VOTE NOW!

[GM_Chris]

Here is your chance to vote on some rules.

To expplain the two options better by example.

1) If I am casting firestorm the only way to counter me is for another mage to be casting firestorm.

2) If I cast firestorm the only way to counter me is to cast a water spell of some kind.

Counters and how they work specifically will be in the spell description.

Ok poll does not work why?

[dier_cire]

I'm going with the same spell mainly due to simplicity. Trying to remember what spell counters what has the ability to get out of hand very easily, especially if say, higher level spells are more encompassing fo what they can counter. Causes uneeded gamestops so arcanes can confer.

[Kale]

I kinda vote neither.

This is how I think it should work:

For each spell there is a Counterspell. When you find a spell, you also find the counter as the counter is part of the spell, thus you can use that scroll you found to counter that spell.

HOWEVER, sometimes you may find a spell that doesn't have the counterspell on the scroll, thus you only have half of the spell, in effect.

Some spells cannot be countered and don't come with a counterspell listed on the scroll.

With this in mind, I will vote for same.

[WayneO42]

I vote for no counter spells. In my opinion, a sucking chest wound is the counterspell for everything. If the ritual is interupted, the spell fizzles.

-WayneO

[Kale]

True.

[Eilonwy]

I like the idea of opposites canceling each other out, where as the same seems like it would only double the effect. Otherwise, go with no counterspell.

[GM_Chris]

The only spells that would have counter spells are those spells that cause game breaks. These spells TEND to be ultra powerful and can hurt lots of people.

So say I was going to cast firestorm from atop a keep where people can see. A rival sieging arcane seeing me casting thinks he will prepare a counter spell. Now we could do it that to counter me he needs to also begin the firestorm rite OR we could say he needs to be working on another spell. Forexample, there could be a rite that protects all within an area from fire, or a spell that shields all from an ill effect.

-Chris

[Eilonwy]

"Anti" and/or protection spells of another kind might be interesting. Ex: the anti-fire spell mentioned.

Still simple as far as both have fire in the title. Not the same spell, in case someone wishes to focus on protective magics vs. offensive. It could create more diversity in spellcasters.

[Kale]

Course a crossbow bold through that guy's throat could end the firestorm right quick.

[Eilonwy]

True. It just might be nice if say, you know you are entering a fiery cavern and wish prior protections put on. Or if that bolt just happens to miss or be blocked by another...

[Nelkie]

I doesn't make since.

We ae not talk about quick spell casting here. It will take time to cast that firestorm.

So ok I'm walking along and I see an acrane finiishing casting a firestorm spell which lets say takes 20 minutes to cast. So I sit down and begin to cast my counter firestorm spell, and 20 minutes later I cast it. But wait, the firestorm spell is over already.

I have to agree, just go hit the arcane who casting the spell. That will cancel any arcan spell.

I find it hard to see a counter spell system working, unless the counter spell is fast.

Here's an idea. Make the witch hunters 3rd level ability cancel spells. The ability is not defined very well.

[Trevor Owen]

I don't mind the witch hunter having the ability to negate or counter spells, I just don't think it should be an instant thing. The witch hunter shouldn't be able to see a distant arcane and point-cancel a spell that takes half an hour to cast.

On the other hand I could see a witch hunter or opposing arcane being able to counter a spell with a chant, in that as long as they keep up the chant and keep the arcane in sight he can't finish the spell, but should the opposing arcane or witch hunter be forced to cease their chant, the arcane can complete his spell as normal. So it isn't that they are really disrupting his mail, more like putting it on pause.

Thus the troops from both sides do battle while the arcanes wage a stalemate. Whoever loses their protection first ends up with the other side getting off their spells, and then the skies rain fire.

[Peace420]

My vote would be for neither, I like the protection from BLAH idea. The problem that I see with all of the options is that because we don't have standardized incants every time an arcane tries to counter another arcane they would have to call a game stop and ask the arcane what they are casting. The protection spells would obviously have to take less time than the damaging spell or you would have to take a chance on having the 1 spell you can have on you be a resist spell.

Question, would you have to have the ritual being cast in your book to counter? Otherwise how would the arcane know what is being cast.

I also think the name "Witch Hunter" should be changed. It could be offensive to... well... witches... seriously. Wiccans often call themselves witches as well as a few other smaller splinter religions. I mean we wouldn't have a class called "Bishop Hunter". Just a thought.

[Kale]

See, back in the day they were called witches and people hunted them. This is why we call them a Witch Hunter. If we were doing World War II re-enactment it may offend people that some of us were playing Nazis, but what kind of re-enactment would there be if there were no Nazis?

[Peace420]

we aren't re-enacting we're role-playing and these guys are trying to grow thier LARP, alienating the people that make up a sizable percentage of their possible player base is not the wat to grow your business.

And "Back in the day we used to do this" is the absolute worst reason to do anything. Back in the day I would be in cuffs tilling some rich white man's field. I would hope that today our society would be a little wiser and accepting of everyone and their beliefs.