Defenders Against Magical Attacks

Games Discussion Ars Magica
21

This is a weird bit where mechanically, it is impossible to do a Defense roll against a non aimed spell.

This in turn gives the impression that it is impossible to parry, block or dodge such spells, since that is what Defense rolle often represent.

However, fast casting illustrates this is indeed possible- in addition, fast casting is also a unique form of an Interrupt action.

Which implies- to me anyway- a mundane could parry or dodge a spell, but it would have to be an Interrupt action. There isn't a clear narrative difference, besides that it takes the mundane so much attention that they can't perform another action that round.

22

Non-aimed spell always hit. That the definition. They can be soaked, that's the only defense mechanism.
I think the idea that if should be possible to defend against them is that the description of PoF (for example), describes a jet of flame flying towards a target, but it is purely a cosmetic effect: the flame appears on the target. It is engulfed (depending on the size) in flames.

1 Like
23

Non-aimed spell always hit

This is blatantly wrong.

Fast casting allows one to block, dodge or otherwise nullify a non-aimed attack. Incantation of Lightning also says there cannot be anything between the mage and the target.

Hence, it cannot be said non-aimed spells always hits because there's explicit possible ways of them not doing so.

Edit: what non-aimed spells don't allow is a Defense roll. However- Interruption actions can manifest as what we would typically thinknas Defense Rolls i.e blocking or dodging. Its redundant in most cases, but in the case of non aimed spells is reasonable.

24

That is an incorrect formulation. Fast casting allows one to counter a non-aimed attack with an appropriate fast cast spell that is sufficiently powerful to counter the attack. To me, that is a completely different situation than to block or dodge (covered in the combat rules).

The decision as to what is an appropriate fast cast spell is left to the individual troupe, but it can be inferred that where a blast of water might quench a Pilum of Fire before it does any damage will usually be considered appropriate, the same blast of water will be inappropriate (and thus ineffective) against a PeCo attack such as Grip of the Choking Hand.

Now, the exact description of the spell may provide hints as to what may be considered appropriate and what may not. In your example of The Incantation of Lightning, the description states that nothing can stand between the caster and his target. That means that a sufficiently powerful (at least half the level of the attack) rampart of earth, wall of water or other magically created (or moved into place) obstruction will work, but that making the target invisible will not.

5 Likes
25

It isn't- whilst fast cast defenses are not restricted to blocking and dodging, blocking is an explicit example of such- unless you go out of your way to say blocking is purely defined as a defense roll and anything else is fluff, which I think is suspect.

If a player wanted to fluff a Defense Roll as something besides a block or dodge- headbutting a fist before it can gain enough speed to actually hurt someone for example, or catching the swordarm of a swordsman- then there is no reason they can't imo, as the rules aren't so restrictive to say you can't.

Conversely, dodging and blocking aren't restricted to Defense Rolls. An example of this in LoM is being able to use an Interrupt Action to dodge charge

If you are using the interrupting actions
option (see Option: Interruption Actions,
earlier in this chapter), a character who is
charging on foot uses his Combat Ability as
the relevant Ability in his Action Priority To-
tal. The character who is interrupting should
use Athletics if he’s trying to move out of the
way of the charge, or a Combat Ability if he’s
trying to attack the charging character. One
may interrupt a charge using either missile or
melee weapons

26

Every example you give relates to physical combat. They are simply not applicable to non-aimed magical attacks. That is why magic has its own chapter in the rulebook, and why the only mention of magic in the combat section is limited to how to determine when magic occurs in a combat round (initiative and fact cast actions on ArM5 p.174).

The only thing that can block a direct (non-aimed) magical attack is Magic Resistance or a magical defense. No amount of dodging will counter the effect, and no amount of waving around a shield will block it.

The section about Aimed attacks (ArM5 p.86) gives an option to get around Magic Resistance by indirectly affecting your target using using magic on the environment. You direct a non-magical medium against your target, but this requires an Aiming roll.

But the magic itself cannot be blocked blocked except by magic resistance or a countering magical force.

4 Likes
27

Have you ever asked why exactly a magical defense can block a fireball? What is the difference between a magical shield and a mundane one, in this regard?

Its not that its magical- its that its an Interruption action, albeit one the mage doesn't need to delay. Fundamentally speaking, there's nothing different thats relevant metaphysically speaking between a mage who rego herbams a wooden shield to block a pilum and a mundane who raises their shield very very fast.

I agree that one cannot block say, a perdo corpus "die" spell- however, this i think is a false equivalence. An Interrupt Action can likely still put some sort of defense if one can think of one, similar to how a fast cast cannot.

Edit: An interrupt action in the case of pilum of fire could be raising the shield to block the fireball, similar to how fast casting can conjure a wall to block it. Alternatively it could be diving for cover, wrapping ones cloak around themselves to protect from the fire and so forth. What fluff is exactly allowed is up to the troupe, but considering Fast Casting is a form of Interruption I'd be hardpressed to give it "block pilum" privilege alone.

28

The fast cast defense rules are problematic, in that "countering" is so often described in terms that imply interception, or even blocking or dodging.

I'd argue that your own example does. (Shifting PoF to a direct spell has been such a headache.)

I think the simplist solution is to assume directly targeted spells do use a medium that can be intercepted, blocked, or dodged, but the medium moves with such speed and magically-guided precision that magic is required to successfully intercept, block, or dodge.

Cleaving more closely to the RAW, or at least what they imply, I believe we need to imagine opposed elements and effects that very much somehow target the attacking spell as it forms or activates, not the result, with the troupe giving a bonus or penalty based on appropriatness.

A CrIg attack is well-met by a CrAq counter spell, and there's an explosion of steam near the caster.
A targeted mage standing in a pond might use ReAq as a counter, with a bonus, and there's an explosion of steam from him.
A targeted CrTe specialist might counter with CrTe at a penalty, and success sees suddenly-appearing hot-baked clay fall away from their face and chest. The fast-cast counter has not blocked the CrIg attack, but instead been made into a substitute target, or armor, which is really the same thing. Herbam could work, but at a greater penalty.
Potentially ReCo might see a targeted mage switch places with another person. Not as a dodge, but as a deftly forced switch of target. Likely at a penalty.

The basic fast cast defense rules don't specify much. Maybe a 30th level CrIg attack can be countered by a mage dousing himself with a 15th level CrAq worth of water. That's something concrete, though I don't find it satisfying. But all you need for a half attack-level fast cast defense is for it to do something. We should likely keep it as abstract as possible. There's nothing in our lives that makes common sense descriptions appropriate.

1 Like
29

Canonically (see the quote I posted earlier) you can use Creo Herbam to create a wooden shield to defend against a Ball of Abysmal Flame (or against a Pilum of Fire). Or use Creo Aquam to quench the fire. Or Rego Ignem to deflect the fire.
So you can do a lot of stuff to make sure even non-aimed spells don't hit their target.

30

It doesn't. The blast of water in my example doesn't block the fire, it neutralizes it. The fire still appears on its intended target.

I disagree, because that is exactly the kind of assumption that leads to the belief that the spells can be blocked by mundane defenses or actions. The rules are clear that they cannot.

This is what the rules state, essentially.

31

Yep. Defend.
It's when you think of it as "blocking," in the same way a shield might block as sword - in the way shields work - that you get into trouble.

32

How else would you use a wooden shield to defend against an incoming Ball of Abysmal Flame, if not block it?

33

I am not sure how else a shield defends from an attack.

Anyway- my take following LoM is that it takes a dedicated action to directly deal with a non-aimed spell in some way. A defense roll isn’t a dedicated action, but a reaction. In addition, this must be used as an Interruption- usually by ruining the spellcasting itself, but fast casting shows you can deal with the spell.

Fast casting is unique in that it is effectively an extra form of an action a magus can take outside their turn. But there’s theoretically no reason a mundane can’t do the same thing.

If a magus can negate a Pilum of fire by dowsing themselves in water, than a mundane may use a nearby bucket to do so as an Interrupt Action before the fire can truly burn them- and so forth.

34

Ah, I see. That is consistent, but I don't find it much of an improvement given the very close timing that seems necessary.

Which is why I explicitly said it requires magical defenses or actions. But the real disagreement here, I think, is what's simpler.

Given that this seems an evergreen point of confusion and contention, my argument is that it may be best to grant that mundane blocking, dodging, etc.is theoretically possible, but remains a practical impossibility.

Imagine someone with a bucket - or tub, or whatever - of water standing next to your PoF target. If it's simply having water in place to take the "hit" of the Pilum, then theoretically the water from the bucket could be tossed onto the target in the same way. But we can simply, I say, rule that the speed and/or precise timing is practical only using magic.

Hmm. I don't think so. I believe it's what they imply must be true, despite how fast casting is often described to work. As ErikT cites, counter spells seem to operate against the spell's result, not cancel or counter the magic.

Magically conjure it and, via sympathetic magic, make it the new target.

Conjure it with magical speed just before the Ball goes off and use as a big piece of armor - it "soaks" the attack that does hit you. Because there is no targeting roll - by the RAW the spell will hit the target.

The fast-cast defense spell works via somehow boosting Form-defense or Parma.

Or you could go with my "simpler" option, in which case you do really block the attack.

I should have added this: We could also say that fast-cast defenses are exception to the rule that direct spells always hit their target.
Given that, there might be other exceptions. (see: Dalt's posts.)

Any of those could work, but I think a troupe should either:
a) Be consistent.
or
b) Accept that it and/or magic is inconsistent.

The bad option is:
c) Feel obliged to follow the RAW down some logically-consistent but unfun path.

The only good thing about "c" is that we have multiple written-rules that can be followed to multiple final locations.

35

To clarify- I do think this is a case where “rule of cool” is kinda baked into fast-casting and thus likely Interruption Actions, as fast-casts are a specific type of Interrupt Acions.

Why can a fast cast block a plium of fire and a Defense Roll can’t? There’s no good reason really, besides maybe the writers wanted to do wizard battles.

However- I am of the opinion that the big difference between non-aimed spells and aimed spells is reactibility.

Non aimed spells are too fast- unless you are already prepped to deal with it (i.e delaying an action) your mind and thus body cannot keep up. Fast casting gets around this because there’s no bodily factor to take into account- you do not need to raise your sword arm. But for a mundane, the best hope to actually parry say, a lightning bolt, is to anticipate it (i.e delay your action and attempt an Interrupt Action.)

36

I will just note that Fast Casting typically requires using both words and gestures. So there is absolutely a bodily factor to take into account.

1 Like
37

Let me ask this, because I want to hear the answer from both sides.
If Mage A casts incantation of lightning, which requires a direct line, and Mage B casts ReCo to throw a body between the caster and the target, why should a ReCo spell work (or should it?) but not a person jumping into the path of the lightning (presumably with really bad consequences to themselves)?

38

Magic works, person jumping does not.

Meta reason. Most other systems care about game balance. They wants characters roughly with the same power. This means magic has saving throws, mind control is resisted every turn, invisibility is cancelled when you attack, etc.

Ars Majica throws that out the window. The incredibly tough tank fighter is easily killed by an experienced mage with incantation of lightning. Gandalf and Frodo can be in the same party, both as player characters. Magic is a terrifying unstoppable force that non-magical being are rightly terrified of. Being able to physically shield a pilum reduces that terror.

If one wants a mundane answer. It is impossible to react fast enough to stop magic with non magical means.

1 Like
39

Oooh, let me try to answer for both:

"Someone jumping in front doesn't work because it's how the game is defined. In chess, the bishop has to stay on the diagonals because that's how the piece is defined, it can't move one square forward to block check no matter how much it loves the king or how many times you saw real-world bishops move forward. Magic can block (non-aimed) magic, while non-magic can't. How magic does the blocking is window-dressing, and doesn't justify other methods of blocking."

"Someone jumping in front also works because it also fits the in-story logic. Ars Magica has had a 'Storyguide' from back when most other roleplaying systems had a 'referee' or 'game master' because of that primacy. If moving a body in the way with magic can block the spell, moving a body in the way some other way can, too. Anything else violates the verisimilitude, and verisimilitude is the primary reason for having 'rules' instead of pure ad-hoc improvisation in the first place."

40

I will say- mechanically, LoM specifies fast casting is an Interruption- its even called out it resolves your action before the action you're reacting to finishes, similar to fast casting.

Normally, when a character delays an
action as described earlier, his delayed ac-
tion is resolved after the action to which
he’s responding. This optional rule gives
a character a chance to actually interrupt
his opponent’s action, causing his own ac-
tion to resolve before the event to which
he’s responding. This is similar to the way a successful Fast-Cast spell resolves before the attack against which the magus is defending.

So I think the end result is it mechanically is plausible to jump in front of an incantarion as an Interruption.

1 Like