Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Spell Defense / Counterpselling: Can it protect '
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
laughingowl
So the question is started in some other threads:

The description of counterspelling always references a person. Is it possible to provide counterspelling / spell defense to an 'object'. Also if so how? since counterspelling adds resitance dice, yet objects make no resitance test.

1) NO: The rules always state reference a person as the target; furthermoore counterspelling adds dice to the resitance test which Ojbects don't make so even if you can declare an object to be protect by counter spelling it doesnt help

2) NO: as above by RAW: But I would house rule allowing it. Allowiing a mage to declare an object the same way as a person. The 'resitance test' is merely counter-spelling dice, which cancel out hits, then compare to see if the objects resistance is beaten.

3) Yes: Nothing in the rules say you can't although it would have no effect, since counterspelling adds dice to the resitance test, which objects don't have.

4) YES: You may provide spell defense to an object and it then gets a resistance test equal to counterspelling dice.
laughingowl
Personally:

I would have to say #2)

As written I would have to say the wording for spell defense always refers to a person, rather then object / target / etc .

Also as written counterspelling would have no effect, since they add dice to the resitance test, which objects do not make.

However: I would house rule allowing counterspelling dice to be rolled and cancel hits before being compared to see if the objects resitance is overcome.
Aaron
On the one hand, spell defense is described as jamming the mana, so one would imagine it to be an area effect.

On the other hand, maybe it's an effect that is linked to auras, much like plain old spellcasting is, and so a protected target must have an aura with which to resonate the mana jamming.

Go forth and vary your mileage.

HappyDaze
The Shattershield spell indicates that Counterspelling can protect barriers, and IIRC, somewhere it is indicated that Counterspelling can protect a Magician's Foci.

So, I would say that Counterspelling can always oppose a Spell regardless of the spell's target.
laughingowl
Happydaze:

Though from memory (dont have my books right now, not even my .PDFs). Both of those technically aren't 'Objects' since they actually get resistance tests, and have an actual astral construct to affect.

Please tell me HOW counterspelling stops me from 'locking' a door. There is NO resitance test (which is what counterspelling would add dice to). Rather the caster just needs to get hits equal to the objects resitance threshold.

(Now admitedly it is real easy to just say: Counterspelling would be rolled and reduce hits per hit; however, this would have to be a house rule, since NOTHING is normally rolled, thuse counterspelling couldn't add anything.)
laughingowl
Now 'dispelling' usage of counterspelling could certainly disrupt the sustained spell affecting an object.

Also I would allow (though the rules do not directly) the counterspelling a a reactive delayed action.

Instead of a sustained / quickened spell. I would allow.

I delay my action and prepare to disrupt what ever spell he casts. (and in this way complete negate the spell, not 'protect' the target(s) but rather disrupt the energies even as they gather.

Mage goes to cast spell.

Delayed action kicks in and the delaying mages mages the countersplling+magic opposed test to cancel hits (and takes drain).

However, as this is specfically 'spell defense' being talked about this doesnt apply.

QUOTE
When a protected character is targeted with a spell, she rolls Counterspelling dice in addition to the appropriate attribute (Body or Willpower) for the resistance test


There is no RESISTANCE test against an object, by RAW spell defense can NOT apply to an object.
TBRMInsanity
I would say that at the start mages can only counterspell living things as they can connect easily to them (via their aura). There should be a metamagic available that will allow a caster to extend their counterspelling to objects (with appropriate modifiers indicating how easy it is to connect to the object).

Ex/
Meta-magic (Counterspell Defence (object)):
Follow rules per normal for counterspelling except that the target must be an object (Foci, vehicle, weapon, etc).
Modifiers:
- 4 dice (because it is an object)
+ Force rating (for foci and other magical objects)
- 2 dice (complex items (ie vehicle, firearm, or any other object that has moving parts))
Grinder
I would allow it, maybe with the requirement to learn a metamagic to use it. But atm we don't have mages who use counterspelling (or have at least a dice or two in the skill), so it's all theoritical. wink.gif
Dashifen
I've always allowed counterspelling for objects. Counterspelling, in my games, is rolled by the mage, each hit reducing net hits on the Spellcasting test. Then, any resistance roll would be performed potentially further reducing the Spellcasting hits. But, objects wouldn't get the second test, so their only hope is that the Counterspelling hits reduce the Spellcasting hits less than the object resistance threshold for the specific object. As always, YMMV.
FrankTrollman
There are two distinct ways that one is instructed to use counterspelling. One way is to add dice to the resistance test (which would be rolled by the target). The other is to make a separate resistance test of only counterspelling using teamwork rules and resisting incoming spells.

The first method would not work for objects since the objects don't make resistance tests. The second method, however, would work just fine. You roll your counterspelling dice, reduce the spell hits, and then compare the remaining hits against the target's resistance (or Object Resistance in this case).

Mostly I use the former method actually. But when it would be really irritating (large spell gets 50 people in the area or something), or impossible (object targetted), I use the second method. It works fine.

The fact that the book talks about "who" you are protecting with counterspelling is no more proscriptive than the fact that the book talks about "who" you are attacking with a melee weapon.

-Frank
laughingowl
Frank:

QUOTE
The other is to make a separate resistance test of only counterspelling using teamwork rules and resisting incoming spells.


Is that house rule, if not can you please provide refernce in books, FAQ, or errate, I have never seen that option.


So question is the second one ALWAYS legal in your opinion, or is it a modification of the 'active' dispelling (applied at the time of casting and requiring a delayed action).


If it is possible to disrupt a spell. Then what happens.

Mage A is protection Sammy A.

Sammy A walks into a crowded mall.

Mage B cast Fireball on Sammy A.

Now since Sammy A is a declared spell defense target, and is in LOS of Mage A. Spell Defense Counterspelling can help.

The problem is:


Your option 1) Mage A can help exatly 1 person, Sammy A.

Your option 2) Somehow Mage A is now helping everyone in the crowded mall (and possibly 'keeping' the spell from happening.

I don't think option 2 is intended and certainly not support as written. Now I would allow option 2 as a function of 'dispelling' if:

Mage A: sees Mage B and has a feeling he is up to no good, delays his action.

Mage B: I fireball the crowded mall.

Mage A: I take my delayed action and dispell his casting. Here it is perfectly valid for the mage to 'disrupt the casting' (IMO) as per dispelling, and potentially keep the spell from even happening; HOWEVER, Mage A takes drain just like Mage B (as per dispelling not spell defense).


Also as to your mention of:
"The fact that the book talks about "who" you are protecting with counterspelling is no more proscriptive than the fact that the book talks about "who" you are attacking with a melee weapon."

If you go back and read combat, the usual pronoun is 'target' no person, character, etc. Given that so much of magic interacts with a living aura (the exact reason stated why objects dont get a resitance test), would support that spell defense interacts with a living aura (which objects don't have).
Dashifen
I think that Frank's referring to the information in the second paragraph under "Counterspelling" in SR4. In it, it shows one of two ways to make it happen: add counterspelling dice to the body or willpower that a target rolls or, if multiple targets are used, roll counterspelling first and then apply the same number of hits to everyone's resistance roll. This implies that rolling CS to reduce the spellcasting hits first, and then handing the normal spellcasting resistance is an acceptable option in the RAW. I use that as the standard way of counterspelling, having the counterspelling character roll first and then the resisting character roll second. Thus, it also allows counterspelling to be used easily on objects: if the remaining hits after counterspelling is still greater than the object resistance threshold, then the spell effect takes place.
laughingowl
QUOTE (Dashifen)
I think that Frank's referring to the information in the second paragraph under "Counterspelling" in SR4. In it, it shows one of two ways to make it happen: add counterspelling dice to the body or willpower that a target rolls or, if multiple targets are used, roll counterspelling first and then apply the same number of hits to everyone's resistance roll. This implies that rolling CS to reduce the spellcasting hits first, and then handing the normal spellcasting resistance is an acceptable option in the RAW. I use that as the standard way of counterspelling, having the counterspelling character roll first and then the resisting character roll second. Thus, it also allows counterspelling to be used easily on objects: if the remaining hits after counterspelling is still greater than the object resistance threshold, then the spell effect takes place.

QUOTE
his implies that rolling CS to reduce the spellcasting hits first, and then handing the normal spellcasting resistance is an acceptable option in the RAW


I would have to strongly disagree.

I would have to disagree the exact quuote is:

QUOTE

When a protected character is targeted with a spell, she rolls Counterspelling dice in addition to the appropriate attribute (Body or Willpower) for the resistance test. Hits generated on this test reduce the net hits of the spell’s caster as with any Opposed Test. If multiple protected characters are targeted by the same spell, the Counterspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.



If multiple protected characters are targets by the same spell, the coutnerspelling dice are rolled only once and each target is protected equally.

the counterspelling is NOT applied the spell casting sucess (or non-protected targets are also 'helped').

Rather Spell casting test is made.

Counterspelling mage makes counterspelling test (rolls counterspell dice) and gets X hits.

Any target of the spell makes a resistance test. Any protected by the spell defense get X hits added. (from the counterspelling).


If you do:

Spell casting test.

Counterspelling cancels hits.

Subjects make resisting test. The counterspelling has just affected everyone NOT just the protected target (and potentially people that could not have been affected with the spell defense (no LOS to counterspelling mage).
laughingowl
Hmm amazingly equal between the 'No, but I would house rule it" and 'Yes'.


Think I will submit it for possible inclusion in FAQ. Seems like a pretyt mixed view on what the 'rules' are supposed to be (though most do seem to agree you should be able to protect an object).
Dashifen
QUOTE (laughingowl)
the counterspelling is NOT applied the spell casting sucess (or non-protected targets are also 'helped').

Rather Spell casting test is made.

Counterspelling mage makes counterspelling test (rolls counterspell dice) and gets X hits.

Any target of the spell makes a resistance test. Any protected by the spell defense get X hits added. (from the counterspelling).


If you do:

Spell casting test.

Counterspelling cancels hits.

Subjects make resisting test. The counterspelling has just affected everyone NOT just the protected target (and potentially people that could not have been affected with the spell defense (no LOS to counterspelling mage).

While I did not state it, I felt it was clear that the reduction in hits on a Spellcasting test by those earned on a Counterspelling test would only apply to those who were actually protect by the Counterspelling magic. If five people are targeted, four of which are protected, the fifth goon is facing all of the hits on the Spellcasting test regardless of how many hits are used to protect the other four. Sorry I was not more explicit.

This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012