Dispelling in RPM

[lexington]

So breaking a spell in the RPM system is obviously Greater Destroy Magic and I assume that this is done as a Quick Contest between Path of Magic and the appropriate Path skill. However the rules say that extra energy is relevant to this although it never defines exactly how. I know that if two rituals try to stack the one that cost more wins but a counterspell isn't really trying to stack on top of the original one. How should I deal with this situation?

RPK brings this up in his FAQ but it doesn't clear things up for me much. For example using Lesser Restore Mind ought to only suspend the original mind control spell for as long as the Lesser Restore Mind lasts, while Greater Destroy Magic would end it entirely. It seems that the intention may be that you cannot even try to dispel a ritual unless the counterspell uses as much or more energy which feels a little bit strange.

[Tinman]

IIRC (IDHMBWM) there is NO contest. If you spell works & has equal or more power it dispells the target spell. The spell with the most power wins. No contest unless there is a magic ward (& if there is the contest is to get through the ward, not to dispell).

Lesser restore mind works because it's not trying to remove the spell, it's dealing with the mind after it has been affected.

[PK]

Originally Posted by lexington

So breaking a spell in the RPM system is obviously Greater Destroy Magic

Lesser Destroy Magic, actually, as a spell is the very definition of ambient, transient magic. Reserve Greater effects for targeting a person's abilities or permanent magical fixtures (e.g., places of power).

and I assume that this is done as a Quick Contest between Path of Magic and the appropriate Path skill.

Actually, no, it isn't. The only way the original caster gets some sort of QC defense against this is if he also threw up a ward. Dispelling an existing spell is all about overwhelming it -- if you can gather enough energy, you can break it.

However the rules say that extra energy is relevant to this although it never defines exactly how. I know that if two rituals try to stack the one that cost more wins but a counterspell isn't really trying to stack on top of the original one. How should I deal with this situation?

See the "Meta-Magic" modifier, specifically where it says, "Dispelling or altering magic requires additional energy equal to the cost of the original spell." The more energy sunk into the original spell, the more energy you have to gather to break it.

It seems that the intention may be that you cannot even try to dispel a ritual unless the counterspell uses as much or more energy which feels a little bit strange.

It does? IMO, it's a natural assumption. It would be rather unbalanced if you could dispel my 225-energy buff with a 20-energy ritual.

Now, the existing rules do provide a few ways to get around this issue, but detailed examples and guidelines will have to wait for the RPM book itself.

[lexington]

Originally Posted by PK

Lesser Destroy Magic, actually, as a spell is the very definition of ambient, transient magic. Reserve Greater effects for targeting a person's abilities or permanent magical fixtures (e.g., places of power).

It feels like a Greater Effect since I'm interacting with someone else's magic. I suppose it matters only a little for a simple counterspell.

Originally Posted by PK

Actually, no, it isn't. The only way the original caster gets some sort of QC defense against this is if he also threw up a ward. Dispelling an existing spell is all about overwhelming it -- if you can gather enough energy, you can break it.

It does? IMO, it's a natural assumption. It would be rather unbalanced if you could dispel my 225-energy buff with a 20-energy ritual.

Now, the existing rules do provide a few ways to get around this issue, but detailed examples and guidelines will have to wait for the RPM book itself.

I see your point but it feels to me like you ought to be able to try to break an expensive but shoddily made spell a smaller ritual and a bit more difficulty. Not so much "I break your 200 energy ensorcelment with a 20 energy ritual" more like "Your workmanship is shoddy, I can break this spell with just 100 energy" or even "His ritual is too precise, even with 300 energy I don't know if I can break it". The jump from doing nothing to automatically winning is a bit strange (though I do get that a skilled caster will be better at breaking rituals since they can gather more energy more safely and more quickly).

It's good to know how it's supposed to work so that I don't break it if I make adjustments.

Originally Posted by PK

See the "Meta-Magic" modifier, specifically where it says, "Dispelling or altering magic requires additional energy equal to the cost of the original spell." The more energy sunk into the original spell, the more energy you have to gather to break it.

And I managed to completely read past that twenty times, lol. Thanks!

[Anaraxes]

Originally Posted by PK

Dispelling an existing spell is all about overwhelming it --if you can gather enough energy, you can break it.

I expect this is one of those "this is what I meant" answers, where PK is usually quick to point out that your GM can make his own decisions that are different.

In real life, it's generally easier to destroy than to create. It doesn't matter how much energy and time it took to create a complex structure; it often takes relatively little energy to disrupt it, whether that's a quarter-inch hole through your chest or a block of C4 on the right pylon of a bridge. You could certainly argue that spells work this way. You just blow a hole in the structure and it collapses. Or not. If this is the rule, you should expect fights to start off stripping buffs from each other. And once that's the expected tactic, players will start wondering whether it's worth the time and effort of preparing and buffing. You'll get a different feel to combats and the prep for them. Whether or not that's the desired end result is your call.

The standard rule also omits any consideration of skill or mental agility when it comes to unweaving spells. Often in fiction you see the wizards analyzing the structure of a spell in order to figure out how best to unravel it. This might be modelled as a contest of skills in the Path in question. One wrinkle might be deliberate obfuscation of the structure of the spell when it's cast, which you might model by allowing the caster to take a skill penalty that later shows up as a penalty to opponents in the analysis contest. Victory in the contest lets you know where to put that block of magical C4.

As long as we're blowing things up, we can have failures -- or maybe even successes -- result in random dramatic and dangerous side effects from the collapsing spell -- the more energy, the worse it gets. You want to be careful in your spell destruction, like those guys that drop buildings down on top of themselves without damaging the neighbors. (Much.)

[JP42]

I suppose, if you kept track of the way in which the spell was built, you could have weaker dispel attempts start to break it down by reducing some of the effects. Area gets smaller, duration is reduced, potency of the spell drops, that sort of thing.

[Sunrunners_Fire]

Originally Posted by Anaraxes

The standard rule also omits any consideration of skill or mental agility when it comes to unweaving spells. Often in fiction you see the wizards analyzing the structure of a spell in order to figure out how best to unravel it. This might be modelled as a contest of skills in the Path in question. One wrinkle might be deliberate obfuscation of the structure of the spell when it's cast, which you might model by allowing the caster to take a skill penalty that later shows up as a penalty to opponents in the analysis contest. Victory in the contest lets you know where to put that block of magical C4.

I'd call that an example of Traditional Trappings and discount the final energy cost without discounting the effective energy cost for the purposes of dispelling.

[starslayer]

You could also make the penalties for critical failures less severe in dispelling, like say, only a time penalty.

Thus 'wizard spends hours studying the spell and eventually gets an 'AHA' moment and cracks it' could actually mean:

Need to gather 100 energy to break spell

crit fail at 60 energy, loose ten minutes
crit fail at 80, loose an hour
crit fail at 15, loose 10 seconds
crit fail at 95, loose two hours
success- spell dispelled.

[Humabout]

Originally Posted by lexington

Not so much "I break your 200 energy ensorcelment with a 20 energy ritual" more like "Your workmanship is shoddy, I can break this spell with just 100 energy" or even "His ritual is too precise, even with 300 energy I don't know if I can break it".

This sounds to me like a fun quirk for a spell to pick up on a failure (or perhaps an ad hoc bonus resulting from a critical success) rather than an attribute of the counterspell. Frankly, I think I'm going to file the "lowers effective energy level by X for the purposes of dispelling" quirk away for later use.

[DangerousThing]

Originally Posted by starslayer

You could also make the penalties for critical failures less severe in dispelling, like say, only a time penalty.

That's one way of looking at it, but in most of the wiz vs wiz stories I remember there are scenes where the second mage is examining the spell and having to dismantle it very carefully. This is not usually because it is booby trapped, but because the spell controls a lot of power which could be extremely dangerous unless taken care of correctly (dissipated or grounded or something like that). Or maybe the spell is linked to the inhabitants of a small country and it not only is mind controlling them, but taking a small bit of each person's energy to power the spell, which means that I weaving the spell improperly could kill many of the people you're trying to save.

These are examples from fantasy fiction rather than gaming. Unfortunately they were read in my misbegotten youth back when dinosaurs ruled the Earth, so I can't bring up many examples, though Madwand by Roger Zelazny comes to mind.