|
I have a rule interpretation question regarding this item. In an adventure that will remain unmentioned (no spoilers here), my group found this item with a Dispel Magic cast into it. The way I read the description of the item, it would seem that this protects the wearer from an opponent casting Dispel Magic on her. That seemed very straightforward, until an enemy cast Greater Dispel Magic on her.
The PC initially took the position that because they were both Dispel, the enemy's Greater Dispel was countered. I pondered this for a while, then went off on another tangent. When you cast Dispel Magic into this item, does it effectively act as if you were attempting to counterspell with Dispel Magic, thereby granting a chance of countering against any spell?
This conclusion seemed to head off the brewing controversy, so I allowed the ring to work this way. She failed her Dispel Check anyway, the Greater Dispel Magic took affect, and her Stoneskin was stripped. What is the correct interpretation?
It states on the item that 'the spell cannot be cast out of the ring'
Therefore I would rule that the Ring uses a Readied Action against someone attempting to cast the exact same spell that it contains on the user. So, Dispel Magic would counter a Dispel Magic. Greater Dispel Magic would counter a Greater Dispel Magic, but not a normal Dispel Magic.
This is not the caster deciding whether or not he wants to use the spell in the ring, this is the ring respondig to the only thing it knows; counter spell x by using the exact same spell stored inside it.
Well, first off, the correct interpretation is whichever one works best for you and your group. However, consider a strict reading of this section of the item's description:
"... should that spell ever be cast upon the wearer, the spell is immediately countered, as a counterspell action, requiring no action (or even knowledge) on the wearer’s part."
As I see it, the ring works as the standard counterspell action, which is to immediately counter the specific spell stored in the ring. Based on a strict reading of the item description, a ring of counterspells storing a Dispel Magic spell would immediately counter a Dispel Magic spell targeted on the wearer, but not a Greater Dispel Magic. The two spells are not the same, any more than Inflict Light Wounds is the same spell as Inflict Critical Wounds. The strongest argument I can make against using the Dispel check normally involved with casting Dispel Magic as a counterspell is that the ring does not cast the spell stored within it - it simply says that if the wearer is subject to that exact spell, then the spell becomes automatically countered.
Uhm, isn't there a phrase to the effect of "universal counterspell?" Regardless of whether those words are in a book or not, that's what dispel magic is. It can be used in an attempt to counter ANY spell. Therefore, the ring would automatically succeed in countering another dispel magic and should allow a normal dispel check against any other spell that is cast at it.
Before I get a comment that such a reading is too powerful, as everyone would put dispel magic into the ring, also note that there is a chance of failure using this tactic, whereas attempting to protect oneself from a fireball by placing such a spell in the ring bears no chance of failure. Therefore, I don't consider it an illegal tactic.
I'll throw my hat into the mix...
I have a heavily buffed cleric with (last count) about 18+ spells cast upon him in any given fight. Some of them are permanent, some are persistent, others simply have long durations, while others are just plain weird (like pact spells). He has a lot of XP wrapped up in it - his AC is ridiculous, his saves impossibly high, and other effects that cause the enemy to kill his friends ignoring him completely. But I digress....
He knows he is vulnerable to GDM. He wears to rings to protect himself; one is greater counterspell with GDM in it, and the other is spell turning. If he an enemy ever pops his greater counterspell ring, he casts GDM into it in his next action - no matter what is happening on the battlefield. He makes sure that every spell at the GDM spell level (LVL 6 I think) is a GDM spell to reload the ring. He knows that he is vulnerable to MordDisJunction, and would protect himself from that as well if possible, but apparently its not (not without readying to counter it).
His GDM spell inside the greater counterspell ring would NOT work against a Dispel Magic as they are different spells. In this regard, its the same scenario as DM not working against GDM. But obviously he is not concerned with Dispel Magic as the max level applied I think is 5, so you would get a max result of 25 on the Dispel Check. An enemy would need a Dispel Check of 31 to break our clerics spell buffs (LVL 20 + 11).
Allowing DM to counter GDM (as a precedence) will negatively impact the game in the future. I would clarify this situation next game session.
Uhm, isn't there a phrase to the effect of "universal counterspell?" Regardless of whether those words are in a book or not, that's what dispel magic is. It can be used in an attempt to counter ANY spell. Therefore, the ring would automatically succeed in countering another dispel magic and should allow a normal dispel check against any other spell that is cast at it.
Before I get a comment that such a reading is too powerful, as everyone would put dispel magic into the ring, also note that there is a chance of failure using this tactic, whereas attempting to protect oneself from a fireball by placing such a spell in the ring bears no chance of failure. Therefore, I don't consider it an illegal tactic.
Dispel Magic can indeed be used as a universal Counterspell; but that is not what the Ring of Counterspells does; it counters a spell if it is the exact same as the spell inside it.
Also note that there is no mention anywhere of being able to stop the ring from countering. So by your ruling, the first time someone tries to buff him, *poof*, counterspell by Dispel Magic.
|
|
Also note that there is no mention anywhere of being able to stop the ring from countering. So by your ruling, the first time someone tries to buff him, *poof*, counterspell by Dispel Magic.
Exactly. This last point you make is the point that has decided the ruling for me. Since the wearer doesn't even need to know he's the target of a spell for the item to work, it stands to reason that the ring would 'fire' on the next spell cast with the wearer as the target, no matter what that spell was (even friendly, as you point out).
The only modification I'm considering is to allow GDM to automatically counter DM and LDM, but not vice-versa. Similarly, an Inflict Serious Wounds spell in the ring might automatically counter an Inflict Light Wounds or Inflict Moderate Wounds. I'm not decided on that score yet, but I'll definitely work it out before next session.
I suppose that could be frustrating for the wearer, and could enable an underhanded strategy on his opponent's part. Lead by casting Inflict Light Wounds and/or LDM to 'pop' the ring, then follow with the higher level version to do the damage. I will probably go with the strictest interpretation.
Uhm, isn't there a phrase to the effect of "universal counterspell?" Regardless of whether those words are in a book or not, that's what dispel magic is. It can be used in an attempt to counter ANY spell. Therefore, the ring would automatically succeed in countering another dispel magic and should allow a normal dispel check against any other spell that is cast at it.
Before I get a comment that such a reading is too powerful, as everyone would put dispel magic into the ring, also note that there is a chance of failure using this tactic, whereas attempting to protect oneself from a fireball by placing such a spell in the ring bears no chance of failure. Therefore, I don't consider it an illegal tactic.
Dispel Magic can indeed be used as a universal Counterspell; but that is not what the Ring of Counterspells does; it counters a spell if it is the exact same as the spell inside it.
Also note that there is no mention anywhere of being able to stop the ring from countering. So by your ruling, the first time someone tries to buff him, *poof*, counterspell by Dispel Magic.
I don't find the first point convincing, but that is moot considering that I do find the second persuasive. Given that fact, I now can agree that dispel magic should not counter any spell.
I would still allow dispel magic and greater dispel magic to interact and work against each other, however, because they are so similar. My judegment comes more from the player's perspective. Imagine that a player has a ring of counterspells utilizing a greater dispel magic. Then some wizard comes up and manages to banish all his buffs with a good dispel check. They player cries fowl and asks how in the world that was possible, and the only excuse the DM can give is that he only protected against greater dispel magic, but not normal dispel magic. Sounds vindictive and corny to me.
I could see more of an argument that reversing the spells stored in the ring would be fair (that a cast greater dispel magic could bypass a stored dispel magic), but it still rubs me wrong, and the other way around just sounds like bad DMing to me.
I don't usually disagree with Saern, but this time I do.
The rule is clear to me; dispel magic is not greater dispel magic, and the ring does not make "judgment calls." There is nothing vindictive or corny about it at all, IMO.
We'll just have to differ in opinion on this one, then.
For the record, I agree with the statements regarding inflict spells, that they should not interrelate to one another for the effects of a ring of counterspells, but my logic on that is that these spells do have mechanical differences in the amount of base dice damage they do, rather than being identical to one another in all but the maximum level-based modifier that can be applied, as is the case with the two dispel magics.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
I think I would take the 'greater than' approach to spells. A regular dispel magic would defend against other dispel magic spells but not greater dispel magic. A greater dispel magic put into the ring, however, would protect against both (meaning that a savvy caster could use a regular dispel magic to force the ring to 'fire' and then follow-up with his greater dispel magic to drive it home).