Abort to dispel

[steph]

Question to fantasy GM. Would you allowed a mage to abort to dispel another spell in préparation. Mage A want to cast fire ball, mabe b abort is next phase to interrupt the fire ball. 

 

Steph

[Urlord]

7 minutes ago, steph said:

Question to fantasy GM. Would you allowed a mage to abort to dispel another spell in préparation. Mage A want to cast fire ball, mabe b abort is next phase to interrupt the fire ball. 

 

Steph

 

If you are looking for a fast, mage duel style magic system, then I would say yes. However, the Dispell Spell would need to be build to accommodate such fast casting... no concentration, gestures, extra time, etc. and if it required a focus, the mage would need to have it ready since you cannot Abort to a Fast-Draw.  

 

Also - your bad guy mages need to do this to the PC mages a few times as well.

[Scott Ruggels]

Does he have a held action to use to abort? I would allow a held action to abort to dispel, but not as an abort to dodge unless the spell did not require gestures, or incantations. 

[Christopher]

It should fall under "defensive action" the same way "using a barrier power" or "blocking the attack with your body" would. More on the "use barrier power" side then "blocking the attack with your body" side however.

[bluesguy]

I would say if a mage wants that they should build the spell with a trigger and prep the spell ahead of time.  Maybe the trigger is "To abort to a defensive action to dispel spell directed at mage"

[Christopher R Taylor]

Yeah I'd require it be a magical spell prepared just to counterspell, not a maneuver.

[shuddemell]

I tend to do the same, typically, it's a spell I have them cast prior to the incident, with a trigger.

[Surrealone]

Per 6e1 p193:

Dispelling Incoming Attacks
A character can use Dispel to protect himself from incoming attacks, but he must have a Held Action. Assuming the Dispel applies to the attack, he uses his Held Action to “attack” the incoming attack with his Dispel. He rolls his Dispel dice (he doesn’t have to make an Attack Roll, though this does constitute an Attack Action). He Dispels the attack if the total of the Dispel dice exceeds the Active Points in the attack. The Power Defense of the character making the incoming attack (if any) doesn’t apply to reduce the Dispel effect roll.

 

Thus, to answer the original question:
No, you cannot Abort (key word: abort) to Dispel per RAW … and I would not permit it.  Key to this is that it requires an attack roll and, thus, is an Attack Action (i.e. not a defensive action).  This is why a Held Action is required …

[Christopher]

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Dispelling Incoming Attacks
A character can use Dispel to protect himself from incoming attacks, but he must have a Held Action. Assuming the Dispel applies to the attack, he uses his Held Action to “attack” the incoming attack with his Dispel. He rolls his Dispel dice (he doesn’t have to make an Attack Roll, though this does constitute an Attack Action). He Dispels the attack if the total of the Dispel dice exceeds the Active Points in the attack. The Power Defense of the character making the incoming attack (if any) doesn’t apply to reduce the Dispel effect roll.

There are special cases for protecting others:

" Ordinarily a character can only Abort to protect himself. However, with the GM’s permission, a character can Abort to protect others (for example, to step in front of an attack intended to hit another character, or to use Deflection to save someone from a bullet)."

"Characters can only Abort to create a Barrier with the GM’s permission. Before granting permission, the GM should decide that creating a Barrier constitutes a “defensive Action,” rather than an attempt to separate two areas, block someone’s escape, or the like."

6E2 21

 

Of course the question was never about "Rules as written" but "would you allow it"?

There is enough leeway in the rules to make such a call without resorting to houserules.

 

And as for an example: Counterspelling in Shadowrun. It allows a mage to protect his entire group from any magical attack he is aware off.

[Duke Bushido]

4 hours ago, Surrealone said:

Per 6e1 p193:

 

[pared down a bit by someone who is not Surrealalone, but is a bit envious of his username ]

 

"he doesn’t have to make an Attack Roll,"

 

Key to this is that it requires an attack roll 

 

Is this a typo, or did I miss something vital to this conversation?  Seriously: I'm not picking nits.  I'm just confused enough to think I missed something.

[Christopher]

2 hours ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Is this a typo, or did I miss something vital to this conversation?  Seriously: I'm not picking nits.  I'm just confused enough to think I missed something.

I think he overfocussed on attacks needing Attack rolls. Wich is true 95% of the time, just not this exact example.

I guess we all agree that Dispel is a attack power. The only question was if it could be used during abort under the "defensive Action" rules. based on it being a way to defend yoruself/your team against a power.

 

Actually that reminds me of something from the APG's, give me a moment to check back.

[Christopher]

8 minutes ago, Christopher said:

Actually that reminds me of something from the APG's, give me a moment to check back.

APG 1, 170. Optional Combat Option: Interference.

Basically those are rules for single phase "beam struggles".

 

You use your attacks AP to directly negate an attacks AP. And based on how defenses work, this might result in 0 net damage. A excerpt:
" Interference is a new Optional Combat
Maneuver that the GM can allow in the campaign.
It’s primarily intended for energy powers and
similar abilities, but the GM can allow characters with other types of attacks to use it as well
in appropriate circumstances. It’s based on the
fact that certain energy types can “counteract”
each other in ways energy projectors can exploit.
What occurs here is that the two energy types
interact negatively, sort of like two ocean waves
crashing together and destroying or weakening
one another.
To use Interference, a character must have two
things:
1. An Action available. Typically this means
he’s Held his Action in anticipation of using
Interference, but at the GM’s option a character
can Abort to Interfere. (Te GM can even allow
a character to Abort to Interfere with an attack
directed at someone other than himself, if that
seems appropriate and properly heroic.)"

 

APG 1, 164 has the counterpart of this: Enhancement. A subform of coordinated attack.

[Duke Bushido]

Hmm.  Neat to know.  We hastily cobbled something like that years and years ago when two Bricks locked horns:

 

You know the classic hand-in-hand dance pose as each tries to push the other down into submission... 

 

But getting back on track:

 

I have a history of allowing Abort to almost anything that's more-or-less instaneous: abort to T-port just made sense: I can dive for cover, but not vanish in a wink?  Sure, rules and all that, but sometimes it's about what makes good sense.  (half move only, justified as not taking the time to check for a location and trusting peripheral vision. 

 

Granted, no matter what I allow "abort to," the character still suffers the appropriate CV penalties.   

 

OH,- letting Speedster take a half-move as "flying dodge:" under the right circumstances. 

[Surrealone]

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 6:20 PM, Duke Bushido said:

 

Is this a typo, or did I miss something vital to this conversation?  Seriously: I'm not picking nits.  I'm just confused enough to think I missed something.

This was failing to double-check myself as I posted right before I ran out the door -- and leaving a mistake in place.  I apologize for the confusion.  That said, my stance is still a solid one because it's the Attack Action that matters.  By definition, use of a power that requires an Attack Action is an attack, which means it IS NOT defensive in nature (again, it's an attack; that's offensive, not defensive!)
 

On ‎10‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 5:49 PM, Christopher said:

Of course the question was never about "Rules as written" but "would you allow it"?

Agreed, which is why I actually answered that very question (and gave my rationale).  Key to this is that neither I nor 6e1&2 RAW see something that constitutes an 'Attack Action' as defensive in nature (GM handwaving excepted, of course).  Neither does RAW with regard to Dispel which is, of course, why a Held Action is needed for the so-called defensive use of Dispel.  Your Barrier example is a good one, as I'd only allow a Barrier to be erected if no Attack Action (and Attack Roll, in this example) were needed for the Barrier (a solid example of which would be englobing oneself).  Another such example would be firing up Darkness purchased with the No Range limitation … and its use to deny a mentalist LOS; such use would require no Attack Roll and, thus, it'd be defensive in nature … as opposed to having to roll to Attack a target hex to 'place' the Darkness, which would be an attack and, thus, non-defensive in nature.

While that may seem overly strict, it is aligned with RAW and it encourages the construction of powers with the concept of their use (i.e. offensive or defensive) in mind … specifically because it disallows the use of offensive powers defensively during Abort maneuvers (again, per RAW) -- and causes a player to build both offensive and defensive/abortable capabilities when the latter is required..  Thus, a Darkness-based character who wanted to be able to Abort to Darkness would need a Darkness power built that required no Attack Roll in order to do so … rather than any cost handwaving taking place to allow Darkness (which requires an Attack Roll) to be Aborted to despite the Attack on the target hex being required to 'place' the Darkness.  I'm just not big on giving out something for nothing … in a game where everything that's beneficial is supposed to have a cost.

 

[Duke Bushido]

34 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

This was failing to double-check myself as I posted right before I ran out the door -- and leaving a mistake in place.  I apologize for the confusion.

 

Quite all right.  I often post from my phone, which leaves an astounding number of typos and autocorrect nonsense throughout many of my comments.  Besides, Christopher straightened it out for me; it's all good.  

 

If I could ask you a question about this, though:

 

35 minutes ago, Surrealone said:

That said, my stance is still a solid one because it's the Attack Action that matters.  By definition, use of a power that requires an Attack Action is an attack, which means it IS NOT defensive in nature (again, it's an attack; that's offensive, not defensive!)

 

How do you feel about Missile Deflection?  Would you consider it defensive, or an attack?  Honestly, I can see it going either way, what with requiring a roll, etc, and I'm not inclined to disagree with either interpretation; I simply would like to compare your opinion (and anyone else's, are they inclined to offer it) to my own (which, if you're wondering, places it as a defensive action).

 

Thanks!

 

 

[Surrealone]

32 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

How do you feel about Missile Deflection?  Would you consider it defensive, or an attack?  Honestly, I can see it going either way, what with requiring a roll, etc, and I'm not inclined to disagree with either interpretation; I simply would like to compare your opinion (and anyone else's, are they inclined to offer it) to my own (which, if you're wondering, places it as a defensive action).

Deflection (formerly Missile Deflection) is just a Block against a missile in 6e, specifically one that doesn't require a shield or some other object with which to Block the missile.  While Block requires a roll to execute, it is (by design) a defensive action that negates an attack.

[Duke Bushido]

I see.  Thanks again.
 

[Christopher]

1 hour ago, Duke Bushido said:

How do you feel about Missile Deflection?  Would you consider it defensive, or an attack?  Honestly, I can see it going either way, what with requiring a roll, etc, and I'm not inclined to disagree with either interpretation; I simply would like to compare your opinion (and anyone else's, are they inclined to offer it) to my own (which, if you're wondering, places it as a defensive action). 

The Power formally known as Missile Deflection is now split into two: Deflection and Reflection

 

Deflection can be used with any Block maneuver, including ones you aborted too.

 

Reflection however is clear that it does not work with Aborted Blocks. You need a held action turned into a block. Of course Reflection also allows you to actually deal damage to targets.

[Duke Bushido]

1 minute ago, Christopher said:

The Power formally known as Missile Deflection is now split into two: Deflection and Reflection

 

Deflection can be used with any Block maneuver, including ones you aborted too.

 

Reflection however is clear that it does not work with Aborted Blocks. You need a held action turned into a block. Of course Reflection also allows you to actually deal damage to targets.

 

Just to be clear:

 

You would "abort to your held action" for reflection under the new rules?  (or the old ones, really.  Wasn't it 4e that introduced Reflection?  Though I think it might have been an adder to Deflection at that time.).  That is, if you want to use it outside of your natural Phase, you'd have to have a held action and cannot abort your next natural Phase?

 

 

[Christopher]

2 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Just to be clear:

 

You would "abort to your held action" for reflection under the new rules?  (or the old ones, really.  Wasn't it 4e that introduced Reflection?  Though I think it might have been an adder to Deflection at that time.).  That is, if you want to use it outside of your natural Phase, you'd have to have a held action and cannot abort your next natural Phase?

 

 

" Reflection only works with regular Blocks
against Ranged attacks, as discussed on 6E2 59.
It does not work with attacks that are Deflected
(i.e., Blocked at Range; see 6E1 187). To use it, a
character must have prepared to Block (such as
by Holding his Action); a character cannot use
Reflection if he Aborted to Block. A character
cannot Reflect attacks he cannot Block." 6E1 272

[Duke Bushido]

Well there goes my build of the Chinese biscuit lady turned super-goalie for her underdog soccer team...

 

 

 

[Scott Ruggels]

4 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

Well there goes my build of the Chinese biscuit lady turned super-goalie for her underdog soccer team...

 

 

 

 Sure you can.  She is a soccer Goalie, she doesn't move much, and would be constantly holding her actions, and an incoming ball would be expected at any time. To clear the goal, she could use deflection, and then Reflection when she wants to teach someone a lesson

(Excellent comedy movie by the way.)

[Surrealone]

41 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

 

Just to be clear:

 

You would "abort to your held action" for reflection under the new rules?  (or the old ones, really.  Wasn't it 4e that introduced Reflection?  Though I think it might have been an adder to Deflection at that time.).  That is, if you want to use it outside of your natural Phase, you'd have to have a held action and cannot abort your next natural Phase?

 

 

If you have a Held Action, you don't have to Abort; you just use your Held Action (to perform an Attack Action, if you like, even).  i.e. Aborting entails giving up your next Phase to take an action NOW …. something you need not do if you have a Held Action at your disposal.

[Duke Bushido]

Yes; of course.  Poor choice of words, and I didn't catch it before posting.  I have to stop staying on here so late. it's just that so many of the conversations get so interesting. :D.