason to specialize in health spells - dispelling increased reflexes.

<edit> Also, spell defense against the stat lowering spells as well.

[Fatum]

But funny, my common sense says reading the rules as they are written and then applying a value based judgement after that point. Your common sense seems to say reading the rules as you want them to read and then accusing others who differ as not practicing common sense or not reading strictly. That's quite a complicated level of doublethink you have going.

Does your "common sense" say anything on how the Combat spells school specialization (openly suggested in the Skills section) is supposed to work for Counterspelling, then? There's nothing to dispel in that school.
Or does it have more with reading into the intricacies of the badly worded rules exactly as written?

[LurkerOutThere]

Does your "common sense" say anything on how the Combat spells school specialization (openly suggested in the Skills section) is supposed to work for Counterspelling, then? There's nothing to dispel in that school.
Or does it have more with reading into the intricacies of the badly worded rules exactly as written?

Actually yes it does. If you are assisting another mage and rolling those dice, or counterspelling for yourself you may throw that specialization in. Further the book has had whole examples that completely counterdict the rules, why do you feel those two words make a compelling argument?

[Fatum]

Oh, so counterspelling working differently depending on the target and whether you're the primary counterspeller or just aiding him makes sense to you.
You have an uncommon common sense, then.

[killfr3nzy]

I think it's less 'common sense' and more his interpretation of very strict RAW. I haven't been assed looking the rules up since way earlier in the conversation, but I think he's wrong and if he wasn't I would have it changed.
Done and done. Is everyone satisfied with that? Can we let this corpse rot in peace? Or do we keep applying trauma patches until the ghouls finaly reach crucial organs?

[X-Kalibur]

I believe Lurker and Shinobi have both stated previously in this thread that they do not use the rules in this way, simply that this was how they read the rules as written. Instead of harping on "common" sense, which doesn't further anything, can we get back to using examples of why things work certain ways? Much more productive and insightful for those reading.