The Attack spell uses the rules for combat, ostensibly, but it's unclear what that actually means. In addition, it's unclear how the rest of the spells that may affect an opponent can be defended against.

Does Defense apply vs spells?

Can you use Defensive Stance or Sidestep to upgrade the difficulty of spells targeting you?

Dodge?

What tools are there to make a character less susceptible to magic?

Saving throw vs spell! No wait... I got nothing

Characters have two primary defenses against spells: Discipline, against anything that affects their mind, spirit, or (arguably) their senses, and Resilience, which is anything that affects their physical body.

Defense arguably applies to most spells, especially those that require a combat check to hit. That's largely up to the GM, though, I think, and in many cases would depend on the nature of the spell. A bolt of magic energy could be dodged or deflected (for instance), but a mental blast that strikes their psyche couldn't be dodged the same way. I would say when in doubt, allow all normal defenses to apply.

As has been said, the Attack spell uses the rules for any attack action. Dodge would definitely apply, as would a general defense rating.

The description does not say whether to treat the attack as ranged or melee. Infact, page 105 defines which form of defense applies to each combat skill, and magic attacks are not mentioned.

It seems fitting that ranged defense and Side Step would apply to the Attack spell, even though RAW does not specify. I would further argue melee defense and Defensive Stance should apply to Attack spells with the Close Combat effect added.

As to the other spells, only Curse affects opponents directly. There aren't options as yet that would apply a penalty to the caster's skill check, or give the target a way of resisting. Seems like a great opportunity to create a talent, perhaps similar to Defensive or SideStep, but limited to non-Attack spells.

39 minutes ago, Direach said:

Characters have two primary defenses against spells: Discipline, against anything that affects their mind, spirit, or (arguably) their senses, and Resilience, which is anything that affects their physical body.

Defense arguably applies to most spells, especially those that require a combat check to hit. That's largely up to the GM, though, I think, and in many cases would depend on the nature of the spell. A bolt of magic energy could be dodged or deflected (for instance), but a mental blast that strikes their psyche couldn't be dodged the same way. I would say when in doubt, allow all normal defenses to apply.

The spells all come with a standard difficulty you're rolling against, and the rules for spells would breakdown if that were substituted for an opposed check.

9 minutes ago, O the Owl said:

As has been said, the Attack spell uses the rules for any attack action. Dodge would definitely apply, as would a general defense rating.

The description does not say whether to treat the attack as ranged or melee. Infact, page 105 defines which form of defense applies to each combat skill, and magic attacks are not mentioned.

It seems fitting that ranged defense and Side Step would apply to the Attack spell, even though RAW does not specify. I would further argue melee defense and Defensive Stance should apply to Attack spells with the Close Combat effect added.

As to the other spells, only Curse affects opponents directly. There aren't options as yet that would apply a penalty to the caster's skill check, or give the target a way of resisting. Seems like a great opportunity to create a talent, perhaps similar to Defensive or SideStep, but limited to non-Attack spells.

I'm not sure I like the idea of essentially requiring a whole new set of defensive talents geared for spells. XP just isn't that plentiful.

It's kind of ironic: when Edge of the Empire came out, one of the problems (as I saw it) with Force Powers was that there was no way to defend against them, and they're essentially limitless. Then we got Force and Destiny, which included a sidebar suggesting that powers could be opposed by certain skills, which works fine for almost all of the Force Powers. Finally, we come around to spells, which have rules that necessitate rolling against a set difficulty even moreso than Force Powers ever did.

I like the way the spell system is written from a casting perspective, but feel like FFG ignored what they wrote in their own book.

I didn't mean to use Discipline and Resilience as opposed checks, just those are the abilities they suggest in the CRB to defend against spell-like effects, and in some cases where a spell is opposed. You certainly COULD make them opposed, but I think that would slow things down a lot in most cases.

Maybe spells that affect targets without being attacks (such as Curse) have their difficulty upgraded for the target's ranks in Discipline? If a player is targeting a Nemesis, it could be ranks in Discipline or Adversary, whichever is higher. Could use Willpower instead of Discipline to make it more universally defended against. Maybe use whichever is higher?

Adversary will work with either, since it upgrades a difficulty value.

Just don't necessarily want to see upgrades of Adversary + Willpower or Discipline as that would probably be excessive.

as i see it:

• attack spells use combat rules/mechanics
• there is the counterspell maneuver
• there is the adversary talent
• you may have active disbelieve against illusions (but not mentioned in the CRB)

hmm ... use the source luke ! ... how was this handled in WHFRP3 ?!?

I don't know what WHFRP3 is.

The attack spell can't set its difficulty based on range to target, and isn't specified as being either a melee or ranged attack. We can assume it count as ranged if it's against someone not in engaged range, but if you use it on someone who you're engaged with, does that count as melee then? Can you use Defensive Stance?

Only casters get to use counterspell.

Player characters don't have Adversary.

That leaves out Curse, which isn't an attack, and doesn't have a believability element to it. If we incorporate Enchantment, that also doesn't have a clear-cut way to defend against it.

36 minutes ago, yeti1069 said:

I don't know what WHFRP3 is.

The attack spell can't set its difficulty based on range to target, and isn't specified as being either a melee or ranged attack. We can assume it count as ranged if it's against someone not in engaged range, but if you use it on someone who you're engaged with, does that count as melee then? Can you use Defensive Stance?

Only casters get to use counterspell.

Player characters don't have Adversary.

That leaves out Curse, which isn't an attack, and doesn't have a believability element to it. If we incorporate Enchantment, that also doesn't have a clear-cut way to defend against it.

1 - "WarHammer Fantasy RolePlay 3rd edition" was the precurser system to EotE and Genesys.

2 - yes, you should.

3 - yes, no counterspell for non-casters

4 - yes, and they never should

i have looked up the relevant spells in WHFRP3:

Quote

Curse Rank 1, Celestial Order, Ongoing
Spellcraft (Int) vs. Target Discipline (WP)
Effect: ..., the target gains the Ill-Fortuned condition and suffers +1 damage from all sources of damage

with difficulty modification like so:

Quote

Opposed Check Difficulty

If the Opposing Characteristic is:

• Less than half the acting characteristic: add 0 challenge dice
• Less than the acting characteristic: +1 challenge die
• Equal to the acting characteristic: +2 challenge dice
• Greater than the acting characteristic: +3 challenge dice
• Twice as great as the acting characteristic: +4 challenge dice

in case of Genesys this would translate into difficulty upgrades

35 minutes ago, yeti1069 said:

I don't know what WHFRP3 is.

The attack spell can't set its difficulty based on range to target, and isn't specified as being either a melee or ranged attack. We can assume it count as ranged if it's against someone not in engaged range, but if you use it on someone who you're engaged with, does that count as melee then? Can you use Defensive Stance?

You have to choose close combat as an upgrade to make it melee. Other wise it’s the same rules as using a ranged weapons while engaged.

Only casters get to use counterspell.

Player characters don't have Adversary.

That leaves out Curse, which isn't an attack, and doesn't have a believability element to it. If we incorporate Enchantment, that also doesn't have a clear-cut way to defend against it.

I know you said you aren’t keen on talents due to xp cost but if you have talents for some and maybe magic items. Maybe that charm to ward against the evil eye you bought off that street vendor works!

I've adopted the Divination, Enchantment, and Illusion spells created by Cyvaris and posted in this thread for the game I'm running. The only use so far has been by a coven of Harpies that cast an Enchantment (Compulsion) on two of the PCs. After the first round it did start to feel unfair to the PCs, as the Harpies maintained the spell through concentration and essentially removed them from combat. I ended up allowing a Discipline check to break the Enchantment after the Harpies took damage.

12 minutes ago, O the Owl said:

I've adopted the Divination, Enchantment, and Illusion spells created by Cyvaris and posted in this thread for the game I'm running. The only use so far has been by a coven of Harpies that cast an Enchantment (Compulsion) on two of the PCs. After the first round it did start to feel unfair to the PCs, as the Harpies maintained the spell through concentration and essentially removed them from combat. I ended up allowing a Discipline check to break the Enchantment after the Harpies took damage.

That's what I would like to avoid: the feeling that there was nothing that could be done to resist such a debilitating effect.

Having a separate opposed roll when the spell is cast is just going to result in too much dice rolling, I think, and feels like it would make spells too cumbersome.

For ongoing effects, I'm thinking the affected character could use a Maneuver on their turn to make that opposed roll, perhaps requiring a Story Point... I don't want to make it an action, necessarily, because that then would turn every negative ongoing effect spell into: Stagger 1+, where the caster trades their action to remove someone else's. Again, though, I don't necessarily want to turn these spells into "trade your action to remove someone's maneuver" as that is too expensive.

I'm leaning heavily toward having spells upgrade their difficulty based on the higher of the target's Willpower or Discipline for mind-affecting spells, Brawn or Resilience for physically affecting spells (the Poisonous effect from Attack, for example), and Agility or Coordination for most forms of the Attack spell.

Does that seem reasonable?

1 minute ago, yeti1069 said:

I'm leaning heavily toward having spells upgrade their difficulty based on the higher of the target's Willpower or Discipline for mind-affecting spells, Brawn or Resilience for physically affecting spells (the Poisonous effect from Attack, for example), and Agility or Coordination for most forms of the Attack spell.

I like and agree with the motivation, but upgrading the difficulty is a hefty penalty. Rolling a Despair on a magic skill check can have pretty dire consequences. And considering most characters will have at least a 2 in any characteristic, any combat spell that targets an opponent becomes a risky endeavor.

Just now, O the Owl said:

I like and agree with the motivation, but upgrading the difficulty is a hefty penalty. Rolling a Despair on a magic skill check can have pretty dire consequences. And considering most characters will have at least a 2 in any characteristic, any combat spell that targets an opponent becomes a risky endeavor.

Right. So...solution?

1 hour ago, yeti1069 said:

Right. So...solution?

Activated weapon qualities (Concussive, Disorient, and Knockdown) can't be defended against, and Ensnare allows an Athletics check as an action to counter the effects. Also, many talents that have a lingering effect on opponents, like Scathing Tirade, are not opposed checks.

As in my example above, when the spell caster is attacked - or when a PC (including those not affected by the spell) roll 3 Advantage/a Triumph - might be a good time to allow a roll to escape the effects. This is how I'm going to run it for my group through the end of our playtest adventure.

I like the idea of a talent that adds magic defense, though already there are so many talents to choose from (we've added in many of the talents from SW to our game). I also like @ESP77 's idea of items that can provide defence against spells.

Those qualities are being defended against, to a degree. The inherent attack is being rolled against a difficulty, sure, but then most characters have some abilities for increasing the difficulty to hit them in melee or at range. We can add that to the system for magic, but that just looks like it's taxing resources too much. And for those qualities, you need to generate 2 advantage on a successful attack. For a lot of spells, you just need success in order to do the most harm. Scathing Tirade is a small effect, on the whole.

My concern is with spells like Enchantment, or Curse, where you may be locking someone out of an encounter entirely.

I do like the idea of allowing other characters' generated advantage or triumph being used to offer a lifeline to someone locked down under some form of crowd control.

I think I'll try it without making changes at the moment, and see if tweaks need to happen, but my first session probably isn't happening for a month or two, as I want to do one or two sessions wrapping up my Star Wars game first.

If I was to allow a pc to oppose a spell being cast I would Use their dice pool as the base of the Spell. Upgrades would apply on top of the opposed difficulty.

Base Spell is an Easy (D) check.

Opposing pc has Willpower 3, Discipline 2.

Spell Difficulty is now Hard (DCC) with 2 upgrades.

The caster chooses to add 2 effects, but one is free from a Talent, the Difficulty is now Daunting with 2 upgrades (DDCC)

If the caster has something like Signature Spell and didn’t apply additional effects then they may even be able to reduce the difficulty.

Vigilance can be a good skill to oppose mind trick and illusion spells too.

Now for a completely different idea: make it a competitive check. The Spell caster determines the difficulty based on what they want to do, in the normal way. That difficulty is now the difficulty the target also needs to roll against. Both characters roll at the same time, the character with the most success wins. If it’s the caster that wins and they Succeeded then they cast the spell as normal. If the target has more success, or the spellcaster fails the check, then the spell has no effect on that target.

Another take on the whole 'resist that spell's ongoing effect' situation coudl be something just like a 'saving throw' Caster succeeds on their spell. Too bad you're affected for a round, but at the end of that roud you roll an appropriate skill to end the connection on a success... ie they'd have to cast that spell Again and could not simple continue it via concentration. Base the difficult of the resist check on the casters casting skill.

The answer is: all combat defenses apply for the attack spell.

There are not any defenses against any other type of spell (like Cursing)

Kill the magic user is a pretty good strategy.