Countermagick

[Herr Meister]

So, as there are different approaches to the Counter Magic, I'd like to ask you guys which one do you think is better/works best in games, more fitting, etc.

If I'm not mistaken, in Sorcerer's Crusade (The book I use the most when STing Mage as I never run modern settings) it's stated that countermagick is an all or nothing thing. If you manage to have more successes than your opponent you counter his magic, but if you had just short of one success it means all your efforts were in vain and the magical attack will come in full force. A friend of mine was telling me one of these days that he likes the idea of the counter magic dies diminishing the power of the magical attack, so to speak. Another thing he likes to employ is to give mages a free countermagick action during the turn, as happens with vampire counter magic.

All in all, I'd like to hear from you guys how do you handle countermagick in your games, as a Storyteller I try to use the approach I think is better and fair to the game (and ofc, that makes sense thematically), so I'd love to hear the different thoughts you have about Countermagick.

[Herr Meister]

Also, another thing is, how do you deal with the idea of Mages countering Disciplines or Werewolf Gifts, Changeling Arts, etc?

[voidshaper]

Soaking effect dice would seem like the intuitive thing to do, but I noticed this tends to really prolong battles and becomes a point of discussion when the effects of the power are less quantifiable; it's easy for damage dice on a fireball but less clear cut for a spell that - for example - compels a target into an action. Switching between all-or-nothing and soaks in these situations is a pain. Countermagick can also be extremely frustrating for players when NPCs use it. If you ever played Magic the Gathering against a blue counter deck you know.

The all-or-nothing approach has the benefit of not dragging out rolls and is easy to handle, which is why I use it. As I run a mixed-splat campaign with all kind of casters (and yes, that means counters work on all kinds of powers), I also streamlined the rules for the various powers:

- Counters are tiered; you can not unmake a spell of a higher power level
- Counters always cost [splat power resource]
- If the counter is reactive, you need to delay the action until after the to-be-countered power is cast. This doesn't apply for countering already cast spells with extended effects, of course.
- Exceptions to this are high level ritual / rite effects, which may require an equally powerful ritual / rite to counter (i.e. plot devices)

Rules applied within reason, of course. You may be able to dispel a ward (created by a ritual) with ad-hoc countermagick, but probably not the ancient curse laid upon the land by a Tzimisce koldun.

[Herr Meister]

Soaking effect dice would seem like the intuitive thing to do, but I noticed this tends to really prolong battles and becomes a point of discussion when the effects of the power are less quantifiable; it's easy for damage dice on a fireball but less clear cut for a spell that - for example - compels a target into an action. Switching between all-or-nothing and soaks in these situations is a pain. Countermagick can also be extremely frustrating for players when NPCs use it. If you ever played Magic the Gathering against a blue counter deck you know.

The all-or-nothing approach has the benefit of not dragging out rolls and is easy to handle, which is why I use it. As I run a mixed-splat campaign with all kind of casters (and yes, that means counters work on all kinds of powers), I also streamlined the rules for the various powers:

- Counters are tiered; you can not unmake a spell of a higher power level
- Counters always cost [splat power resource]
- If the counter is reactive, you need to delay the action until after the to-be-countered power is cast. This doesn't apply for countering already cast spells with extended effects, of course.
- Exceptions to this are high level ritual / rite effects, which may require an equally powerful ritual / rite to counter (i.e. plot devices)

Rules applied within reason, of course. You may be able to dispel a ward (created by a ritual) with ad-hoc countermagick, but probably not the ancient curse laid upon the land by a Tzimisce koldun.

Your approach is very interesting, I like the idea that you need to have the same level of mastery over a field to be able to counter it. I don't see much sense in an aprentice with 1 in Forces being able to counter a "Ball of Abyssal Flame" summoned by Porthos lol

Regarding Magic the Gathering, in that case I used to be the Blue Counter Deck hahaha

[Ragged Robin]

Countermagick is tricky. I tend to do reduce success even if you don't out roll the spell.


Other soft rules

-you can counter spells with differant spheres from the spell but you must explain how it deconstructs the spell and is effectively a spell itself.

-prime 5 and entropy 5 can be used as standard counter magic by simply pulling the spell apart. As can quithlopic forces.

-other supernaturals have a specific sphere their 'spells' are vulnerable. This rules tends to apply more. to mystic flavoured powers such as Rites and pacts than inherant powers.

Werewolves-spirit
Fae-spirit
Demon-prime
Wraiths-entropy
Mummies-prime/time
Vampires-entropy.


-you cannot negate truth faith Full stop.

[voidshaper]

-you cannot negate truth faith Full stop.

I've been wondering about this lately. Magick tends to come in two flavors:

1) The agent and power source is the caster - formalized casting is a Ritual. The Ritual itself is just an aid for the caster to channel the power, and by itself doesn't do anything.

2) The agent and power source is an invoked entity - formalized casting is a Rite. As opposed to Rituals, a Rite is a series of actions to get the called upon entity to do something, and performing a Rite is theoretically open to non-casters.

True Faith seems to fall between the two. You can have Faith in canonical entities that are able to enact power, but it is made clear by the rules that this is not a necessity; you may have a character whose True Faith is in a non-existing thing, in which case the agent is the caster. In fact, the rules emphasize the importance of conviction and will for the trait.

The problem I run into is, mechanically, I need to decide which of the two applies. That's icky, because optimally I would like to leave such things ambiguous. Counterspells are a good example for this, but not the only case where this becomes relevant.

Countering a divine intervention channeled by the caster? Nah. Countering a power from the caster they enact as a feat of conviction and will? That's simple countermagick.

I haven't found a satisfying solution to this aside from deciding on a case-by-case basis, so I would be interested in reading the opinions of others on this.

[Ragged Robin]

My thoughts on it are more based on thematics it feels appropriate for true faith to be op because its rare and typically quite focussed in what it does. I've even played with it being the 10th sphere

[Herr Meister]

Another related question, do you allow countermagick as a "free action" as "Thaumaturgical Countermagic", aka Perdo Magica? My problem with allowing it to reduce successes is that if you have it as a free action then we're giving definite advantage to defense in the form of countermagick, i.e. it becomes easier to counter than to make magic and I find it problematic on many levels. This, beyond the fact that I think the RAW doesn't make much sense in my opinion as you only need 1 in the sphere in order to try to counter an effect using it, as I said before, it leads to situations where an apprentice can counter Porthos high Forces effect without having any deep understanding of the Art.

[Ragged Robin]

Another related question, do you allow countermagick as a "free action" as "Thaumaturgical Countermagic", aka Perdo Magica? My problem with allowing it to reduce successes is that if you have it as a free action then we're giving definite advantage to defense in the form of countermagick, i.e. it becomes easier to counter than to make magic and I find it problematic on many levels. This, beyond the fact that I think the RAW doesn't make much sense in my opinion as you only need 1 in the sphere in order to try to counter an effect using it, as I said before, it leads to situations where an apprentice can counter Porthos high Forces effect without having any deep understanding of the Art.

I'd go no, but im okay with hanging effect countermagic

[Herr Meister]

I'd go no, but im okay with hanging effect countermagic

Yes, "Hanging effect" is another thing entirely, like that route for Dark Ages Mage, Aegis Magicus that automatically reduces any magical attack made against the user, etc. My main gripe is allowing people with low Spheres being able to counter masters, etc.

[Herr Meister]

I mean, imagine an apprentice countering Porthos' Ball of Abyssal Flame...It's really hard for me to understand why they made it so easy to counter magick in the rules. To have 1 level in Forces be enough to counter anything using Forces is ridiculous.

[Matt the Bruins fan]

I think it makes sense for sphere vs. sphere or Prime-based countermagick to be able to work against a sphere effect the defender hasn't mastered, but for regular direct countermagick I'd say you'd need the sphere(s) at the same level as the effect you're trying to block.

[Ramnesis]

I think it depends on what we think is happening with Countermagic. If someone is trying to unweave a spell with the same deftness as it is being cast, that should require a Sphere at the same level or higher. If someone is just using their rudimentary Forces ability to yank bluntly at the pattern of a forming Forces spell, that likely requires fewer dots than the spell is cast with. I suspect that even for experienced Mages the latter is more often the approach if only because it is faster.

The odd part to me is that the first dot in a sphere is usually sensory, not manipulative, so it seems like having 2 dots in a Sphere would be the more appropriate threshold.

[mark]

I think it depends on what we think is happening with Countermagic. If someone is trying to unweave a spell with the same deftness as it is being cast, that should require a Sphere at the same level or higher. If someone is just using their rudimentary Forces ability to yank bluntly at the pattern of a forming Forces spell, that likely requires fewer dots than the spell is cast with. I suspect that even for experienced Mages the latter is more often the approach if only because it is faster.

The odd part to me is that the first dot in a sphere is usually sensory, not manipulative, so it seems like having 2 dots in a Sphere would be the more appropriate threshold.

I really dislike being able to unweave spells so easily as in standard mage. It's just boring. The nephandus put a mighty curse (entropy 4) on your girlfriend, what are we gonna do?? Oh i know just ask Bob, who just learned the absolute basics of the sphere. In my opinion it should either require,say, either the same spheres or at least something that would be logically capable of removing the effect. Its equal and opposite, or a manipulation of whatever quality the ongoing spell controls. Prime 5 might also work as a universal unweaver.

Countermagick is tricker, however. First, can someone tell me if i can lower the difficulty of a countermagick/unweaving roll byspending quintessence and the like? My gut instict is no, but i am not quite certain

[Herr Meister]

I really dislike being able to unweave spells so easily as in standard mage. It's just boring. The nephandus put a mighty curse (entropy 4) on your girlfriend, what are we gonna do?? Oh i know just ask Bob, who just learned the absolute basics of the sphere. In my opinion it should either require,say, either the same spheres or at least something that would be logically capable of removing the effect. Its equal and opposite, or a manipulation of whatever quality the ongoing spell controls. Prime 5 might also work as a universal unweaver.

Countermagick is tricker, however. First, can someone tell me if i can lower the difficulty of a countermagick/unweaving roll byspending quintessence and the like? My gut instict is no, but i am not quite certain

I totally agree. I don't see much sense in someone with the very basic level of a Sphere being able to unweave something made by someone of much greater knowledge. It makes no sense in both Countermagick and unweave in my opinion. Regarding spending Quintessence to lower the difficulty, no it's not possible as far as I know.