I was just reading over the thread regarding Vancian magic, and someone mentioned that their ideal magic system would involve counterspelling without readying actions. That got me thinking about D&D's current primary mode of counterspelling: a readied dispel magic. What if dispel magic only took an immediate action to cast?
Counterspelling would become a much more common option. One could get off a spell in their normal round, plus attempt a counterspell. The question here is "would this be unbalanced?" The answer at a glance is likely "yes." But if the house rule made counterspelling attractive enough to become a common tactic, is it possible that the increased number of spell slots eaten up by dispel magic might actually maintain game balance?
Of course, dispel magic has other uses besides counterspelling. Making the spell's casting time a mere immediate action would almost certainly unbalance it. But what if the casting time had a clause? In most cases, it would take a standard action to cast, just as it does now. But when used specifically for counterspelling, the casting time could be reduced to an immediate action.
This option appeals to me, at least initially, because I realize the value of counterspelling, yet rarely (read: never) see it done. Of course, I have only my own experience to rely on, but there also seem to be many accounts on these boards of spellcasters shying away from dispel magic and, more specifically, counterspelling. It seems that a lot of people aren't so thrilled about giving up their action to stop someone else from taking his or her own. It doesn't strike a lot of players as flashy or active enough. Further, there seems to be a feeling that one is trading the certainty of "doing something" by using another spell, for the chance of "doing something" with a counterspell attempt.
So, Paizonians, what say you?
Hmm... Intersting. I've also wanted to see somewhat more frequent counterspelling. I love the idea of being able to counterspell, but the mechanic is so complicated that, like you, I've never used it or seen it used.
I like the idea of making it a swift action only for the purposes of dispelling. I wonder if that can be extended to the other way of counterspelling -- identifying the spell being cast and (if you have the option available), casting the same (or opposed) spell. If you have the spell memorized, you can cast it as a swift action, too.
That might be really unbalancing, but the counterspell mechanic as it stands is a non-functioning feature of the game anyway.
Its true, counterspelling, much like healing, is what "enables victory" but not what "secures victory".
In all of my 3rd Ed experience, Ive seen counterspelling twice. Once was a random time against an enemy mage where the PC had a dispel magic on deck and figured "What the heck, were winning anyway." Definitely doesn't give the impression of a useful and pertinent combat choice.
The other was a PC built entirely to see if Counterspelling could be a valid "thematic" choice. He had every counterspell augmenting feat and ability he could, as well as some of the nicer spell compendium spells for it as well. The result? He made an impact in any fight against another caster, but until he was able to take quicken spell and the (forget the name) immediate counterspell spell from the Spell Compendium, he had very little other impact in combat.
Counterspelling DOES need to be made more attractive. I realize this analogy might ruffle feathers, but its a good one: Look at World of Warcraft. Not at counterspelling, but at "I use all of my actions to take you out of the fight" abilities. Mind Control from Priests comes to mind. The PC is out of the fight because he's busy dominating the enemy, but the payoff is one enemy out of the fight, and now fighting for you. So you -1, them -1, you +1, Final Score 0/-1 your favor. The warlock succubus seduce ability is another good example. But notice that both of these STILL allow the PC to do something: The preist has control over the enemy, and the warlock can still use all of his non-minion abilities.
The D&D counterspeller needs that, the ability to counterspell, with an appropriate cost, but to still be able to participate meaningfully in the fight, even if not at his full "phenomenal cosmic power".
One thing I have considered is breaking down the Ready action. First there was full round, standard, move, and free, then we got swift and immediate. Actions are very broken down. But Ready is limited to Standard, Move, and Free (and theoretically swift, and immediate is double jepoardy). I'm going to crunch some numbers on whether making Ready equivalent to the action your readying is too game breaking for any particular mainstream classes/class combos. Of course there will be corner cases where its rotten (see hulking hurler that hit your with your own planet), but I think its up to the DM and Players to agree to not go to those corners.
If this works, we could consider making dispelling, for the purpose of counterspelling only, or even just counterspelling in general, a Move action. This would make the mage more likely to consider it, as he can still fire away on his standard, and it might bring mages back to the "man who stands in the open and rains destruction upon his foes" rather than "man who lobs a fireball then runs for cover", by spending the move action. But thats a personal preference for me. This would also allow enemy casters to do the exact same thing, so you could have fights where the two casters are counterspelling at each other while trying to bomb the PCs/Minions with AOEs and such. I like that visual!
I'm not at all sure making counter spelling more common is actually good for the game. flashy effects that don't actually take place is kind of neat once in awhile - especially if its part of some plan to nerf a major ability, but having it come up all the time - I think that would get annoying in a friggen hurry.
I can see that argument, but I just find it kind of irksome that a portion of my PHB is devoted to something that is, at least within my own experience, NEVER used at all. Heck, its rare that its even considered. Most of the players I have had don't even know its an option, or they knew, decided it wasn't worth the cost, and then went so long not thinking about it they forgot. I actually had a fairly experienced player give me the "Thats not in the rules!" look when I counterspelled him once.
I'd just like to either see counterspelling A: Removed entirely or B: Considered as a valid tactic. Not the limbo it seems to sit in as of right now.
I'm also not opposed to the idea of bringing casters back to non-casters in overall power level rather than the reverse of bringing non-casters up to casters. I love the Book of Nine Swords, but its definitely a good barometer of how power creep can be exploited. Not that thats anything new.
Side note: I've toyed with the idea of more "free range" counterspelling too, something along the lines of the Dispel Magic level check, only with "related" spells. Similar to how heat metal counters chill metal. If you can counter a fireball with a fireball (granted, the thematic description of counterspelling doesn't support that line of logic, but lets put that aside for this more flashy idea, since flashy attracts player attention) couldn't you counter a fireball with a scorching ray?
This is definitely a more high fantasy, even anime-ish perspective of counterspelling, but that does make for a visual treat. Throwing up a wall of ice to block a fireball makes perfect sense, and the mechanics are moderately in place (readied action).
Consider if your counterspell roll only used your true caster level when casting Dispel Magic, but you could counterspell with other spells. Granted, making a finalized list of counterspell possibilities is a frightening endeavor and collosal time investment, but the alternative is placing it in the DMs hands with a set of general guidelines, which works for me. Say a spell can be countered with any spell who's descriptor matches or directly opposes it. Opposing descriptors give a +2 bonus on the check. You use the minimum caster level for the spell for the opposed check.
This is just a food for thought exercise, although I think theres a little potential here. But my brain is out of caffiene, so I'm done for the moment.
I think I was the poster you are referring to.
The problem with counterspelling is this:
Make it to weak (as it is now) and nobody uses it. The system now requires way too much time and other resources for minimal payoff. It could be strengthened by some little things (i.e. making it possible to successfully counter touch spells without Dispel Magic), but nothing can overcome the real problem: possibly giving up your turn for no payoff.
On the other hand, if strengthed too much, say by giving all casters a free counterspell attempt every turn, risks turning every fight against an evil mage into this. If the mage can completely tie up the BBEG, even if it does take all of her actions, then the BBEG is at the mercy of the other members of the party. It might be realistic, but it's hardly dramatic. It doesn't feel like an epic mage's duel: It feels like you're just standing there while your buddies beat up an old man.
I'm still working on my ideal magic system. The basic idea behind counterspelling is that you can do it the current way, or any time you see a spell being cast. The catch is that the immediate way requires a much steeper cost.
The other things I'm trying to work out is keeping Wizards and Sorcerors feeling distinct under a Spell Points system.
I finished my new spellcasting system. It is here.
I didn't end up replacing the current system. Instead, I added abilities that let acane casters protect themselves from arcane spells and divine casters defend themselves from divine spells by givin up spell energy. The classical dueling energy beams image.
|
Nothing like rekindling an old, dead post, eh?
Well I was thinking about dispelling/counterspelling today, as it plays an important part between two NPCs in an adventure I am writing. However, the current mechanics for dispelling just do not work in any meaningful way.
The idea I had was a simple one, in my opinion, and I wanted your input.
A caster can use Spellcraft as an immediate action to identify a spell for counterspelling. The DC would be 15 + Spell Level. This is the same as regular rules except for the immediate action part. To prevent this from being too powerful, if the counterspeller has already acted he cannot use his immediate action for counterspelling.
Once the spell is identified, and its level known, a caster can expend any spell of equal or higher level as the identified spell. The two casters then make opposed Spellcraft rolls. If the one counterspelling uses a spell of higher level, he gets a +2 per higher spell level.
If the counterspeller wins the opposed Spellcraft check he successfully dispells the spell that was being cast. If he loses the opposed roll, he uses his spell, but fails to affect the opponent's spell.
To prevent this from being too powerful, if the counterspeller has already acted he cannot use his immediate action for counterspelling.
Punishing spellcasters for rolling well on initative is a bad idea.
I played a druid that used the Improved Counterspell feat quite a lot. I remember using my Flame Strikes to take out some Rakshasa fireballs; it was equivalent to instantly casting a Mass Cure Critical Wounds spell, at least. I even took 5 cross class skill points in Knoweldge arcana to boost my Spellcraft....though that was originally so I could take an Energy Subsitution feat I never did get around to taking.
I think the Instant Counterspell feat or whatever is a pretty good balance.