Requiring you to have the matching spell or even a spell of the matching school in your cast-able arsenal favors spontaneous casters over prepared casters. Does anyone see that as a problem? If I understand, counterspell favors sorcerers over wizards in a duel.
I liked Mosaic's idea of allowing any spell of the same level or higher to counterspell. However, I don't like the idea of a wizard duel being reduced to which wizard depletes his arsenal before either can actually cast a spell.
While, intuitively, I like caster level being a part of these calculations, that's not how it works in other situations. Caster level is not part of the calculation of the DC of a spell when resisting the effects said spell. Maybe it should be, maybe a 1st-level spell cast by a 20th-level wizard ought to more powerful (I think this is being discussed elsewhere), but right now, it's not. I think it's confusing to have DCs calculated one way for spell effects and another way for counterspelling. If at all possible, it would be a lot 'neater' just use the regular DCs each spell already has. Rather than raising the DC, may lower whatever goes into the counterspeller's side of the equation.With DC (10 + caster level + spell level + spellcasting attribute modifier)...
If you still think it's too easy, you can change it to DC (15 + caster level + spell level + spellcasting attribute modifier) or DC (10 + caster level + (2 x spell level) + spellcasting attribute modifier).
The dispel check for dispel magic, etc. uses a DC of 11 + caster level. Save DCs for spells are 10 + spell level + casting attribute modifier. Neither one scales well against a skill check.
Of the two, adding counterspell I, II, etc. and removing the counterspell function of dispel magic would require the least rule modification. It would also make abjurers really nasty against spellcasting foes.
<snip>
Having both systems would allow characters to pick and choose which one to use in various situations.
I'm worried that specialists who choose Abjuration as a prohibited school are at an unfair disadvantage in a wizard duel. Losing dispel magic (an abjuration spell) already puts them at some disadvantage; counterspell being more effective would increases the imbalance. I think counterspelling is something basic a wizard should be able to do without access to abjuration spells. Maybe counterspell could be universal?
I would like to see that arcane and divine magic are fundamentally different, and a spell slot in one should not normally be usable to counter a spell in the other.
In the case where the specialist chooses Abjuration as a prohibited school, they can still take the Counterspell feat, which increases their options, since they will be able to counterspell a spell from their prohibited schools without losing their specialist bonuses. Including both systems means making a choice between automatic success using limited resources (the counterspell I, II, etc. spells) or having to use a readied action to make a check (the feat + skill system). The limitation on the counterspell I, II, etc. spells that they only affect spells of that spell level or lower means some hard choices: does a 5th level abjurer prepare counterspell III, dispel magic, or protection from energy? Counterspell II will work against scorching ray, but not fireball. If a PC who has taken the Counterspell feat also has a counterspell I, II, etc. spell prepared, should they ready an action to counterspell a foe or hope that the prepared counterspell I, II, etc. spell will be effective? What if the party is facing multiple casters?
Your second point is part of the reason why the current counterspell system is so difficult in the first place: unless using dispel magic, the limited overlap between arcane and divine spells makes counterspelling even less likely to be used.
Okay, this is kinda' random 'cause I know this thread is about Counterspelling, but my post last night gave me an idea about Readying actions (that eventually relates back to Counterspelling).Thanks for including the idea here. How would this work with Dragonchess Player's suggestion of readying counterspell as a move action? I wasn't sure how readying a move action is better than readying a standard action, since either way, readying is a standard action.
As currently in the rules, "readying an action" means "readying a standard action." The proposed Improved Counterspell feat would allow a character to instead "ready a move action," leaving the character's swift and standard actions to be used normally (similar to the way Improved Feint allows feinting as a move action, allowing a standard action to be used in the same round). The proposed Greater Counterspell would allow a character to "ready a swift action," leaving the character's move and standard actions to be used normally. A spellcaster with Improved Counterspell and Quicken Spell could prepare to counterspell (move action), cast a Quickened spell (swift action), and cast a normal spell (standard action). A fighter 16/bard 2 (or fighter 14/bard 4) with Greater Counterspell could prepare to counterspell (swift action) and full attack (full round action).
In the case where the specialist chooses Abjuration as a prohibited school, they can still take the Counterspell feat, which increases their options, since they will be able to counterspell a spell from their prohibited schools without losing their specialist bonuses. Including both systems means making a choice between automatic success using limited resources (the counterspell I, II, etc. spells) or having to use a readied action to make a check (the feat + skill system). The limitation on the counterspell I, II, etc. spells that they only affect spells of that spell level or lower means some hard choices: does a 5th level abjurer prepare counterspell III, dispel magic, or protection from energy? Counterspell II will work against scorching ray, but not fireball. If a PC who has taken the Counterspell feat also has a counterspell I, II, etc. spell prepared, should they ready an action to counterspell a foe or hope that the prepared counterspell I, II, etc. spell will be effective? What if the party is facing multiple casters?
I like these options. So counterspell I, II, etc. is an immediate action like the feather fall spell and automatically succeeds. The feat + skill option doesn't use a spell at all, so it avoids the problem of arsenal burning.
I still see a potential imbalance favoring sorcerers over wizards in a duel, since the former can cast counterspell spontaneously. What was supposed to be "a choice between automatic success using limited resources" or "having to use a readied action" breaks down with spontaneous casting, because the better resource (the automatic one) is not really limited for sorcerers in the way it is for wizards. In fact, I don't see how a wizard has any chance. Even if the sorcerer has to burn a third of his arsenal with counterspell, in the end all that matters is that he outlasted the wizard long enough to get in a few good spells.
I wonder if adventuring groups will come to rely on sorcerers for counterspelling the same way they rely on clerics for healing, so that sorcerers don't get to do much of anything with their other spells. The hard choices you described for the abjurer might be even harder for the sorcerer, who has to live with those choices for the long term. Then again, counterspell might become just a must-have spell, a tax.
Counterspell I, II, etc. is a really interesting idea if it can be balanced so that it never turns the outcome of a spell duel into a foregone conclusion. The combination of automatic and immediate may need to be gimped somehow.
As currently in the rules, "readying an action" means "readying a standard action."
That's not what I read.
PF Beta, Ch.9 Combat, Ready, p.153: "Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."
I like how you envision this working, so I took a hint from Mosaic and started to wonder if it could work this way if the rules for readying an action were changed.
I still see a potential imbalance favoring sorcerers over wizards in a duel, since the former can cast counterspell spontaneously. What was supposed to be "a choice between automatic success using limited resources" or "having to use a readied action" breaks down with spontaneous casting, because the better resource (the automatic one) is not really limited for sorcerers in the way it is for wizards.
If a sorcerer is going to tie up their extremely limited spells known with a high enough spell level versions to make a real difference (which they are stuck with for a few levels before it can be changed), then they are limiting themselves from doing much else well. Since wizards gain access to higher level spells quicker and easier, sorcerers of equal class level will usually be unable to counterspell their highest level spells. Sure, a 6th level sorcerer with counterspell III as their only 3rd level spell known can stop any three spells a 6th level wizard can cast (four with a 16+ Cha), but that's all the sorcerer can do with those 3rd level spell slots (unless using metamagic feats or using them to cast lower level spells).
As currently in the rules, "readying an action" means "readying a standard action."That's not what I read.
PF Beta, Ch.9 Combat, Ready, p.153: "Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so).
Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, a swift action, or a free action."I like how you envision this working, so I took a hint from Mosaic and started to wonder if it could work this way if the rules for readying an action were changed.
In that case, change the wording for Improved Counterspell to "Readying a counterspell action is a move action" and Greater Counterspell to "Readying a counterspell action is a swift action." Currently, the counterspelling itself (since you have to cast a spell) is a standard action, but if we change the counterspelling rules, then that can be changed as well to standard, move, or swift action, depending on what is used to ready it (either in the base rules or in the feat descriptions).
I still see a potential imbalance favoring sorcerers over wizards in a duel, since the former can cast counterspell spontaneously. What was supposed to be "a choice between automatic success using limited resources" or "having to use a readied action" breaks down with spontaneous casting, because the better resource (the automatic one) is not really limited for sorcerers in the way it is for wizards.If a sorcerer is going to tie up their extremely limited spells known with a high enough spell level versions to make a real difference (which they are stuck with for a few levels before it can be changed), then they are limiting themselves from doing much else well.
To win a duel with a wizard, they don't need much else, just a spell or two that does damage.
Since wizards gain access to higher level spells quicker and easier, sorcerers of equal class level will usually be unable to counterspell their highest level spells. Sure, a 6th level sorcerer with counterspell III as their only 3rd level spell known can stop any three spells a 6th level wizard can cast (four with a 16+ Cha), but that's all the sorcerer can do with those 3rd level spell slots (unless using metamagic feats or using them to cast lower level spells).
A 6th level sorcerer could take counterspell I, II, and III and still have three 1st level spells and a 2nd level spell to do damage. With a high charisma, he would get 7 1st, 6 2nd, and 4 3rd level slots, which is plenty to take down the wizard under total cover of immunity to all the wizard's spells.
Sure the wizard-killing sorcerer is not good at much else, and that was kind of my point. The spell tax is steep, but the sorcerer can afford to pay it to become what the party needs. And imagine this sorcerer in the hands of a GM looking for a way to challenge players and having no reason to care what else the sorcerer can do.
In that case, change the wording for Improved Counterspell to "Readying a counterspell action is a move action" and Greater Counterspell to "Readying a counterspell action is a swift action." Currently, the counterspelling itself (since you have to cast a spell) is a standard action, but if we change the counterspelling rules, then that can be changed as well to standard, move, or swift action, depending on what is used to ready it (either in the base rules or in the feat descriptions).
I was thinking of counterspell being a move action, so that readying it would also be a move action under the revised rule. Making the feat an exception to the rule rather than changing the rule is definitely the simpler way to go, but I wonder if the need for the exception says something about the rule. For example, it might be a free action to get ready to drop the only metal item you're carrying if you see the enemy druid casting heat metal. And maybe it should be a swift action to ready a quickened spell.
Sure the wizard-killing sorcerer is not good at much else, and that was kind of my point. The spell tax is steep, but the sorcerer can afford to pay it to become what the party needs. And imagine this sorcerer in the hands of a GM looking for a way to challenge players and having no reason to care what else the sorcerer can do.
Extremely focused characters such as this are something to consider, but on an individual basis by each GM. Building core mechanics around the edge cases tends to make them unpalatable to any except the edge cases.
Making the counterspell I, II, etc. spells standard actions and eliminating the Improved and Greater Counterspell feats, so that all counterspelling must be readied as normal, may be a way to mitigate your concerns.
I have a player running a sorcerer in my Age of Worms campaign. He used Dispel Magic a few times as a counterspell until he realized that he could just hit a caster with a readied Orb of Force. The damage was typically enough to make a Concentration check hard even for an opponent with max ranks in Concentration.And that's the problem with counterspelling.
I like Dragonchess Player's idea of readying a counterspell being a move action rather than a standard action. When I imagine two wizards dueling, I don't imagine them running around a lot. I do see them five-foot stepping while locked in a contest of intense concentration.
In the situation quoted above, what if it played out like this:
1. AoW sorcerer readies Orb of Force against enemy caster as a standard action.
2. Enemy caster readies counterspell against AoW sorcerer as a move action.
3. Enemy caster casts Fireball against the AoW sorcerer and his group.
4. AoW sorcerer interrupts enemy caster's action and casts Orb of Force.
5. Enemy caster interrupts and counters AoW sorcerer's Orb of Force.
6. Uninterrupted, the enemy caster completes the casting of Fireball and toasts the AoW sorcerer and his group.
The important point is that counterspelling is not the same as casting a spell, which would require a standard action, even though it expends the spell used for countering. Since having the matching spell for countering is hit or miss anyway, I don't think this is game breaking. Using Dispel Magic to counterspell would still involve actually casting a spell, so readying it would be a standard action as usual.
In addition to the above, I propose a feat to help casters who prepare spells rather than cast spontaneously. With the feat (call it Spell Alarm, or whatever you like), the caster automatically detects if an enemy is casting one of his prepared spells and gets the option to counter it as an immediate action. This avoids the problem of slowing down the game with Spellcraft checks to identify the spell being cast. If that's too powerful, then change it so that the spell must be prepared specifically as a counterspell and is not available for casting. This allows a wizard to prepare some defenses in advance against specific spells that he has reason to expect from a familiar enemy (or an enemy he has studied).