I'm willing to work with you on this to find out which way it goes.

Now, in the instance of using spell defense on someone else (I'm quoting the book but I'm too lazy to tag it right now)

'For spell defense, Counterspelling dice are added to each protected defender’s dice pool. '

'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.'

On specializations:

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

And finally, under the Counterspelling skill listing

'Specializations: By spell type (Combat Spells, Detection Spells, etc.)'


In the first point, is does not specifically state only your skill is rolled, obviously, because there are counterspelling foci and other bonuses which add to your counterspelling dice pool.

On the second point it states that counterspelling dice are added to each person protected by spell defense.

On the third point specializations very clearly state that they add the dice to any test when applicable (we'll use combat spells as the example here) meaning if you specialize in counterspell combat spells, you get the additional 2 dice because it is applicable to the test.

On the final point: Why even bother listing combat spells or combat spell counterspelling foci if they can't add their bonus to the spell defense? There will never be anything to dispel from that school. In fact, I should list that too...

'Counterspelling foci add their Force in dice to any Counterspelling attempt, as long as the countered spell is of the
category appropriate to the focus.'

In SR4A we have dice. Start in the book at about p. 60 we are informed the general rules is a dice pool is Skill + Attribute/Program + Modifiers. We are also informed we have Success Tests, Opposed Tests, and Extended Tests.

p. 185 Counterspelling dice are a modifier for any characters Opposed Test.

p. 121 SR4A "Specializations add 2 dice to any tests made for that skill when the specialization is applicable
to the test."

What is it the specific thing about a specialiazation of Counterspelling that makes you believe it no longer add specialization dice to the Opposed Test?

Is it because normally you associate the specialization to the skill so you get this structure?

(Skill + Spec) + Attribute + Modifiers = Pool
But really, it's always this way
Skill + Attribute + Modifiers(Spec is one of many modifiers) = Pool

Because non magical characters quite specifically can't have counterspelling, their dice in this case are bonus dice, and specifically the protecting characters countspelling rank. I'll even grant that the character themselves get to add the appropriate emphasis, their allies however do not.

Baiscally:

Mage Counterspeeling: Skill Roll(Sorta?)
Non mage being protected: Not a skill roll.

Emphasis only add to skill rolls.

I see where you're coming from here, I just find it somewhat flawed. Specialization dice are a modifier. Foci are a modifier. Mentor spirits are a modifier. In order to exclude one, you exclude them all. It does not state anywhere that any of these are excluded.

It also doens't state that their included, just because your fundamental and widely held belief fits certian logic doesn't make it right. I need to reread the aid sorcery rules again but I think they fall into the same trap. The spell defense foci get a pass becuase IIRC correctly they specifically say they add.

Edit addendum:
I just want it it to be clear that I'm not pointing this out just to be divisive but because it's something i've noticed that's odd. Also I find the amount of spell defense dice that can be stacked on rather ridiculous so it does work in my favor on that score.

I read it the same way, but I came to the conclusion that it was not what was intended. And unless I am remembering it wrong foci do not word things differently. How I read things on a literal level the bonus dice don't add for adding counterspelling dice but do add for active counterspelling like disrupting a sustained spell

I quoted it for you already.

'Counterspelling foci add their Force in dice to any Counterspelling attempt, as long as the countered spell is of the
category appropriate to the focus.'

<edit to respond to shinobi> Except that there is nothing to disrupt/dispel in the case of combat spells.

So a combat counterspelling focus would be useless. A counterspelling attempt actually goes to my point. Adding dice to bobs resistance test is not a counterpslling attempt IMO, trying to counterspell the sustained levitate spell is a counterspelling attempt.

To be fair there are a lot of emphasis out there that or negligible value, why should conterspelling be exempt?

Except that spell defense is considered a counterspelling attepmt, it is merely one facet of it, however.

Also, Lurker, I'm not sure I understood your previous post. Could you clarify?

I do not think it is a counterspelling attempt, it is just giving dice to some one. You aren't making any attempt or test. I guess maybe the teamwork test would be an attempt since it is active use, instead of a passive add. As another point of reference shielding describes counterspelling dice like this "When using Counterspelling to protect against hostile spells, the magician adds a number of dice equal to her initiate grade to her Counterspelling dice." See it is not an attempt here, it is just using the dice.

But as I said I think it is intended to add, just the way it is worded doesn't seem to say that it is to me.

Well, what if we look at it this way:

Defending against a spell is a test. We all agree there, yes?

Using your counterspelling allows you to add your counterspell dice. Yes?

Now, can we safely infer that resisting and using counterspell dice is a skill attempt? The foci states it applies to any attempt. Any, as in all.

To be fair, it never states who rolls the counterspell dice. If the mage is rolling the counterspell dice, (s)he should get her full skill + modifiers and simply add hits to the person's resistance test.

I see it as one stage removed problem. The defense is the attempt, but the adding dice part isn't an attempt. The mage is doing the added dice part whether a spell hits the target or not, you don't suddenly get more dice because a spell actually hits the target but less dice if nothing happens that pass.

No, it also has the skill counterspell.

It needs magical guard to have counterspell which spirits normally cannot, just as most spirits normally cannot have summoning.

This is being argued by others, I'll just add that I agree with Specialization dice adding on.
Does Spell Defence (instead of Dispelling) count as a Specialization? It seems like it should - similar to being better at dodging as opposed to being better at digging the bullet out, only the latter would also count for kicking down walls (Wards) etc.


I took the fact that Mages can auto-defend themselves as 'they see the attack forming/coming and instinctively raise their defence' like mundane's might dodge or raise a shield. If they're surprised, then they don't see the attack coming/have enough time to raise their Astral static.
However, a little further down on that page I also found this little gem:

Which I took to mean that the Mage already raised his magic jammer and the Defence was there no matter what. Seems like I'd spend the start of every scene saying 'I loiter at the back and activate Spell Defence on the team' unless we're in some public space under the watching eyes of Security and I don't want them to wonder what I'm hiding (If you can notice Spell Defence, otherwise I'd just keep it on forever and justify it as updating who I'm guarding and 'life experience' just like StreetSams are always aware and ready to dodge).

EDIT:

That's not Summoning. It's part of the Sorcery Group, and even if it was part of the Summoning Group, it could be bought on it's own. I can't see what else you might be arguing here.

Not true, the mage is only adding dice provided they are actively providing spell defense and a spell is actually used against someone currently under the effect of spell defense. At this stage the spell being used does come into question as modifiers would need to be added, including specialization and foci.

I fail to find "Skill Rolls". I do find Success Tests, Opposed Tests, and Extended Tests as a general categories tests. They are listed first, and are described as the general mechanics.

You are then apparently taking the fact that most Opposed Tests use "Skills" as a component and the text for specialization (Which by the way doesn't use the term "Skill Test" either) adding dice to the roll when a skill is involved to come up with this concept of a "skill test". But it actually starts as an Opposed Test. An opposed test being one where both opponents roll dice and compare net successes(hits).

The core process is, You get a pool of dice to roll and the pool is made from a number of dice = to skill plus a number of dice equal to an attribute(Replaced by program for Matrix tests) and add all the modifiers.

I am not sure where because CounterSpelling uses a "Skill" as a modifier as well that you cannot also use specialization as a modifier to that pool.

Consider a different view of the bonus +2 dice construct. It isn't that the Counterspelling focus determines whether a spell is of the appropriate type, and then kicks in its extra dice. Rather, the Counterspelling function of the mage is continually enhanced by the power of her focus (adjusting the flow of magic through her body as it were), which power is negligible in all cases except when the magic she is countering is of the right type.

Since your explanation and others is how I think it is intended to work I don't plan on arguing this much further but the point is more this.

Counterspelling adds dice equal to the skill to a persons resistance test. Bonus dice from specializations, focuses etc. add bonus dice to tests but do not actually improve the skill. Since it is the skill that adds dice to your resistance, the bonus dice don't help. Shielding actually specifies that it adds dice for the purpose of guarding people magically, the rest are more general bonus dice.

Except that is incorrect. It specifically states you add your counterspelling dice. That includes modifiers per the rules as written.

But Specialization dice are specifically modifiers to the test, not the skill, but now can't be added to the test because the skill they normally modify also happens to be itself a modifier? Don't we stack other modifiers?

Where does it say that? Spirits are an Awakened sapient.
"While most sapient critters are mundane, some in their species are
capable of Awakening and possessing a Magic attribute. Awakened sapient
critters are capable of all magical tasks and follow the same rules
for magic as normal characters. It has yet to be seen whether sapient
critters can become technomancers."

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.

End of the day, when the player asks if they can toss in those two specialization dice on the test. I can't think of a good reason to not allow the modifier to the test.

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

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.

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.



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.