ParanetOnline
The Dresden Files => DFRPG => Topic started by: Set Abominae on June 21, 2011, 05:34:45 AM
-
Reading the evocation rules, it occurs to me to ponder if a wizard could conceivably "hijack" a spell using something like the counter-spell and redirect rules to force the energy of the target spell into another spell.
I'd probably run it as a counter-spell check first, followed by a redirect, perhaps waving the typical automatic 1 stress cost (since they didn't have to gather the initial power themselves), but making the character take stress on any power (shifts) that exceed his/her conviction as per normal evoking.
Perhaps even requiring Sight use if they wanted to usurp thaumaturgic spells since this is something a bit more involved than just shorting out the spell.
Thoughts?
-
hmm ... interesting ...
... have you thought about handling it just as flavor without changing or revamping the rules? After a successful counter-spell it seems reasonable to me to just describe the next offensive spell of the wizard/caster that did the countering as if using the energy of the defended spell. That way you still have to spend mental stress for the attack, witch in my opinion still should be required.
I'd probably handle it this way and allow the counter-spelling character to reflect the original spell within his or her power limitations (using standard casting rules as if casting a normal spell), even if the type of the original magic isn't covered by their elements. Of cause specializations and foci do apply. Seems balanced to me.
-
Take a look at Blood Rites- Harry redirects an entropy curse into a Black Courtier (who gets an epic death). It's definitely possible- the mechanism on HOW you do it matters to you as a GM.
-
It feels to me like in the canonical example, Harry generated spin on a Counterspell or Block check, and the GM allowed a bonus on a followup roll, making it a few shifts easier to cast a followup Evocation spell against the BCV.
Other options:
Spin generates a free Maneuver that places the Aspect "Redirected Spell," which the player tags to either:
A) Invoke for Effect to allow use of the opponent's element on a followup attack, if the player doesn't possess that element normally
B) Tag for a simple +2 to a followup roll to reflect the surprise factor, or the ease of recycling the magical energy - heck, the GM may even allow this to boost the Power of the spell (people ordinarily limit Aspects to helping with Control rolls).
C) Invoke for Effect (plus an extra Fate Point or two) to determine that the spell gets actually redirected to another target, no Stress or targeting roll. The GM is free to negotiate the actual cost to the player, but an IFE plus FPs should be sufficient justification.
-
Given the specifics of that 'canonical example', specifically the Sloppy Spellcasting consequence being used to partially fuel the redirected spell (or at least to pull it off at a discount), I'd be betting on Option C
-
I'd think it would be more covered by a stunt that is like Riposte except for spell casting. Harry definitely has one.
-
hmm ... interesting ...
... have you thought about handling it just as flavor without changing or revamping the rules? After a successful counter-spell it seems reasonable to me to just describe the next offensive spell of the wizard/caster that did the countering as if using the energy of the defended spell. That way you still have to spend mental stress for the attack, witch in my opinion still should be required.
I'd probably handle it this way and allow the counter-spelling character to reflect the original spell within his or her power limitations (using standard casting rules as if casting a normal spell), even if the type of the original magic isn't covered by their elements. Of cause specializations and foci do apply. Seems balanced to me.
Well I was only pondering waiving the 1 stress default cost. I'd still enforce stress for shifts beyond the characters conviction.
I'd think it would be more covered by a stunt that is like Riposte except for spell casting. Harry definitely has one.
Now that would be an interesting idea for redirecting evocations. I'd still probably go for my first thoughts on retasking a thaumaturgy spell (though the Sight idea is purely speculative and more of a flavor thing if I thought it seemed appropriate to the situation).
Well I wasn't pondering waving the stress costs of the spell outside of the default 1 stress. Any shifts beyond the characters conviction would still cause stress.
-
While I think the stunt idea is elegant, I'm tempted to use a counterspell plus spin mechanic...mostly because counterspell is underpowered and underutilized in my experience.
-
While I think the stunt idea is elegant, I'm tempted to use a counterspell plus spin mechanic...mostly because counterspell is underpowered and underutilized in my experience.
Yeah. If counterspelling were used more often or often useful, it'd be a different story. As it stands, I'm all for a creative use of the two.