Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="GMMichael" data-source="post: 9305125" data-attributes="member: 6685730">Agreed - for spells that accomplish the same thing as a sword or bow attack.&nbsp; What about spells that turn your insides into your outsides?&nbsp; Some spells accomplish quite a bit more than the above examples.Some of these things appear as different rules (in different games).&nbsp; It makes sense for some additional rules for spellcasting interruption to appear in these games.&nbsp; My nitpicks with these are A) they often include loss of spellcasting power despite no spell occurring, and B) more rules to remember.&nbsp; Or more likely, more textbook-on-table time.Me, for one.&nbsp; If I can take a little training (feat?) and have the ability to disrupt some potentially life-ending events, I'll sign up!To pull this away from D&amp;Dese a bit, a Modos 2 counterspell, Dispel 1, is a one-action spell (hence the &quot;1&quot;).&nbsp; It's just as fast, in action economy, as throwing a dagger, and as such, it can also occur as a reaction.&nbsp; So throwing the dagger might be a non-caster equivalent, but there's no rules-support for a dagger attack disrupting a spell, besides rule zero.&nbsp; There's another twist: taking damage doesn't even mean getting hit by a dagger, so what would actually be the interruption?What would Martial Counterspell be?&nbsp; Probably a called shot.&nbsp; &quot;I shoot the caster's spell book/casting hand/staff.&quot;&nbsp; Which, yes, casters could do as well.&nbsp; As GM, I'd tack on a bit of difficulty to such a reaction.&nbsp; Which adds value to Dispel 1, because its difficulty increases with the level of the spell to be countered.&nbsp; So countering a level 1 or 2 spell with Dispel would be easier than throwing a dagger or shooting an arrow, from a luck-of-the-dice perspective.&nbsp; Also, while casters could use the martial counterspell as well, a warrior is likely to have more skill at it than a spellcaster would.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="GMMichael, post: 9305125, member: 6685730"] Agreed - for spells that accomplish the same thing as a sword or bow attack. What about spells that turn your insides into your outsides? Some spells accomplish quite a bit more than the above examples. Some of these things appear as different rules (in different games). It makes sense for some additional rules for spellcasting interruption to appear in these games. My nitpicks with these are A) they often include loss of spellcasting power despite no spell occurring, and B) more rules to remember. Or more likely, more textbook-on-table time. Me, for one. If I can take a little training (feat?) and have the ability to disrupt some potentially life-ending events, I'll sign up! To pull this away from D&Dese a bit, a Modos 2 counterspell, Dispel 1, is a one-action spell (hence the "1"). It's just as fast, in action economy, as throwing a dagger, and as such, it can also occur as a reaction. So throwing the dagger might be a non-caster equivalent, but there's no rules-support for a dagger attack disrupting a spell, besides rule zero. There's another twist: taking damage doesn't even mean getting hit by a dagger, so what would actually be the interruption? What would Martial Counterspell be? Probably a called shot. "I shoot the caster's spell book/casting hand/staff." Which, yes, casters could do as well. As GM, I'd tack on a bit of difficulty to such a reaction. Which adds value to Dispel 1, because its difficulty increases with the level of the spell to be countered. So countering a level 1 or 2 spell with Dispel would be easier than throwing a dagger or shooting an arrow, from a luck-of-the-dice perspective. Also, while casters could use the martial counterspell as well, a warrior is likely to have more skill at it than a spellcaster would. [/QUOTE]

Verification