Countermagick

[Dataweaver]

I often think that Mage needs to put more emphasis on Magickal Feats. I could see someone with a single dot in the relevant Sphere attempting Countermagick; but if the Effect being countered was built on, say, 5 successes, you shouldn't be able to counter that with a single success.

[Ramnesis]

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.

Unweave requires a dot in every sphere in the spell plus a dot in Prime. Bob has to know the basics of at least two Spheres and possibly quite a few more. Also, reading over the unweaving, Bob would have to either overcome all of the original successes or manage 10-20 successes of his own (those two seem at odds, so I would guess the 10-20 is supposed to be the estimate for powerful spells when the ST doesn't already know).

Unweave doesn't say that each success reduces the power of the existing spell, so the ST has the option of requiring all the successes to be gathered in a single extended cast. That could be quite the challenge for Bob depending on his Arete and Stamina.

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

My gut says spending quintessence and willpower should work in countermagic. I don't really see a reason they wouldn't, and depending on how you run your game economy it could be quite the cost in its own right.

I often think that Mage needs to put more emphasis on Magickal Feats. I could see someone with a single dot in the relevant Sphere attempting Countermagick; but if the Effect being countered was built on, say, 5 successes, you shouldn't be able to counter that with a single success.

I do think most Spells should be based more distributed successes, yes. That said, for those spells where the mage absolutely needs all 5 successes for the effect to even go off, it does make sense that losing even a single success would be devastating.

There is a time honored tradition of the plucky novice managing to be just enough of a nuisance to disrupt an archmages entire spell. The climactic struggle of Willow comes to mind (the original, I haven't yet seen the new series).

Come to think of it, Willow does a good job of showing the difficulty and effects of a novice unweaving a powerful curse.

[Herr Meister]

I do think most Spells should be based more distributed successes, yes.

No, it doesn't.

Unweave requires a dot in every sphere in the spell plus a dot in Prime. Bob has to know the basics of at least two Spheres and possibly quite a few more. Also, reading over the unweaving, Bob would have to either overcome all of the original successes or manage 10-20 successes of his own (those two seem at odds, so I would guess the 10-20 is supposed to be the estimate for powerful spells when the ST doesn't already know).

The requirements are ridiculously low. It makes absolutely no sense for a novice to be able to unweave a Magister Mundi curse with just the very basic understanding of the Spheres. It makes no sense from every perspective one looks at it.

Countermagick should require knowledge equivalent or at least Prime 5.

[Dataweaver]

That would virtually eliminate Countermagick from the game.

[mark]

Unweave requires a dot in every sphere in the spell plus a dot in Prime. Bob has to know the basics of at least two Spheres and possibly quite a few more. Also, reading over the unweaving, Bob would have to either overcome all of the original successes or manage 10-20 successes of his own (those two seem at odds, so I would guess the 10-20 is supposed to be the estimate for powerful spells when the ST doesn't already know).

Unweave doesn't say that each success reduces the power of the existing spell, so the ST has the option of requiring all the successes to be gathered in a single extended cast. That could be quite the challenge for Bob depending on his Arete and Stamina.



My gut says spending quintessence and willpower should work in countermagic. I don't really see a reason they wouldn't, and depending on how you run your game economy it could be quite the cost in its own right.



I do think most Spells should be based more distributed successes, yes. That said, for those spells where the mage absolutely needs all 5 successes for the effect to even go off, it does make sense that losing even a single success would be devastating.

There is a time honored tradition of the plucky novice managing to be just enough of a nuisance to disrupt an archmages entire spell. The climactic struggle of Willow comes to mind (the original, I haven't yet seen the new series).

Come to think of it, Willow does a good job of showing the difficulty and effects of a novice unweaving a powerful curse.

The reason I think you should be incapable of spending quint on countermagic is that it can make boss battles into a joke.
Voormas is attacking. OK let's have 2 arete 4 people tank him while the third goes for the killing strike, alternating the job of countering depending on which Spheres are being used.

And if course there is the issue that we don't know... We do not know if unweaving, unlike countermagick is all or nothing. I assume it is, but it is downright unacceptable that we have to speculate about this stuff in what is the fourth edition of this game lol.

QUOTE=Dataweaver;n1507997]That would virtually eliminate Countermagick from the game. [/QUOTE

Hmm, by virtue of Spheres not existing there, Countermagick works much differently in da mage so I am not sure if this is necessarily a bad thing tbh.

However, for anti-magick I would keep the prime requirement at 3, as opposed to the unweaving of 5

Also, strictly speaking you don't need forces 3 to counter a fireball. You should be able to do it with forces 2 as per normal manipulation.

But I have not playtested all this in ascension so I don't know how it affects balance

[Muad'Dib]

Also, strictly speaking you don't need forces 3 to counter a fireball. You should be able to do it with forces 2 as per normal manipulation.

But I have not playtested all this in ascension so I don't know how it affects balance

There is the approach that the Sphere required to counter a Magick Effect is the one that makes sense in a particular character's Paradigm, beliefs, and methods. This should be considered sensibly and within reason, of course.

[Ramnesis]

The reason I think you should be incapable of spending quint on countermagic is that it can make boss battles into a joke.

Voormas is attacking. OK let's have 2 arete 4 people tank him while the third goes for the killing strike, alternating the job of countering depending on which Spheres are being used.

This still seems very much like a game economy issue. Quintessence economy, action economy, possibly willpower economy: all of these are things your hypothetical players are burning through.

This also seems like an area of this discussion where we would see benefit in actually running the numbers. I think Voormas has stats in the finale, Ascension. You could stat up a few starting level characters give them a set amount of quintessence each, and we could see how things work out in practice.

And if course there is the issue that we don't know... We do not know if unweaving, unlike countermagick is all or nothing. I assume it is, but it is downright unacceptable that we have to speculate about this stuff in what is the fourth edition of this game lol.

I don't know that much about the development cycle of the 20th anniversary editions, but I don't think they could possibly escape holes and oversights.

[mark]

This still seems very much like a game economy issue. Quintessence economy, action economy, possibly willpower economy: all of these are things your hypothetical players are burning through.

This also seems like an area of this discussion where we would see benefit in actually running the numbers. I think Voormas has stats in the finale, Ascension. You could stat up a few starting level characters give them a set amount of quintessence each, and we could see how things work out in practice.



I don't know that much about the development cycle of the 20th anniversary editions, but I don't think they could possibly escape holes and oversights.

I have played games with affinitive magic. I assure you, the only reason you see this as a "logical" hole and oversight is because the only standards that most of us have is white wolf games.
For the most part i am a fan of the storyteller system. In mage, however, you simply need rules. Simple as that. You need rules when everyone can make up things on the fly.
You need rules on what is supposed to be a core aspect of the game (e.g countermagick). The lack of playtesting is not the only problem. It's that no one thought of these. It was still downright criminal negligence in revised lol. In M20 it was simply unacceptable. And unweaving is just the tip of the iceberg. Nothing in Ascension makes sense if you think about it too hard.
The tragedy is that people think that M20 improve rules. Yes it did, in a few cases, but the standards were too low to begin with. That is, DA Mage is, in a sense, a first edition game, but it literally has rules that should have been inside since day one.
I wish i could keep Mage's writers as story writers, but hand the actual rule making to the team of Ars Magica lol.

I know Voormas has stats, its why i chose him as an example. It has been a while since i did such a playtesting, but the results are not good. Of course, it does depend on your conception of how such battles should be balanced

Edit: I seem to recall one older core rulebook showing, in an example, that you can reduce a spell's potency by countermagick, and its not all or nothing, so i assume that this still applies. It was either revised or second edition core rules. I think it was an example of a Chorister countering a Nephandus' entropy spell

[Ramnesis]

I have played games with affinitive magic. I assure you, the only reason you see this as a "logical" hole and oversight is because the only standards that most of us have is white wolf games.
For the most part i am a fan of the storyteller system. In mage, however, you simply need rules. Simple as that. You need rules when everyone can make up things on the fly.

I don't even see a logical hole, I just see an oversight. An oversight in an optional rule, no less. One that can easily be adjudicated to meet the needs of the game.

You're not going to see me holding up Mage's rule as a paragon of game design, but this is far from its biggest flaw. At least it isn't outright contradicting itself here.

Edit: I seem to recall one older core rulebook showing, in an example, that you can reduce a spell's potency by countermagick, and its not all or nothing, so i assume that this still applies. It was either revised or second edition core rules. I think it was an example of a Chorister countering a Nephandus' entropy spell

That is explicit in M20, yes. Only all or nothing spells fizzle entirely if they are reduced below threshold successes. If a spell is based on the Magical Feats then the reduction works according to the Degrees of Success Chart: full effect if the spell meets required successes, reduced effect if the spell has at least half the necessary successes, and failure if lower than that. Interactions with other tables like the damage table are not explicitly called out but they don't need to be as those are not all or nothing spells and it is easy to extrapolate.

[mark]

I don't even see a logical hole, I just see an oversight. An oversight in an optional rule, no less. One that can easily be adjudicated to meet the needs of the game.

You're not going to see me holding up Mage's rule as a paragon of game design, but this is far from its biggest flaw. At least it isn't outright contradicting itself here.



That is explicit in M20, yes. Only all or nothing spells fizzle entirely if they are reduced below threshold successes. If a spell is based on the Magical Feats then the reduction works according to the Degrees of Success Chart: full effect if the spell meets required successes, reduced effect if the spell has at least half the necessary successes, and failure if lower than that. Interactions with other tables like the damage table are not explicitly called out but they don't need to be as those are not all or nothing spells and it is easy to extrapolate.

Not saying it is its biggest flaw mind you. Just not something that should be there during the game's fourth edition

At any rate, is unweaving an optional rule? It's been some years since I last checked the games core rules (of any edition), so I thought it was a core rule.

So counter and anti Magick are core rules and unweaving optional?

[Ramnesis]

In M20, Antimagic, Unweaving, and Protective or Offensive Countermagic (countermagicing spells aimed at someone else or reflecting them back) are all listed as optional rules.

[Herr Meister]

In M20, Antimagic, Unweaving, and Protective or Offensive Countermagic (countermagicing spells aimed at someone else or reflecting them back) are all listed as optional rules.

That's something I didn't remember. It's great to know, because I really hate the way they work. The problem mark cited is one of the many reasons I hate it. It's absolutely ridiculous to have a band of ragtag novices being able to stop Voormas or Porthos using that system lol...

I remember I've read somewhere that countermagick was "all or nothing", but I don't seem to recall in which book it's stated, that could alleviate the problem a lot.

[mark]

That's something I didn't remember. It's great to know, because I really hate the way they work. The problem mark cited is one of the many reasons I hate it. It's absolutely ridiculous to have a band of ragtag novices being able to stop Voormas or Porthos using that system lol...

I remember I've read somewhere that countermagick was "all or nothing", but I don't seem to recall in which book it's stated, that could alleviate the problem a lot.

No, i did some research, and at least in the revised core rules, it definitely does not work like this.That is, it explicitly says that you can reduce the power of a spell.
I have always found odd how easy countering is in the wod . At least, for the Tremere it sorta makes sense. You pay xp for a counter ability, and its one of the few equalizers to blood magic's vast strength. And it still lacks any unweaving qualities


But I suspect that the writers did not really take a band of players stacking countermagick into account. It would be helpful if a writer could tell us, if countermagick of multiple players "stacks" or if you can spend quintessence on it, maybe on a future errata.


Like, if 3 vampires with,say 9 dots of disciplines fight a vampire who has thirty, of the same generation, all else being equal the vampire is very likely to win,right?* this assumes none of the youngsters have any dot higher than 3 and that their disciplines are relatively diverse as opposed to all just happening to have a single broken combo
So, i assume that the equivalent fight between mages should have similar betting odds, ceteris paribus

[Herr Meister]

No, i did some research, and at least in the revised core rules, it definitely does not work like this.That is, it explicitly says that you can reduce the power of a spell.
I have always found odd how easy countering is in the wod . At least, for the Tremere it sorta makes sense. You pay xp for a counter ability, and its one of the few equalizers to blood magic's vast strength. And it still lacks any unweaving qualities


But I suspect that the writers did not really take a band of players stacking countermagick into account. It would be helpful if a writer could tell us, if countermagick of multiple players "stacks" or if you can spend quintessence on it, maybe on a future errata.


Like, if 3 vampires with,say 9 dots of disciplines fight a vampire who has thirty, of the same generation, all else being equal the vampire is very likely to win,right?* this assumes none of the youngsters have any dot higher than 3 and that their disciplines are relatively diverse as opposed to all just happening to have a single broken combo
So, i assume that the equivalent fight between mages should have similar betting odds, ceteris paribus

It's strange, I don't know if I read it in a second edition book, but I had "that impression" of reading it somehwere. Countermagick system is completely broken if it allows one to turn archmages into a joke (ofc I'm oversimplifying here lol). Regarding the Tremere, they have this counter in the form of Perdo Magica, but it's a path and most would never touch it. Regarding unweaving, they have it in the form of specific ritual.

The most important problem aspect that I see in this situation is that if one uses the system for countermagick it completely trivializes powerful archmages and similar entities.

[Ramnesis]

That's something I didn't remember. It's great to know, because I really hate the way they work. The problem mark cited is one of the many reasons I hate it. It's absolutely ridiculous to have a band of ragtag novices being able to stop Voormas or Porthos using that system lol...

I remember I've read somewhere that countermagick was "all or nothing", but I don't seem to recall in which book it's stated, that could alleviate the problem a lot.

I should point out, countermagic itself is not an optional rule, only the other three are. Also, countermagic is only "all or nothing" when the spell itself is. If the spell can function in some capacity at the successes it is reduced to, it does. A five success fireball (12 damage) that gets reduced by 2 successes becomes a 3 success fireball (8 damage).



I just did a quick spreadsheet for this. Voormas is Arete 7. Bob, Cob, and Dobby take on Voormas in his Sanctum (difficulty 6 fireballs). Voormas throws a fireball at Bob. Bob countermagics. Cob and Dobby countermagic if they can.

Voormas will fail to get any successes around 10% of the time. On average he does ~7.2 damage (which includes the misses).



If Bob, Cob, and Dobby are Arete 2. Bob will remove ~0.7 successes on average, which amounts to a ~1.5 reduction in damage. Voormas' fireball will now fizzle ~20% of the time.

Bob has to contend with an average of 5.62 damage.

If Cob and Dobby can also countermagic, then the three of them can remove ~1.8 successes, which amounts to a ~3.6 reduction in damage. Voormas' fireball will now fizzle ~40% of the time.

Bob only has to contend with an average of 3.6 damage. All three used a full round action.



If Bob, Cob, and Dobby are Arete 3. Bob will remove 1 success on average, which amounts to a ~2.1 reduction in damage. Voormas' fireball will now fizzle ~25% of the time.

Bob has to contend with an average 5 damage.

If Cob and Dobby can also countermagic, then the three of them can remove ~2.6 successes, which amounts to a ~4.6 reduction in damage. Voormas' fireball will now fizzle ~55% of the time.

Bob only has to contend with an average of 2.7 damage. All three used a full round action.




If Bob, Cob, and Dobby are Arete 4. Bob will remove 1.3 success on average, which amounts to a ~2.6 reduction in damage. Voormas' fireball will now fizzle ~33% of the time.

Bob has to contend with an average 4.4 damage.

If Cob and Dobby can also countermagic, then the three of them can remove ~3.2 successes, which amounts to a ~5.2 reduction in damage. Voormas' fireball will now fizzle ~62% of the time.

Bob only has to contend with an average of 2.2 damage. All three used a full round action.