I've done a search and was unable to locate anything that answered this particular question. I understand that declaring counterspelling dice is a free action, however it seems to me that maintaining counterspelling on others ought to incur the standard 'distraction' penalty (-2 dice from actions) that sustaining or performing multiple actions incurs.

My players disagree, stating that because it's a free action it shouldn't incur any penalty. I can find nothing either way to support or disprove this. I'm inclined to rule that personal counterspelling does not incur this penalty, since it's reflexive, however I do think that counterspelling for others ought to require a bit more attention (hence the penalty). What do you guys think?

Best,
Chazuli

If you want to house rule something, go ahead. If you want to do it by the book, then there is no penalty.

Don't think of spell defense as a something special for the mage to do.

Normally someone attacks with skill + attribute, and the defender defends with skill + attribute. For defending against spellcasting, that defense roll is (Your Mage's Counterspelling + Your Willpower or Body). Not having a mage doing spell defense for you sucks - it means you lose.

Really I think mages having the -2 penalty for sustaining a spell is enough as it is. If it isn't, you can also add the optional rule of having a bound spirit active cost a -2 penalty. The fluff says this is due to the extra strain caused by controlling a bound spirit. I think the fluff is full of crap; it is really just a way to restrict bound spirits. If anything it would cause more strain to control a summoned spirit due to not actually binding them. They are a bit more free in that sense. Also, summoned spirits tend to be of a higher force than do bound spirits. I would think it would be the other way around, but oh well. The whole counterspelling sustaining -2 penalty is taking it a bit too far.

Counterspelling isn't something the magician is doing at all times like one might think. It isn't some mode he goes into. The magician just waits for a spell to be cast on himself or one of his buddies and counterspells it. It is only something that is triggered when a spell is being cast by an opponent. At most, this sustaining penalty could only last as long as it takes to counterspell the spell, which is instantly. The only part of the rules this could apply to is if the magician decides to "actively" counterspell. The only benefit here is the ability to counterspell spells the magician is not aware of. (PG. 176 SR4). That is really the only place you will find counterspelling defined for SR4. There isn't anymore information about counterspelling in SR4 or Street Magic.

Here is what I can speculate about it. Actively counterspelling lights you up like a beacon on the astral plane. The book says you are actively jamming the mana around you. To manipulate mana in this way is going to light things up. Other than that though, which is my interpretation, there don't seem to be any drawbacks for actively counterspelling.

You might think you are weakening the mage with this houserule. You aren´t. You are just taking away counterspelling from the mundanes.

And I´d not try to provoke my mage-playing group members to build chars who can cast spells efficiently anyway. The currently established power level is fine at it is. Magic power can seem broken if the players do their "best".

I actually agree with you chazuli. I think that it should be reflexive action with no penalty for the caster to defend himself but I can see difficulties in doing so for others.

Instead of viewing counterspelling as mana static I view it as a connection with the people you are protecting. Once you set it up (which is a complex action in my games) then you have that ability to help them even if you can't see them as long as they don't get too far away from you (I don't remember the range right now).

Now if someone casts a spell at several of them you can counterspell the spell once as long at it was targeted at one of the people you are protecting. You only have to stop the spell once not try and stop it seperately for each one.

What I did was give a distraction penalty of -1 for each spell a caster has to counterspell in that turn (-2 if it was of a higher force then your magic rating).

How is that?

I could see limiting counterspelling to either skill in people or magic rating in people. Skill makes more sense to me but maybe max it out at your magic rating.

Another idea would be to introduce two levels of it. Have a low level very limited version and a higher level metatechnique. Limit the basic level to skill rating number of people and a short range, or even LOS. Then the metamagic could be skill x some number and a much larger range.