Negate Magic?

[Gryphon Chick]

I don't think so, though I have heard it argued that way many times. The casting of the spell creates the magic, so if it is never cast, then there is no magic to negate. You would have better luck punching the spellcaster and stopping the casting that way.

[drewkitty ~..~]

No, it doesn't.

[Stone Gargoyle]

No, if the spell has not been cast, it has not been cast, period.

[Ice Dragon]

If the spell isn't cast, than there is nothing to negate .

[Nekira Sudacne]

If the spell isn't cast, than there is nothing to negate .

I guess I differ because I run spells a little drifferant. Spellcasters can loose some ppe if they are interrupted when casting spells that take multiple actions. In my games if a mage is casting something that takes two actions to cast, and is interrupted durring the first action he looses 20% of the ppe, it takes to cast the spell, 50% if interrupted on the second action. Where as in standard palladium rules the mage dosn't loose any ppe if interrupted casting a spell.

Well there you have your answer. If your going to houserule a situation in which spells benig cast are vunerable to being negated, then yes, they are going to be negated.

Offically, intterupted spells loose no PPE, and until the spell is cast there is nothing to negate

Besides, who'd want to waste 40 PPE intterupting a spell when you can just throw a rock at them and do the same for free?

[Stone Gargoyle]

I think of it as the spell being the process of opening a door. The magic happens when something crosses through, and it cannot do so until the door is open.