QUOTE (Muspellsheimr @ May 21 2010, 12:16 AM)

Interesting idea. I do something similar already to streamline magical resistance into a (mostly) single rules set for combat defense tests, which also underwent a similar revision for multiple reasons. Counterspelling is considered an Active Defense, adding the Counterspelling dice to the subject's Defense. Full Counterspelling is considered to be a Full Defense, adding the Counterspelling dice to the subject's Defense.
Active Defense must be declared on each of the character's Initiative Passes, consuming a Free Action, and applies until their next Initiative Pass.
Full Defense is an Interrupt Action, meaning it takes a Complex Action, but does not need to be declared in advance. If declared in response to an attack, it consumes the characters next Complex Action as normal.
Active & Full Defense essentially have the same effect, but different times they can be used and have cumulative effects.
Melee & Ranged defense (in my House Rules) both use this system; Reaction for passive defense : Reaction + Skill for active or full defense : Reaction + Skill + Skill for active and full defense.
I have to say I think after a quick read, I really like your idea for active and full defense, it makes a lot of sense to me mechanically, and from a 'physics' stand point. If you are 'ready' to dodge, you'll do better at it, and if you are not only ready to before the attack is apparent, but actively doing it once you know you're in trouble, you should have a reasonable chance of not going splat.
QUOTE
Something I never actually thought of, but do like & think I will be using. Mundanes can learn any active magical skill without restriction. They cannot, however, use any application of those skills that requires a Magic attribute (a mundane can use Banishing for an Attack of Will, but not banishing a spirit; a mundane can use Counterspelling for spell defense, but not for dispelling an active spell). They of course must meet all other prerequisites of using a skill as well - one cannot use Assensing if they are not astrally perceiving (something a mundane cannot do barring specific exceptions - usually drugs).
Giving the magical equivalent of a dodge skill. I kinda like it, the only problem is if you have a mundane with this, on 'active' defense, with a mage overwatching on 'active and full' defense, then they effectively become untouchable.
QUOTE
An actually usable variant of the "Overcasting Drain is equal to the Force of the spell, instead of half Force" I commonly seen thrown around. Again, not something I had thought of myself, but I might actually end up using it. The rule that I was using, but never really ever came up in my game, was requiring a Composure Test to overcast, with a Threshold based on one-half the Drain Value. Failure indicates casting at maximum "normal" Force instead of the intended Overcasting.
I think having the portion of the drain which is below their overcast limit remain stun, but the part above be physical, with a composure test to equal to the amount of physical drain to even pull it off would be fair. Most people don't like the idea of microwaving themselves.
QUOTE
The problem with this is, Rules as Commonly Interpreted, Thresholds & Opposed Tests are mutually exclusive. This is false, as described below, but essentially makes it so Mental Manipulation effects under this rule would actually become more powerful overall.
Rules as Written, Opposed Tests & Thresholds are not actually mutually exclusive, but their are no rules explaining how they interact with each other if they are combined - with multiple entirely viable interpretations of how it works. I suggest the following:
On an Opposed Threshold Test, you determine the Opposed Test as normal. Any Hits in excess of that of the defender (Net Hits) are applied towards the Threshold. If the Threshold is then met, any additional hits are treated as Net Hits as normal.
Under my suggested ruling, your idea of a Mental Manipulation threshold is actually a viable way of limiting those spells - one that I am unsure if I would use, but do kind of like.
Side Note: Using my suggested ruling on Opposed Thresholds, you can do away with the Anniversary bullshit of how Counterspelling works with Object Resistance.
I have a significant issue with this, in that it effectively gives people a bonus equal effectively granting them 3/2 more will power then they had before. If combined with your active/full defense idea makes mental manipulations spells nearly meaningless. If you have a 4 will power, and 4 counter spelling skill, and know you're going into combat against a mage, it would mean then when you feel the manipulation starting and go for full defense, you're dropping and equivalent to 18 dice to avoid the attack, which for a 4 stat, and 4 skill with no ware, or anything else, is ridiculous, considering the bp/karma needed to get the mage edge, the magic, and the skill needed to get 18 dice to attack with.
QUOTE
I have said it many times on the forums, & I guess I'm saying it again.
House Rule:
A character's natural maximum for the Magic/Resonance attribute is equal to their Essence + Initiate/Submersion Grade, rounded down, with an absolute maximum of 7.
A character's maximum Initiate/Submersion Grade is equal to their Magic/Resonance attribute, with an absolute maximum of 5.
This rule almost never actually affects a character, but in my experience has greatly improved gameplay overall as well as adding consistency to the system. It does not, however, entirely fix some of the issues of RAW "unlimited advancement". As such, I have been toying with an idea of changing the maximum Magic/Resonance to Essence, rounded down (removing Initiation/Submersion influence entirely), and adding another "Lucky" quality that applies to Magic or Resonance.
I'm again not a fan of this even conceptually, as mages may be called upon to deal with force 8+ spirits, or dragons with a magic of 8+, and thus they are left out in the cold against such creatures.
(Heavily edited)