Countermagic

[PhilHibbs]

Should countering a spell be treated as a reaction, like parrying?

First example:

A acts first, and casts Befuddle. It's a two-point spell, so can be cast in one action.
B counters it with Countermagic 2. Does B then have his action on his normal turn?

Second example:
A acts first, and starts casting Wrack. She knows that B has Countermagic, so she puts some Magnitude in. That's one action for the spell, one for range, and one for Magnitude.
B wants to counter the spell. Can he? Lets assume not, so he decides to draw his sword.
A then has her second action, but she's busy casting the spell.
B swings at A and misses, lets assume that A makes any necessary concentration roll.
A now casts her spell. It's got 5 points of Magnitude, so B needs to Countermagic 5. This will take three actions to cast, but B has only one action left in this round. Can he counter the spell? Or, should he have countered the spell in his first action when he still had enough CAs? Or, is it simply impossible to use Common Magic to counter large spells as they are being cast?

 

[Mixster]

According to the rules it can. I'm not sure whether it should be that way. As it does make teleporting out of range very good.

 

[PhilHibbs]

According to the rules it can.

What can what?

As it does make teleporting out of range very good.

I don't understand.

 

[Old timer]

I think in your first example, B would lose an action casting the spell, but then would be able to act normally.
In your second example, B has lost his chance to counter the spell, as he decided to swing at A ,instead of preparing his counter magic, using up the action he would need to cast and counter the wrack.
The intention of common magic's counter magic spell, IMO, is just to counter other common magic, as it does not seem powerful enough to counter any sorcery cast at a decent magnitude, and would have the same problems against divine as well.
All of the above, though, is just my interpretation of the rules, so i could well be talking rubbish , especially considering the time that i am replying to this post.

 

[Redcrow]

I would allow it but just because I like the idea of magical duels with sorcerors battling back and forth countering each others magic.

If a sorceror needs 3 CAs to cast something, but only has 1 CA left for the round, I would just subtract his first 2 CA's from the following round. Even though combat is divided up into neat little 5 second rounds for playability shouldn't mean its so rigid that an action couldn't begin on one round and end on the next.


Edit.
Just a random thought but you could require some type of magical lore test to see if the 'countering' mage can get an idea of how much magnitude the attacking mage is putting into their spell. A success means the 'countering' mage can guess the magnitude to within 2 points, a critical success means the 'countering' mage knows the exact magnitude, a failure means the 'countering' mage can guess the magnitude to within 3 or 4 points and a fumble means the 'countering' mage underestimates the magnitude by 1 or 2 points.

Also, if the 'countering' mage knows and can cast the spell being countered you could give them a bonus equal to their crit range in the spell on the test to learn the attacking spells magnitude.

 

[Mixster]

According to the rules it can.

What can what?

As it does make teleporting out of range very good.

I don't understand.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I was pretty tired last night.

Example #1. I'd say B loses one CA, and can then act normally.

Example #2. I'd say he had to start it so he can make the combat actions against the spell.
By the way, casting Wrack with Range and Magnitude is only 2 CA. So I'd say due to the duration of casting Countermagic 5, it can't be dispelled.

Now, what I meant was that if you can use spells reactively, and not just countermagic. You could essentially just teleport away instead of parrying attacks. or teleporting the opponent to somewhere where he's out of range to affect you.

 

[Deleriad]

Without having a book in front of me I'm 99% certain it explicitly says that you can cast countermagic (and equivalents) as a reaction just like Evade and Dodge.

Where the book is silent is what happens when you want to cast countermagic as a reaction when it would require more than one CA to cast. E.g. You want to cast Countermagic 4 which would normally take 2 CAs. There are several possible answers, my preferred one is:

A spell which can be cast as a Reaction only takes one CA to "counter-cast" regardless of how many CAs it would normally take. However you can only counter-cast a spell against another spell as it is being cast. You cannot counter-cast a spell against a pre-existing spell. So you could counter-cast a spell against an incoming Smother spell but you could not counter-cast a spell against a Smother that was previously cast.

It's a kludge but it's a lot simpler than dealing with multiple CAs and possibly borrowing CAs from future rounds.

I would also allow a magician to "pre-declare" a counter-cast spell against another magician who is clearly preparing a spell but waiting to the end of the round so that you run out of actions.

What I mean by pre-declare is similar to a pre-declared parry in that you spend your normal SR getting the spell ready. It will generally only be useful if it is your last action.

Finally (and this is a tangent) I personally allow a pre-declared reaction (such as a parry or evade) to last until the end of the round if it is the character's last action. This is to prevent munchkins with 4CAs hanging around doing nothing while an opponent's CAs drain away.

 

[PhilHibbs]

Example #1. I'd say B loses one CA, and can then act normally.

I agree, I like the idea of parrying a spell with countermagic.

Example #2. I'd say he had to start it so he can make the combat actions against the spell.

I doubt this will come up very often, but I think I agree.

By the way, casting Wrack with Range and Magnitude is only 2 CA. So I'd say due to the duration of casting Countermagic 5, it can't be dispelled.

D'oh.

Now, what I meant was that if you can use spells reactively, and not just countermagic. You could essentially just teleport away instead of parrying attacks. or teleporting the opponent to somewhere where he's out of range to affect you.

I wouldn't allow that. I think it's a special case for countermagic spells.

 

[Jose-san]

A spell which can be cast as a Reaction only takes one CA to "counter-cast" regardless of how many CAs it would normally take. However you can only counter-cast a spell against another spell as it is being cast. You cannot counter-cast a spell against a pre-existing spell.

This is how I'd rule it. Also I wouldn't tell the player the magnitude of the incoming spell.

What I don't get about countermagic is how can casters target specific spells. Say you want to remove demoralise from a target that has protection on him as well, I don't find any mechanic that allows a common magic user to distinguish between them.