Defending against magic attacks

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by evileeyore

There is explicitly a Blocking spell for that (and it only has four prerequisites).

But it is pretty expensive (costs 3).

Oh yeah, Catch Spell (Meta Spells). It’s a flat cost, so if you spend 3 to catch a DBZ Spirit Bomb, it’s pretty efficient.

[Culture20]

In the Death Gate novels, the rune-wielders could unravel magic cast at them by reversing the runes. Some versions of Marvel magic can be countered by similar but very mundane means: Just playing a recording of the verbal spell reversed is sufficient to counter effects (specifically seen in Runaways), or reversing glyphs with a hologram (Mighty Avengers).

[Plane]

Originally Posted by Culture20

Oh yeah, Catch Spell (Meta Spells). It’s a flat cost, so if you spend 3 to catch a DBZ Spirit Bomb, it’s pretty efficient.

Wouldn't it only work against magic spells and not chi abilities?

In GURPS Magic, Catch Spell is on 123 and lists Return Missile as a prereq. Return Missile is on 168 and lists Catch Missile as a prereq (this is on the same page and refers to Deflect Missile on 143)

Can any of these be converted to advantages?

[mr beer]

Magic resistance, high Will, good Dodge scores are all useful defences.

Explosive Fireball is underwhelming, Step 1 yard and watch the damage get divided by 3.

[Kromm]

On deflecting Missile spells with Parry Missile Weapons: I'd allow it. GURPS Magic, p. 12 is a little hesitant to commit. For those who want my personal ruling (I had no real influence on what went into GURPS Magic . . . I was too busy writing GURPS Powers at the time), it's on p. 14 of Dungeon Fantasy Spells:

A martial artist can use Parry Missile Weapons to parry, deflecting magic with chi.

But I think fairness dictates that if this is permitted, Catch Spell ought to work on ranged attacks bought with the Chi modifier, too. The GM can rule however they want, but I think it's fairest to allow both or neither.

[Culture20]

Originally Posted by Plane

Wouldn't it only work against magic spells and not chi abilities?

Sorry, Spirit Bomb is how i refer to Fireballs cast by wizards with too much magery (built to crazy high levels).

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Culture20

Sorry, Spirit Bomb is how i refer to Fireballs cast by wizards with too much magery (built to crazy high levels).

And a couple extra turns of charging, just for a bigger murder bomb?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

Huh. Either Mandela Effect, or, I'm getting game systems highly confused due to a severe shortage of sleep.

In 3e the missile spells did not have useful damage types, among other things because the system itself did not have the same set of damage types.

This lead to a lot of rationalization and fan theorizing, and may have contributed heavily to your mental model being "crushing that is somehow fire" - that's basically what it was in 3e. If not because you played 3e, but because you read arguments about it?

[Nereidalbel]

Originally Posted by Bruno

In 3e the missile spells did not have useful damage types, among other things because the system itself did not have the same set of damage types.

This lead to a lot of rationalization and fan theorizing, and may have contributed heavily to your mental model being "crushing that is somehow fire" - that's basically what it was in 3e. If not because you played 3e, but because you read arguments about it?

Probably this, yes.

[Kelly Pedersen]

Originally Posted by Nereidalbel

Probably this, yes.

And, to be fair to you, the FAQ answer quoted above sure does make it sound like a Fireball is doing some kind of crushing damage.

Personally, I suspect (based on its reference to "Steve", i.e., Steve Jackson, who hasn't personally answered a lot of questions about Magic since 4e came out) that it's based on answers to questions about Fireball from 3e and earlier. I suspect it could stand an update.